Aren’t we getting old? After recent milestone birthdays for the Goethe-Institut and the Institute for Foreign Relations (ifa), now the ITI is celebrating 70 years. The world order has reconfigured itself several times in these seven decades, the cornerstones of international collaboration have repeatedly shifted. We are therefore taking our anniversary as an opportunity to look back at our own history and that of other internationally active cultural institutions: What were the founding ideas of these institutions? What fundamental changes have taken place between the years they were founded and the today’s situation?
As the older cultural mediator among us, I’d be happy to start. The ifa was founded in 1917 in Stuttgart while the First World War was still going on and from today’s perspective it’s not unproblematic, the influence of the colonial thinking of that time is clearly evident. After the ifa opened under the name “Museum and Institute for the Study of German Culture Abroad and the Promotion of German Interests Abroad”, it was renamed the “German Foreign Institute” in its first year. Its clear aim was to help improve Germany’s international reputation. During the Nazi period, the institute fell in line with the regime. Its reestablishment in 1949 under the name Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen (Institute for Foreign Relations) and the start of its activities in 1951 took place under very different circumstances: the central focus was and is promoting peace through international work and fostering dialogue, e.g. through touring art exhibitions that create spaces for people to meet and think critically, or work with civil society organisations, for example the organisations of German minorities in Eastern Europe.
The Goethe-Institut was founded the same year – 1951. However, its predecessor institution, the German Academy, had already been founded in 1925. The Goethe-Institut grew out of that. 1951 was a special year: National Socialism had just been defeated in Germany, the German Federal Republic had been newly constituted, but as a country, it still had to come to terms with the war and at the same time deal with the question of how society could have become so brutal. It was therefore relevant for the newly established state how we wanted to be viewed by other countries in future. The Goethe-Institut was founded to pursue the aim, an aim we still pursue, to build up networks via culture and language, and to forge friendships worldwide. Today we have 150 institutes in 99 countries across the world. I still think this founding idea of being perceived in the world through culture and language is a viable one. But courage and stamina are part of that too, especially when you see autocratic regimes playing hardball with propaganda, fake news, and having a direct influence through massive financial investment.
It seems like our three institutes were founded based on a similar motivation: after two World Wars, they were clearly of the view that fostering transnational understanding through culture could contribute to maintaining peace. Unlike the ifa and the Goethe-Institut, however, the ITI is a global organisation with national centres that focuses on exchange and collaboration in the area of the performing arts. The founding of the ITI in 1948 originated in a UNESCO initiative; then the centre in the FRG was founded in 1955; this was followed by the centre in the GDR in 1959. The operation of the global federation is decentralised and relies on the active commitment of local artists to establish national centres in different countries, whether with the help of public or private funding. There are currently 92 centres worldwide.
Like for the Goethe-Institut and the ifa, international collaboration is central for us. Historically and in the present, again and again we see that the organisation offers us a safe space where art is our common ground. Communication can take place in this space without prejudice. People meet and come together from countries whose political representatives stopped engaging in joint talks long ago.
It’s always hard when we have to leave a country – like in Belarus, Afghanistan or Syria, where we had to close our institutes. Our institutes are still open in Russia, however, by order of the Russian government, we had to drastically reduce staff and are only allowed to employ around a dozen employees there. That shows how tough the political reality is. But there are also examples of success: during the military dictatorship, our institute in Santiago de Chile was one of the last safe spaces for free discussion – just as our libraries in Moscow today will stay open as long as it’s still somehow possible. Because of the institutes we had to close, we opened the Goethe-Institut in Exile in Berlin. We work there in cooperation with the Martin Roth-Initiative, the ifa, for example, or also in cooperative event formats with touring artists, for example, an ITI project. The crises have also shown us that we need to expand our digital foreign cultural and educational policy. We currently reach seven million followers. Especially now, our ideas don’t just spread through physical institutes, but also through digital channels. This enables us to reach very different target groups; I’d really like to use these tools more strategically. We want to represent Germany’s interests by really showing people what an open society actually is.
This is particularly relevant for example in the South Caucasus, for example in Georgia or Moldova, where society’s attitude towards Europe is still undecided. Active digital communication and cultural presence on the ground with our institutes can make a real difference there – especially in dismantling fears and strengthening confidence in European values.
