Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in

    Uploaded by

    kevinrobins7_6758397
    6 views18 pages

    Original Title

    Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics In

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views18 pages

    Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in

    Uploaded by

    kevinrobins7_6758397

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook 2014-2015 ISTANBUL st. UMIVEESITY ess Cultura Policy and Management Yearbook 2013-2015 © Research Cente PY) Istanbul Bgl University Press 541 ‘Cukural Studies 13 Fst Eition anusry 2016 {SBN 978-605-399-431-2 Istanbul Big University ross ‘Address: noni Cad. No: 95 Kustepe Sl ftanbul Phone:Tel#90 ~(0) 212-311 52.62 wnwbiigiyay.com E.MAl yayinabilgiyay.com DISTRIBUTION dagitimatilgiyay.com, The Editorial Board Sethan Ada, Asu Aksoy, Christopher Gordon, Nina Obulgen Korte, Ferhat Ozgiy Kevin Robins, Deniz Onsal Burcu Yasemin Seyben, esu Var ‘Allright reerved; the opinions expressed inthis publication are the responsitility ofthe authors. ‘No part of the material protected by ths copyright may be reproduces or utized in any fram or by any means, electronic oF ‘mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owners, 0$sin eosroa Kevin Robins, Burcu Yasernin Seyben ‘eDTORAL cooRoNATOR Ahsea Erdogan COPYEOITINGKevin Robins TRANSLATORS Ay;eahl Toroser Atay, Ayge Lucie Baur, Ayga SabuncuodTu, Ozlem Karakls ‘DESIG COVER ANDLAYOUT BY Mehmet Ulusel tanbul Bigi Univesity ress) {ELECTRONIC PAGE MAKE UP BY Huss Abbas (Maraton Dizgiev- Istanbul) PRINTED ey Sena Ofset Ambala] ve Matbaacik San, Tie. id. $i Litros Yolu 2 Matbacar Sites B Blok Kat 6 No: 4 NB-7-9-11 Topkapy- Istanbul “el:4900212.613 0321 - 613 38 46 /Faks:+90-0212 613 38 46 Distribution ofthe Turkish version of his book by etanbul igi University Press, tonbul ISBN 978-605-399-430-5, {stanbul igi University Library Cataloging ia Publication Data ‘catalog record fr this book is available fom the Istanbul Bg University Library Cultural policy andi management yearbook 2014-2015 feitors Kevin Robins Sure Yasemin Seyben; wanslator Aygagil ToroserAtes, Aygo Luce Batur,Aysa Sabyneuodle 210 pages: 17 illustrations 1 charts; 19424 em, Includes bibliographical eferences and index 1s8N978.605-399-031-2 |. Europe Cultura Poy. 2 Cultural Policy ~Europe “Management 3, Cultural Polley Turkey -Management. 4. Coitural policy ~Case studies. 5, Crisis management -Poltical aspects 6, Cities ane Towns cultural Poly 7, Demonstrations “Turkey -Istanbul Taksim Meyer, 8, Demonstrations Turkey Istanbul -Gesi Pork, 9. Politics and culture “Turkey History 10. Istanbul (Turkey) Intellectual ie |: Robins Kevin I Seyben, Burcu Yasemin Il Toroser Ate AysegUL IV. Batu, Ayse Lucie V. Sabuncuoglu, Ayca. VI Karakig, Ozlem. (CB151.C85 2015, Table of Contents Foreword Focus: Cultural Interventions. 7 - Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century Kevin Robins State ‘Transforming Cultural institutions: Searching for Viable Models as a Prerequisite for Independence, Artistic Excellence and Responsible Management Nina Obuljen Korzinek, ie 7 State of Confusion: Public, Commercial or Philanthropic? UK Arts and Culture Policy in 2015 Christopher Gordon. es aa eee Negotiating the Governmentality of Film in the UK Richard Paterson, Kazakhstan's Way - 2050: Multiculturalism, State Cultural Policy, and Post-Soviet National Consolidation Teny Sandell A Centralised Decentealisation: Outsourcing in the Turkish Cultural Heritage Sector Daniel David Shoup, Sara Bonini Baraldi and Luca Zan Storm Over Culture: Transformation of Cultural Policy in Turkey? ‘Asu Aksoy andl Burcu Yasemin Seyben State Support in Cinema and Censorship Pelin Basaran Civil Society The Past of ‘Commons’ Politics and its Political Potential after the Gezi Resistance Zeyno Pekan . Resources and Shortcomings of Pluralism in Today's Turkey: Gezi Park Protests in the Light of Pluralism Cengiz Aktar. 7 . The Failure of a Project: Gezi Park, and More Vasif Kortun ‘ ‘The Gezt of the Fans: ACAB, Anti-x and Politicisation Tan Bora 23 25 33 62 79 94 101 108 110 6 118 Hoccupylove Rasim Erdem Avsar. : 122 Protesting into the Void: Bulgarian Citizens Discover Impunity Ivaylo Ditchey 130 Open Space : a 135 Crossing Borders: Cultural Policy Research and the Politics of Development Jonathan Vickery 7 oe i 137 Rules of Good Participatory Governance in the Allocation of Public Funds to Artists and Cultural Organisations: A Practical Guide Charles Vallerand and Azadeh Lessard. 7 144 Shopping Malls as Cultural Spaces Ozlem Canyurek. i 156 A Letter from Syria Liwaa Yazji 165 Obituary. 17 Ozgitr Uckan as an Intellectual Sethan Ada z ae - 173 In memory of Dr, Ozgir Uckan Erkan Saka, 7 pees Reviews = 7 ‘Strategic Analysis of the Design Field in Turkey within the Framework of the ‘Design Strategy Document and Action Plan’ Gokce Dervisoglu Okandan 7 179 To Each His Own Cinema Ares Shporta 184 Syriza’s Cultural Policy Theodora Tsitoura 187 Museum, Technology and Democracy: A Review of Democratising the Museum: Reflections on Participatory Technologies Elif Cigdem Aran 190 Methodology for the Inventory of intangible Cultural Heritage in Biosphere Reserves: the Montseny Experience Lluis Garcia Petit He a 194 ‘The 18th IFOAM World Organic Congress Bugday Association i ne 198 ‘They’ Nihan Dalbeler 201 Contributors, 203 4 Cultural Policy and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015 Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century Kevin Robins tn the (wo Sections included in this Focus zone of KPY’s 2014/2015 Yearbook publication, Cultural inter. ventions, we are concemed principally with political invasions into contemporary culture. Inthe first Section, under the heading of the State, we address the changing role of the political actor, considering the scope of measures being both developed and re-developed in the twenty-first century in order to secure the continuing management of cultural Ife. And, in the second Section, addressing the issue of Civil Society, we consider the Political challenges — we might think of them as agitations and interruptions ~ that are presently being mount, cd against the clever tactics of the state, Av the outset, we should make clear how we understand and use the term ‘culture’, Our interest goes be- yond the narrow and particular clefinition of ‘culture as arts’ In the broader sense that we mobilise the con. cept, culture incorporates far wider practices and, indeed, ways and dispositions of life. David Lloyd and Paul Thomas draw attention to a historical line of thought - their own focus is very much on a British ‘tradition’ ~ in which culture ts associated with civil and even civiising ~values: ‘Culture, accordingly, is not confined in its objects to the artistic... but aims rather at the harmonious cultivation ofall the capacities of the human sub Jeet! (1998, 2). The emphasis in this way of thinking cultute is on the ‘disposition of the subject. On the basis ofthis distinction, we makes certain differentiation between cultural policy’ and ‘cultural pol- ities’, The former we regard as the domain of public administration and policy-making that governs and regu- {ates activities specifically related to the spectrum of what are conventionally regarded as arts practices. Cultur- al polities, on the other hand, pertain to questions concerning the more fundamental social meanings and nhorms that underpin policy procedures and choices. Itis in the domain of cultural politics, then, that founda- Uional values are defined and struggled over (as we shall see in Section 2, particularly). (But. of course, we have to acknowledge the considerable overlap that may actually exist between policy and political dimensions.) Section 1: The State Cultural Intervention and Reason of State There has been much discussion in the recent period conceming the changing role of the state in the arts. and in cultural practices more generally. Recurrent economic crises, which have increasingly put financial pres sure on state resources, have certainly played a significant role in challenging the states capacity to directly i vest in arts and culture. The language of the market ~ deregulation, commercialisation, privatisation, sponsor- ship, etc. - which we frst became accustomed to from media and communications developments during the 1980s, has, since then, started to manifest itself in the wider world of arts and cultural practices. Much of the recent debate in aris and cultural policy has focused on the dynamics of neoliberalism and economic and cul- {ural globalisation, and has been drawn into its inflated rhetoric of market solutions to all problems. As we karow all 1o0 well, the prevailing cultural policy agenda has rapidly moved on to focus on what are now routine. ly referred to as the cultural economy and the creative industries. The discourse of enterprise and entrepreneur ialism has supplied an imposing new approach to matters of cultural policy. And, at the same time, of course, this has represented a significant challenge to the nation state and to the ‘traditional’ national frame of cultural policy-making. As ifthe imperatives of each were entirely opposed to each other: the expansive dynamics of cor- orate power being pitched against the grounded and bounded condition of the nation-state entity Kevin Robins Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century 9 The realty, however. is somewhat different, and more complex ~ that fs the argument being put forward in this section on State. Inthe domain of arts and culture, at least, the neoliberal turn has actually engendered hhew and proactive responses from the political realm, So, how, we ask~ and in very different contexts and mo- dalities, of course ~ are nation states responding to the overbearing drive of commercialisation and tmarketion, tion? And how are nation-state cultures being upheld and sustained in the turbulent contemporary petiod? Through the articles that follow, we alm to explore some ofthe changed dimensions ofthe state's political te- pacity and modes of intervention in cultural policy in the twenty-first century. A further objective is to con. sider = in anticipation of the issues to be addressed in the following section, titled Civil Society- what its that ss that may actually be problematical about the state's engagement in shaping and driving the cultural policy- making agenda The logic ofthe imagined community - In the modern period, and particularly through the nineteenth cen- tury~ the nation state assumed a strong role, with the clear objective of instituting, and then reproducing and Petpetuating the national culture ~ the culture of what has been termed ‘imagined community’. This entailed such practices as the establishment of a national canon in the fields of literature, fine art, theatre, music. ete: the assertion and protection of a national heritage and of national traditions (often referred to now by critical observers as ‘invented’ traditions); the provision of buildings and institutions to house cultural resources and events (archives, libraries, theatres, concert halls, museums, etc.); the promotion of the national culture in In, ternational forums, exhibitions, world falrs; and so on. Although