Exactly, that’s what I mean: up till now we’ve informed people about our work and offered a lot of German-learning content – that’s good, but we should take the next step and see digital communication as a centrally important tool of foreign cultural and educational policy. We need shared strategies for that: How do we want the world to see us? Where can we create synergies? How do we increase our reach and reach new target groups? Our aim has to be targeting the next generation – with content that combats fake news and reaches people emotionally too.
I think that really makes sense, and you have the resources for that. For us, digital cultural foreign policy means creating spaces for exchange and dialogue on the internet that are as safe as they can be at the moment – that are transparent about the digital infrastructure, offer control over the data and are independent of commercial providers. Through formats like the Civil Society Platform, the ifa allows stakeholders that are under to threat to form networks across national borders and to work together digitally in safe spaces.
The most important condition is to work consistently, long-term and targeted to specific needs, to foster understanding and build trust. One example of this is our exhibition EVROVIZION, which was curated by a Bosnian, German and Serbian team – for regions on the periphery of Europe. It started in Sarajevo, then travelled to Serbia, Cyprus, Georgia, Bulgaria and soon Moldova. It arose out of the desire for belonging – belonging to Europe – in the societies it was aimed at, taking strong reference to local needs. The artists and curators involved form a growing community. Everywhere they go, new people join in, who develop and contribute their own work. That’s made possible by our networks in the art world and the flexibility of our formats – a particular strength of the ifa. This means we can also organise projects outside of big cities and keep working even when spaces get more restricted locally, as is happening in Georgia now. We plan to build on these approaches even more in future.
Since the 1960s, we’ve been talking about foreign cultural and educational policy as the third pillar alongside traditional diplomacy and foreign economic policy. Especially after the Second World War, it was crucial for Germany to be able to convey a new image to the rest of the world. The current tendency in the Foreign Ministry is to abolish the “pillar system” in favour of integrated and cross-departmental management. How do you think this will affect your organisation?
The positive way of reading it is: we’re gaining more significance as part of foreign policy – our mandate has become more political. When faced with the current challenges and threats, everyone is moving closer together and shaping foreign policy together. However, the challenge for us is that lots of the new politicians with specialist expertise don’t know our institutions and their founding idea. We have to help them understand that cultural and educational policy is more than diplomacy or economic policy – and make sure that there’s mutual understanding.
The impact we can have via networks and liberal cultural exchange especially is really quite unique. The principle of dialogue is crucial to us: we deal with topics that are relevant in our institutes and develop partnerships out of those. At the same time, we also convey an up-to-date and comprehensive image of Germany to the rest of the world. We never tried to lecture the world about what good democracy is. The aim today is to explore that with sensitivity together.
The studies we carry out and our experience repeatedly show us that it’s crucial how we enter into dialogue. We can therefore say with conviction that collaboration according to a needs-based and partnership-based principle is more sustainable than the older approach, which was more one-directional. In my opinion, positioning culture as an integral part of foreign policy is therefore more in keeping with the times, because ultimately we need an overall strategy for Germany’s activities abroad that is better coordinated, including our work with European initiatives. That would definitely be more effective on the ground sometimes than lots of individual initiatives focusing on development work, foreign policy or culture and education. The term ‘soft power’ is appearing in discussions more often again these days. What that means is a country’s influence and appeal based on its culture or values. Foreign cultural and educational policy is part of that. As institutions dedicated to fostering transnational understanding through art and culture, that means it’s also our job to shape that. The concept of soft power makes our work more compatible with other areas. So my initial reaction in principle is to welcome us gaining more visibility among stakeholders in other areas of politics and in society
I can definitely understand seeing something positive in the integration of culture, since this means that as an area of politics it moves closer to the centre of political power, can work directly with decision-makers rather than separating itself from them. But still, I’m a little hesitant for now, especially considering the omnipresent discussion of budget cuts. Integration always creates the potential to save money, the result of which is losing our ability to directly determine what we do.
However, I’d like to come back to the aspect of soft power and the associated assumption that when a country becomes more culturally appealing, its geopolitical influence can also grow.
I don’t know if more soft power automatically means more influence. It sounds so simple, but in the end it only works if that kind of ‘power’ is backed up by something authentic. The example of Ukraine shows how important building up strategic soft power can be: their awareness of their own language and culture was reinforced by the attack on the Crimea and later the full-scale invasion. Communication strategies alone are usually not enough, which we also learned. In the 1970s and 80s, the ifa organised lots of touring exhibitions by important artists. Nowadays we focus more on co-creation – exhibitions developed in collaboration are met with more lasting interest, connect better to the local people and invite critical reflection. In turn, that’s a condition for establishing understanding and making our relationships more stable.