other factors in cultural provision were pres- ent ~ notably, the beginnings of commercialisation and the flourishing of philanthropy ~ the state was the on. ‘chestrating agency, ensuring the coherence ~ the always-imagined coherence ~ of the national culture. In the twentieth century — particularly in the latter part, through the compelling logic of neoliberal and slobal economic transformations ~ there was a growing sense of new dynamics in play in the cultural sector, And these developments were associated with an awareness of increasing pressure on the role and the capaci, {ies of the nation state. With respect to the logic of economic neoliberalism, what became apparent was the mounting significance of the market and of commercial forces in cultural provision. The prevailing policy agenda turned in the ditection of cultural industries — namely cinema, media, entertainment software, etc. and their potential for mobilising the forces of corporate power, market commodification, and new teehnolog- {cal provision of cultural ‘services’, It was also recognised, and at the same time regretted and feared, that cu tural practices were becoming increasingly uansnational, and thereby threatening to exceed the capacities of nation-state agencies to regulate or manage them. ‘Transnational’ was associated, then, with the increasing po- rosity of national cultural borders, and, thereby, with the decreasing capacity of the nation state to dictate and cohere its people’ around the distinctive national cultural understandings and meanings.! The late wentieth centuty seemed, then, to be the era of the ‘decline of the nation state’ ~ che era of the re. {trenchment of the state as the overseer and regulator of the national public culture, The nature and diection of change in the cultural sector seemed both clear and inexorable: the logic of commercial andl market forces Appeared to present an iresistible challenge to the state's capacity to define anel manage its own national pub. lic eulture. Antagonistic logics at work, it was thought, seemingly irreconcilable logies; and the thinking was decidedly heediful of the ascenclant capitalistic side of what was happening, But perhaps now, into the 2010s, wwe may be able to achieve a more balanced understanding? For what is now more apparent is the tenacity of the nation state, and of its political order of business. As commercialisation and privatisation have. indeed. 1 Atthe same time as these market imerventions, moteo i was also the case chat supranational organisations ~ he European Union ‘and the Counc of Europe ~ were increasingly inlrceing in mates that ha previously been the exlusve or pity cavern of ne ional bedes. These pan-European inssulons were secking to systemaile and regulars cultural standards and prontces anrocet bender continents space» to establish common European standards in cultural poliey and governance, tht iso sy, Dua ths ie ee {anise that we can go ito in this Focus zone 10 Cuttural Policy and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015 ‘made headway in culture and the arts ~ and with even formerly sacrosanct activities (theatre, classical music, ‘museums, libraries, for example) facing the prospect of so-called ‘marketisation’, we suggest that what we are Seeing s not thatthe state is diminishing insignificance, but actually repossessing and revisioning its capact- lies and strategies for cultural intervention. The state-market relationship may well turn out to be often more accordant than discordant (even if discord may admittedly always be a present factor). New primordialism in Eurapean culture? - In a short text directed to the Council of Europe, Peter Duelund (2011) notes the way in which that the logics of globalisation, Europeanisation and migration are giving rise to new nationalist sentiments, To what extent, he asks, ‘does this new trend in cultural policies reflect an in creasingly primordial approach to national identity formation? National governunents in Europe, Duelund ob- Serves, are now ‘giving priority to revialising the national dimension of their cultural policy by, for example Puiting greater emphasis on the protection of national heritage, the export of national cultural products, cul, {ural tourism and, last but not leas, support for the creative industries asa means of promoting a nationally. centred profite for the country in European and global contexts.’ This reversion in many European countries ~ occurring in different ways on the Western and the Eastern territories of the continent (in the latter, most governments’ cultural policies emphasise the dominant national cultures in primordial and essentialist terme) ~ is clearly a very serious concern indeed. Unfortunately, the politics of collective identities are of interest to both conservative nationalists and, in a very different way, certainly, to liberal cultural thinkers also ~ the ‘de. mon of belonging’, as Paul Audi (2014) puis i What we are seeing at the present time, then. are clearly many examples of what would appear to be ‘tever- sion’ in cultural policy-making — thus, to take but one example, Duelund notes, of his own country, that Dart ish cultural policy aims to create a new nationalism and intensily a primordial sense of Danish belonging and Danishness, with ‘the aim of rooting national identity firmly among ethnic Danes and assimilating new Danes into a single national culture conceptualised in static terms.” In the case of Eastern parts of the continent, Where the formation of the nation state was relatively ‘delayed’ (Ellmeier and Rasky, 2005) we may see differ ént logics of late” national