The way international cooperation is structured and weighted in terms of specific objectives has changed: what seems to connect our three institutions is international networking, which requires trust and continuity. My apprehension about integrated cultural policy comes from the concern that culture is given a functional role and is no longer considered legitimate in its own right. Don’t you see any risk of that here?
Right now it’s important that we all work together. We’re an independent institution, but at the same time the Department of Foreign Affairs is our biggest source of funding. This could cause some tension, nonetheless we try to set goals together.
We’re currently going through a process of transformation as an institution. We’re coming out of a time of peace that was characterised by mutual exchange, maintaining networks and freedom. That’s still at the heart of what we do. But how do we respond when Russia starts working with fake news and propaganda? When China starts openly pushing its interests along the New Silk Road? Can we really react to that with maintaining our networks? Shouldn’t we adjust and step up our soft diplomacy approach instead? What interests are we pursuing, what tools do we have, and how do measure their impact? Our job has to get more focussed: on the one hand, it’s imperative that art and culture remain free; but at the same time our practical task is to teach the German language, prepare skilled workers to work in Germany and convey an up-to-date image of Germany to people all over the world.
I’d like to add something to that: as the ITI, we meet regularly at world congresses. After the break during Corona, the 2023 congress took place in Fujairah. As a member of the executive board, I was able to observe how Europe’s role in the world order had changed. Europe was increasingly viewed as a crisis region – no longer an undisputed symbol for freedom and democracy. In 2025, the congress took place in Antwerpen und Den Bosch. Despite a wonderful host, something was different: lots of representatives from African ITI centres couldn’t take part because they couldn’t get visas. Europe’s isolationist policy was clearly evident here and made international cooperation more difficult. For our global organisation, whose meetings are crucial, this is a drastic change with symbolic implications – one that we have to actively fight. Because events like the 7th of October and their aftermath show us just how fragile international ties have become – and how important it is to keep meeting and engaging in dialogue in person.
The 7th of October is also something we’re dealing with. In our Goethe Institutes all over the world, we hear the criticism that Germany has double standards: on the one hand we declare that Israel is a ‘reason of state’, on the other, we campaign for human rights and freedom all over the world. We clearly hear this criticism coming from civil society and have to reflect it back to Germany. As a cultural institution, we often notice sentiments like these more strongly than the diplomatic missions on the ground. The time in which a German or European presence automatically evoked a friendly response is over. That’s precisely the reason why cultural exchange on an equal level is still so important – it’s not imposing and its effects are sustainable.
Before I came back to Germany four years ago, I spent twelve years living in Asia and Africa. The issues you’re raising aren’t new – a critical view of Germany, Europe and the West has been tangible for a long time in those places. What’s new is that we now also see this international perception more realistically in Germany. Events like the Russian war of aggression, the 7th of October and the reactions to them shattered a lot of certainties. As an institute for foreign relations, we want to promote trust and understanding – through programmes like Cross Culture, which provides space for civil society stakeholders to engage in critical dialogue. The way I see it is that there’s still very big interest in working with German partners. What’s crucial is that we deal with this criticism openly, reflect on power structures and explain the German perspective in personal conversations.
We’ve already mentioned lots of places across the world, all three of our institutes work internationally. As I also already mentioned, the ITI is made up of individual national centres that are opened bottom-up by the country itself. In contrast, the Goethe-Institut and the ifa make decisions about their work in different regions centrally in Germany. How do those processes work?
We constantly further develop our networks. Priorities arise out of the current geopolitical challenges and our agreements with the Department of Foreign Affairs. One of our areas of focus is Eastern Europe, where the question of Europe’s sphere of influence in relation to Russia is of central importance. At the same time, for years the African continent has been growing in importance: neglected for decades, it now offers great potential for partnership-based cooperation on an equal footing, both now and in future. Of course, there’s also a completely new situation in the US now. Instead of only having a presence in the coastal cities, we’ve opened an office in Houston in order to reach broader target groups and connect with people who think differently. Overall, it’s a matter of constantly balancing short-term political priorities with long-term networking. That involves strategic tools that we actively design and develop.