assertion ~ equally primordial, though. We should take note, moreover, not only of these long-established forms of ideological projection, but also of the ongoing and extensive mobilisation of cultural disciplinary and censorship practices. In one respect, then, it seems that many nation states may now be adopting an autocratic and absolutist stance, in order to protect what they regard as their right to cultural integrity and sovereignty. ‘State-of-the-art’ cultural policy - In fact, the contemporary reassertion of nation-state cultures is more com plex than we might gather from Peter Duelund’s properly concerned account of cultural nationalism, The state manoeuvres, as circumstances demand, and it constantly invents new justificatory rhetorics for is continuing {interventions in the cultural arena. Thus, at a time when the case for continued state support ofthe arts was no longer o be taken as self-evident, due to the budgetary effects ofthe 2008 financial crisis the argument for the cornrnitinent t0 state funding for the ats had to be reinvented . What is important to acknowledge now is how this ‘commitment’ has been changing its legitimising rationale in the recent period. No longer can it be in terms 2 Inthe context of increasing ransnational and iransultural mobilities and flows, there isa now a vital neces to invoke the cosmo Pollan herugs of Europe, ater than iurtung to the imagined purity of national patimonies and hertages (Fora fll dlscorion se: Robins, 2006 Robins and Aksoy, 2015) The efor by the supranational European insttons and by NGOs to huredser eo tural diversity agends er therfore exremelyimporanc. To oppose the notion of imagined community, ahd te pus presse lone governments acknowledge he heerogeely,complesty and value ofthe different populations ving within tet eroes Again Ahi isan sue that we will ot go into at this time 3. nEngland fr insiance. at dine of major economic strings sll 36% (The Week, 2015). ys the ets in the Arts Counei’s government grant amounted to an over- Kevin Rebins Introduction: Cuttural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century If the arts is forthe inherent value of culture: life-enhancing, entertaining, defining of our personal and national ‘entities. Bazalgeite goes to great lengths to convince his audience about the ‘ittinsie value’ of cults Phasing the significance of culture and the arts as social and educational benefits"- and. of course alee on oulcilly Beneical. By extending the purview of arts and culture tothe entre socal realm, the aim is clearly to convince the proverbial taxpayer that arti for everyone’, This is how the chairman puts tc {eok at the work of orchestras such asthe Royal Philharmonic, which runs workshops for people with dementla, or the collaboration between the Royal Lverpoo! Philharmonic and NHS Meteey Trust which puts musioansineedonce cs Parca adults witha complex range of mental health sues. There’ the Sck Festival confronting, as they put the pelea mental and socal challenges of fe and death). There’ the popularity of the Books on Prescritien scherie a ‘GPs'surgeris, or the work done by Colchester and Ipswich museums for homeless people should be, for everyone So. i is the importance of the national society —of its significance for national identity, and its service to the nation-state society ~ that fs now being marshalled to convince the public ofthe value of public investmene in culture. And the UK is but one example of this shift of emphasis, At the same time, what ate also increasingly evident are new ~ let us say, more ‘state-of-the-art’ = strategies and manoeuvres (o secure the positioning of the nation state, strategies born out of the chaniged circurnstene, 5 of twenty-fist century social dynamics and circumstances, Here we havea significant degree of neetiaton and accommodation between, on the one hand, corporate amtbitions and, on the other, the requirements ofthe ation state ~ bringing into being a kind of mixed cultural economy (and polities), as it were. The state hes rez Sources that it can use to trade: real estate development support: tax breaks and incentives; the facilitation of Permissions: the support services public sector employees, at both national and local levels; outsourcing with respect to the servicing of national endowments, such as heritage sites; the conferral of intangible bene!it of prestige; and so on. In return, the state seeks financial resources andl backing from corporate interests in the form of capital investment, sponsorship or philanthropy. This represents a solid compromise formation And, sSauch. i bringing about a significant transformation in how we think of culture in society. A recent report, Create UK, from the UK Creative Industries Council makes apparent the nature of the transformation, with the state learning to engage with the idea of culture as a business, and thereby as a motor of national economic srowth and competitiveness. We have based our strategy for the creative industries the report declares, Zong the same principles adopted by the government’ industrial suategy programme — developed for and by ine Gusta shared vision, action orlented ~ because we truly beleve that our sector as will tothe UNs economy a: tho more traditional powerhouse industries. aerate industries aso bene rom a unique and sophisticated ecology of public and private funding that gues roe ac tnicant competitive advantage. A range of public and independent institutions pronide a framework fees port for new ideas innovation, entrepreneurship andthe development of talent that together help stimulate pate rc vestment and promote commercial success (Creative industries Councll UK 2014), Governments and not just that ofthe UK — have, then, identified the cultural or creative industries as en- ines of econoinie growth, And the idea of what constitutes culture has expanded vastly, to include information and communications businesses, design, fashion, software and computer services, and s0 on, And how it hes 12 Cuttural Policy arid Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015 wen) Seriousty in cultural policy terms such issues as intellectual property rights; management and leadership Gualties; skills training: an effective legal and regulatory infrastructure; the appropriate mix of market forces and public investment: innovation, knowledge transfer and business incubation, sucess in cultural exports and weantcung investment etc. Hence, cultural policy is no longer regarded as a matter for the cultural ministry alone, but involves all levels of government, across all departments, And state intervention is as much aborg making money as making culture, which ellectively amounts to selling the nation inthe global arena The state continues to work actively to maintain its hold over the nattonal cultural space. And it does so in Narlous ways, according (0 context and circumstances, On the one hand, there {s the persistence and also the “delayed? emergence in certain regions ~ in ‘newly invented’ states, particularly —of ‘nineteenth-century mo. lattes of sustaining, or building, the culture of imagined community. Also, let us add, twenty-first ventory” re-conceptions of national culture — for example, initiatives of ‘neo-Ottomanism’ and new 'Russlanismy (both involving the assiduous manipulation of history and heritage along such re-imagineering lines). And, on the other and, there is an active re-thinking and re-orientation of modes of state intervention. notably through accommodation {0 corporate interests, ancl the consequent fostering of economically-driven creative inde, {ries strategies, In the later ease, cultural policy is newly aligned with other state initiatives and priorities (eco. nomic development, international image projection, cultural diplomacy, the promotion of toutism, urban re. akestate development, and so on). In this modality, that of the entrepreneurial state, a managerial strategy seems to prevail over nation-building or nation-sustaining ideological imperatives How to understand the coexistence of these different modalities and seeming temporalities of cultural in cerventionisin? Willa eleological account do? That isto say, are we presently in a phase of transition from one era and form of cultural intervention to another? Is it the case that one mode of operation is residual and the other emergent? Is ita matter of a progressive shift from ideology to ‘governance’? It would seem that there is some kind of basi assumption that governance or management isa ore acceptable approach to cultural pol icy, more enlightened even, than the earlier nationalistic regime of command. And maybe there is indeed acer. tain cruth to this, a truth of sors, Perhaps we may concede thatthe advent of administrative rationality inthe domain of arts and cultural policy-making does constitute an advance of some kind. But lers not concede too such... This narrative of cultural advancement fails to account for much of what is in fact taking place. For the reality i surely that both modes of intervention ~ cultural nationalism and national rationality are com. Curent and contemporaneous, Both figure — and they figure equally, it must be said —as aspects ofthe twen. ty-first century cultural order. It is actually, and simply, the case that the repertoire of state vultural incerren tan fas been considerably expanded ~ and, as consequence of this expansion, the art of the stat fs now sig. nificantly augmented and enhanced in the cultural domain, Reason of state — Most contemporary discussions of cultural directions and orientations take the formation of minetcenth-century national culeures as their key reference point. And, of course, thsi, and must bea very AUbErant context for addressing many of the issues that we have to consider ~ and it constitutes the principle focus forthe articles in Section 1. But the nature, the mode of being, of European states has a longer history, ancl deeper and, arguably, more disquieting foundations. In considering the development of the politcal di, course of she state the historian of political thought, Mauriio Viroli, goes bac to its distant origins fn early modern Europe, writing about the importance then of the emergent notion of the ‘art ofthe state’ and of the conception of ‘reason of state’: a new notion of reason: the reason of the states’ (Vitoli, 1992, 7). Reason of State was a matter of the knowledge of the means of preserving and enlarging a state’ ‘In the case of reason of State “reason” has an instrumental sense, meaning the capacity to calculate the appropriate means of presctv= ing the state’ (3,4). In Viroli’s considered view, this principle ofthe art of the state — predicated upon the idea of the state as dominion emerged asthe decisive antagonist of an earlier ~and essentially elvic—political cul ture and-philosophy, one that was predicated on principles of justice and reason Kevin Robins Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century 13 [The tapsition from a civic politcal philosophy tothe pragmatics of reason of sate represented a radical change in the manner of thinking of, and engaging with, politics, "it could be sad Vill taints ths this called a mere change of vocabulary. ! would respond that it was indeed a matter of words, bat