For us it’s of central importance to use our limited resources in a targeted way – anywhere where our strengths converge with political needs. The current global shifts are showing us that we should focus more strongly on German-American cooperation again. The ifa was very active in the US between 1960 and 1990, but during the 1990s and 2000s the focus shifted to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Now the US is getting more important again. German-Chinese relations are also very important to us, as are our immediate European neighbours and Western Asia or the Arabic-speaking region. For example, we operate the Qantara portal for that region. Our mission is still to strengthen partnerships with people in countries that share our values – liberal democracy, an open society and freedom of art and expression – and to regularly review our programmes and their impact in a strategic manner.
We’ve been mainly talking about our effect in foreign countries and but it’s also interesting to ask what effect our work has in Germany itself. Political intentions play a role here in determining which departments we’re assigned to: unlike the Goethe-Institut and the ifa, the ITI is funded by the Cultural Foundation of the German States and the Commissioner for Culture and Media in the Federal Chancellery, and is therefore not part of foreign cultural policy. What kind of interaction across department boundaries do you see?
For the ITI, I would give the example of the THEATER DER WELT festival. Just like the impact outside Germany you described, the intention with this festival is have an effect from outside in, across all of society, beyond the bubbles and the culture bubbles. The festival takes place every three years in a different German city and showcases international theatre culture there. It’s accompanied by the ITI with programmes like an Academy, in which artists and theatre-makers from different parts of the world come together and work on issues like freedom in art and censorship, practices of collective care or fair collaboration. Through our residence programme, we want shift the focus onto different perspectives, aesthetics and ways of working in Germany itself too. It’s important for us that the festival doesn’t just land in a city like a satellite, but instead gives the public the opportunity to explore international perspectives. For the next edition in Chemnitz 2026, we have a special curating team for THEATER DER WELT: nine curators from nine different regions will work together for the festival in Chemnitz. This means that a new experimental arrangement for the curating team, programme and urban society is created for each edition.
Organisations that work internationally and are funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs work mainly abroad, for that reason their effects in Germany are not usually the main concern. The ifa is also funded by the State of Baden-Württemberg and the City of Stuttgart. This gives us the opportunity to also contribute with our knowledge and our networks in Germany in a targeted way. The knowledge of the world or international competence that our institutions possess is important and could be further improved in our society. In my opinion: as international networks, all three of us here carry a special responsibility.
Dr. Gesche Joost was appointed President of the Goethe-Institut in November 2024. As Professor of Design Research at the Berlin University of the Arts, she works across disciplines at the interface of the arts and sciences. In her research, she deals with the implications of digitisation and artificial intelligence for society and examines structures of digital colonialism and growing inequality. She is active in various supervisory bodies, including the Board of Trustees of the ZKM Center for Art and Media and the Supervisory Boards of ottobock and ING DiBa. From 2015 until 2018, she represented the German government in the EU Commission as Digital Champion. In Berlin, she helped to establish important institutions, including the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society and the Einstein Center Digital Future.
Gitte Zschoch is the Secretary General of ifa (Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations) in Stuttgart. Prior to this, she was the Executive Director of EUNIC (European Union National Institutes for Culture) in Brussels and established the Goethe-Institut branch in Kinshasa as its founding director. She has also worked in Munich, Johannesburg, Seoul and Tokyo. Zschoch studied General and Comparative Literature at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich and Modern Korean Literature at Seoul National University. Her work focuses on international cultural cooperation and social transformation processes.
Yvonne Büdenhölzer is a dramaturge and curator. During the 2009/10 theatre season, she curated the theatre biennale New Plays from Europe in Wiesbaden and Mainz. From 2005 to 2011, she was the artistic director of Stückemarkt (Play Market) at Theatertreffen and from 2012 to 2022 she was the director of Theatertreffen at the Berliner Festspiele. Since 2021 she has been the president of the German centre of ITI. Since 2023, she has been the director of Suhrkamp Theaterverlag.
Dr. Juliane Zellner is a theatre scholar, urbanist and business economist. Since the beginning of 2025, she has been Director of ITI Germany. After studies in Munich, Canterbury and London, she completed her PhD at Hafencity University Hamburg on theatre spaces in Buenos Aires and Istanbul. She worked as a freelance journalist (e.g. Theater der Zeit), project manager (e.g. Kein Schlussstrich!), consultant (e.g. the Munich Department of Culture) and lecturer (e.g. Bauhaus University Weimar). From 2022 to 2024, she was the managing director of Dachverband freie darstellende Künste Hamburg.