bus eortd dd that words were used to sustain, advocate or condemn political practices, and thet the whele story is one of profound change in the common ways of assessing and interpreting politics’ (4). Politics and three cf he State might overlap in certain respects, but, Vroli argues, they were profoundly opposed, as fundamental ont Emess "here was not, and could not be, room for both: either the city ofall and forall or the state (atte) fon Someone’ {in the sense ofa person's or groups power and control of public institutions] (5, 3), Jn the domain of culture, as elsewhere, then, we must tke account ofthe reason of the states - which cone cerns the single-minded determination to pursue the interests ofthe state, under whatever lend of regime, be {despotic or democratic. What is at issue in the practice and conduct ofthis kind of reason is essentially, ower. or control (be achieved and sustained through the machinery of government (Virol, 1992, 389)” be it hard power or soft. In the contemporary context of ever more powerful and forceful sason vat, re Principle of politic as civil philosophy, no longer carries any significant weight, i would seem the aot he bart on the basis of pragmatic practices and procedures, within the frame of, and according to the ‘rules of the prevailing reason of state. Civil principles can scarcely enter into the equation What has to be recognised isthe extent to which reason of state is taken as given in context of contempo- rar eingcratc societies ~ oF what Comelius Castoriadis (2011), with considerable justification, prefers to call 'pseudo-cemocratic’regimes.§ David Lloyd and Paul Thomas express the situation well (uncritically, how- ever), How, they ask, {Goes i come about that certain forms gain passive if not active assent tothe point that they come to seam natural? terete words do tate institutions come to seem sl evident within the common sense oa population’ And wh, af ie Stain point sit sorardtoimagine alternatives to them eveninthefaceof ther repeatedinadkquooy eon ee tae or the needs ofthe population? How are subjects formed as clzens who by defintion a foal proce Pare ae gece the forms and precepts ofthe state at least tothe extent that alternatives become itera and fenea, tively the states unthinkable? (1998, 4, The hegemonic authority and power of the political regime rests om ts capacity, precisely, to make-ll and any cher principles and practices appear to be inconceivable. ts practice ae, for the most part, uncontested, bo, Cause they have been made to - and have come to be regarded as ~ operating according tothe way the world ancl 's realty naturally are ~ in the cultural domain, too (and this a matter that we shall return to in Section 2. Je hope that this KPY Focus might contribute to new thinking concerning the twenty-fst century state's ‘volvement in ars and cultural poliey, How, we are asking, has the state actually been te-visioning and re- working its strategies with respect tothe determination of the national cultural order? The articles tfet elle Dut, actually, many of the others in this volume as well ~ make apparent some of both the new and the ne newed strategies of the state in cultural matters The two contributions, by Christopher Gordon and Richard Paterson, deal with issues relating to state en- agement in cultural policy in the UK — a country that is generally regarded as being at the forefront of new thinking about cultural industries and the ereative economy, Gordon focuses on the UK Arts Cowell oftcs ‘egarded asa model forthe relationship bewween the state and the domain of ats and cultural provision this 4 Ofcourse, his not, an canna be, the case under authori regis, But we may venture to agi tha, in such contents the eit ‘el aspiration is generally for democratic as opposed to despti, sate conduct ~ thal ito sy, good vetson of save hon in bad 14 Cultural Poticy ane Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015 bs for example, been the case in the recent Turkish context—see the article on TUSAK by Aksoy and Seyben) ZDISEG on a supposed ‘arms length principle. He is highly skeptical ofthis idealised notion of how the Ar Council operates and has operated. A particular concern is with the geographical bias ofthe Counel, with ie emphasis on London and its relative disregard for the UK regions. In the contemporary context of new deve qhinenss inthe creative economy, Gordon argues that UK governments long-established policies persist but that they are now in need of an urgent and more coherent re-thinking in the light of what is happening in the FontemPorary cultural scene. Richard Paterson considers the situation of one particular institution, the British Filen instcute (BFL), one that functions between an old national pubic service principle and the dynamics of ad aunsnational audiovisual industries ~ new online platforms with global reach, as he puts it. The BF1 has fad fo constantly rethink its role and re-positon itself in recent decades, and this fs now more than ever he (uperative. Both UX contributions point to the ways in which the country’s distinctive state-related institu. ons continue to function ~ in their own discreet ways ~ in adaptation to rapidly changing cincumstances The two anticles by Nina Obuljen KorZinek and Terry Sandell take us further afield, to the Factern side of Europe, and beyond, i is imagined ~ to where very different situations prevail. Nina Obuljen Koszinek eis. cusses the scarch for viable new models for cultural governance in diverse countries in so-called transition notably Croatia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Poland. They are countries, of eewres, {which there has been a long and direct state interference in cultural matters. And in each there ave differs, {ore oF less successful ~ strategies and possibilities according to differential historical experiences (which is to say that we should not block together all the couatries conceived or imagined, as Eustem Europe). nthe imost recent context, Korginek observes, economic austerity measures and budget cuts have put enormous Pressure on decision-makers, requiring radical reforms ofthe cultural sector, and with the focus now being put cagcongmie and financial aspects. n his text, Terry Sandell looks at what is happening on the very complex cultural front in Kazakhstan, a large and rising country, about which little is known in mainstreeen European Cicles: He alerts us to the importance of the country’s 2050 strategy, ‘Kazakhstan's Way" which is intect on both decisive economic and socio-cultural transformation over the medium to longer terin. The state's amb, tous programme is concerned with national consolidation, and also ‘multiculturalism’ (in order to obviate the possible scenario ofthe country becoming.a dual Kazakh-Russian state — involving the defusing, that sto say. of inherited ethnic, cultural and historical distortions and tensions), and, atthe same time. it incorporates am- Piss economic and social development aspirations. Both Korsineleand Sandell address the polteal and pol- icy difficulties that have to be confronted by ‘post-communis’ states ~ states now declared to be in taneite ‘he three articles that follow are concerned with recent developments in Turkey. Turkey ~ in the conten: ofthe pasticulay priorites and objectives of the present AKP regime, it should be stressed ~ provides « very Bood example of the political harnessing of both old and comtemporary strategies of state cultural interveniion ihe Turkish scene involves a complex amalgam of the politcal ‘needs’ of the present AKP government, we would say. In their contribution, Daniel David Shoup, Sara Bonini Baraldi and Luca Zan draw cutention to yhee ig Rew cultural-policy developments on the contemporary Turkish scene, focusing on developments tn the heritage sector (a relatively, atleast, uncontroversial sector ~ but, actually. is it?). Their concer ts with bare the state is seeking now to engage with the private and commercial interests in this domain, What theie core suidy demonstrate is a deste for'modernsation’, which is to say, inthis context, greater ‘ficiency mainly but only at avery technical-economic-aciministrative level, The state seeks to come to terms with the need for modemisation, but without disturbing the basic features ofa highly centralised administrative way of op- crating. Shoup et al characterise this as ‘centralised decentralisation’, and that is surely the reality. tn their contribution, Asu Aksoy and Burcu Vasemin Seyben discuss the proposal by the ruling AKP govern ment {0 establish a Turkish arts council (TUSAK) ~a body that would be responsible for distributing funding to artists and artistic companies. If this might seem to be a good (because more independent) alternative to the present system of public funding mostly conducted by the Directorates within the Ministry of Culture and Tour. ‘sm the realy is quite otherwise, amounting simply toa reinvention ofthe state's role in shaping and financing Kevin Robins introduction: Cultural Poticy end Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century 15 the cultural domain, Since TUSAK’s decision-making board would be appointed by the prime ministers office, the state would be able to interfere much more effectively inthe kinds of artistic production that get support. Ak. soy and Seyben go on to argue that the government’ objective isto develop a mechanism to fund ‘conservative arts, Conservative interest have been feeling ‘powerless’ in the sphere of arts and culture, feeling overwhelmed by the prevailing secular, westernised and globalised madem art scene, Until very recently, AKP's agenda has been focused more on economic and social policy, rather than on cultural and identitarian issues. ‘Conservative art’ has been invented as part of a conscious strategy to make an entry into the country’s cultural affairs Let us end on one simple and absolutely crucial point. However inventive and masterful the new cultural revisioning may be, old practices remain indispensible in the present government's cultural arsenal. By this we refer to direct state intervention and interference in cultural initiatives, and most notably through practices of ‘censorship. Pelin Basaran makes this quite apparent, Other examples are legion. in the Turkish context, for example, we might cite the sitmply absurd example of an attempted ban on the translation of a text by Apol- Tinaire into Turkish (in 2013), or the outrageous ‘censorship row’ surrounding the sereening of the docunien- tary Bakur atthe 2015 Istanbul Film Festival. Every day the state decides to be in active combat with its think ‘ng and creative citizens (for a good account of these issues, see Siyah Bant, 2014). Section 2: Civil Society ‘The State's ‘Unthinkable’ Hence truly believe lam right, since there is nothing so contrary to generous and loving God as tyranny believe He has reserved, in a separate spot in Hell some very special punishment for tyrants and their accomplices, Etienne de La Boétie In this second section, the emphasis shifts somewhat, to consider matters of cultural politics now ~ though always with a recognition of their significance as @ context, the ground even, for issues that have to be ad. dressed in cultural policy-making, Our focus will principally (though not exclusively) be on the events that occurred in and around Istanbul's Gezi Park in 2013. The intention is not to document the happenings ~ that work has already been undertaken elsewhere (see, for example, Inceoglu, 2015) — but to draw out some of the many issues that came to light during that tense summer, The Gezi phenomenon resonated profouidly with the people of Istanbul, and of course beyond, across Turkey, and internationally — to such an extent, we would say. that the Gezi spirit lives on, in new manifestations, in diverse other situations of protest and conflict. Gezi was clearly (to make use of an unappealing metaphor) a game-changer. So, what was the difference that was made? Why has the Gezi experience been so important to all those with an involvement — but a critical and mindful involvement, let us make clear ~ in the life and the movement of culture? And what lessons and di- rections of thought might have emerged for practitioners of cultural policy-making? Voluntary servitude, tn Section 1, when considering the logic of reason of state, we wanted to make appar- ‘ent the constant and continuing involvement and intervention of the political regime in cultural life and eul- tural practices, But further - and perhaps even more importantly - we were concerned with the complexity of consequences afising out of such directive, and often dirigiste, conduct by the state, The nation state is bound to engage with cultural matters — despite the fact, we may say, that the medern foundation of state thinking hhas been based in principle on the notion of the autonomy of axt and culture. However, what the first section Sought to drawe attention to were some of the difficult issues that have to be addressed precisely because ac- commodation (6 this reality is ordinarily taken as given, without question for the most part (and the realm of cultural polcy-making exemplifies this acquiescence well), There comes to be unquestioning acceptance that state will interfere in culture, whether in the form of an ‘arms length’ relationship, as envisaged by liberal doc- 16 Cultural Potiey and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015 tring, or in the form of ditect, and therefore authoritarian, intervention. For the overriding objective of the atst s precisely to reproduce and sustain itself through its control of public institutions ana he machinery of senate inventive capacities ~ and its ‘teason’ ~ are largely committed to this continuone objective. Tre sate elect’ on culture, 2s on other social domains, is inherently conservative we hae to say ~ and, Uereby, its essentially counter-ereative— itis essentially about the maintenanee ofc eran order of things, how things are done, andl to be done, Consequctly: the state's society ie basically shaped by the rigid logic cf compliance and closure: meanings become fixed and sedimented, and the vial production of new sense in- pibited. therefore possible new and open horizons ae effectively closed down and ahve appears to no longer be any ‘ouside tothe state's locked-in and locked-up world, Mare than that even the cece, is always despotic Turkey at the present time makes this potentiality quite manifest). The Heal se egCe Seis Co have disappeared. all of which gives to our societies the appearance of being “apo- lticat”, subordinated emtirely tothe primacy ofthe econonty (neoliberal ideology)..." (Richir 2014, 55; Richir's Ginplasis). Inthe state without civilty~the dismal state ~ democratic projects com to be inoperative, every- thing seems to be a standstill, fatureless; there is inilerence, there is boredom: lack of engagement, absence of responsibilty inthe face of the eitcal sense ofa loss of agency Claude Lefort makes the very important point that, fom the outset, the formation of the idea of national identity and citizenship always referred to, and legitimated itself through, ea appeal to what were deemed to be the ‘universal precepts of Enlightenment thinking. In other words, nationalact nationalist culture and pol- jus im Europe was alvays also articulated within the terms ofa civilisational discourse, Wher the involved, inbenciple, was the affording ofan important degree of autonomy to knowledge ~ and thereby to the arts and racarrt: which constitute a vital part ofthat cognitive and imaginative realm, Lefort draws arent, the Uistoricaly significant ‘disentangling of the sphere of power, the sphere of law and che sphere of knowledge Grice power ceases to manifest the principle which generates and organizes a soviet, body, once it ceases to con- lense within i virues deriving from transcendent reason and justice, law and knowledge assert themselves as Share from and irreducible to power’ (1988, 17-18). There was intended to be a changed veition eves changed experience of, knowledge ~ involving, crucially, the dissolution ofthe markers of certainty... inaugu- yatinal « history in which people experience a fundamental indeterminacy as to the basis of power, law and knowledge, and as tothe basis of relations between self and other’ (0: Lelorys emphasis). That was the enlight- (hed Preeept: that ‘the foundations of power, the foundations of right and the foundations at knowledge (would all be] called into question’ (179), powever and there is surely always a however ~ the state's worldly business would surely and steadily work over ime to undermine such a remarkable aspiration. As Claude Lefort makes clear, historical circum. stances and realities have not at all favoured democratic ad condensation takes place between the sphere of power, thes

    You might also like