metropolis m

Cuts in culture are not only being made in the Netherlands, but also in Ireland and England. The manner in which each country’s cultural sector is protesting against this differs greatly. An analysis of the rhetorics of resistance, with a few proposals for possible improvement.In recent years, most notably in the wake of the global financial crisis of September 2008, there has been an intensification of public debate on state subsidy for the arts. This is evident in many different national contexts but it has taken on an especially antagonistic form in the Netherlands. Symptomatic of this is the exchange of insults such as ‘left-wing hobbyists’ and ‘barbarians’. It would seem useful to identify the similarities and differences across the rhetorics of debate on cuts in public funding for the arts in different national contexts in Europe. Three different situations that suggest themselves as worth considering comparatively are England, Ireland and the Netherlands. This is because of the broad rhetoric manifest in each case: a rhetoric of conciliation in Ireland; a rhetoric of pragmatism in England; and an antagonistic rhetoric of conflict in the Netherlands. In each case, there is a different history of justificatory languages used to legitimise and orient state subvention for the arts: the Netherlands manifesting a rhetoric of liberalism and broadly endorsing principles of art’s autonomy; England having manifested (at a rhetorical level at least) a greater degree of instrumentalism and having led the way in the engagement with the terminologies of ‘creative economy’ and ‘cultural industries’; and Ireland operating a relatively under-articulated and only partially-developed discourse on ‘artistic excellence’ and national identity. In each of these situations one finds examples of all three tropes (autonomy, instrumentalism, identity); however, there is in each national context a clear difference in terms of which rhetorical practice has been dominant in recent decades for the legitimisation of state expenditure on the arts.In the Netherlands, the ‘March for Culture’ appeared as a key mobilisation of the arts sector that reveals the tensions within the sector. Not all participants and institutions in the art field endorsed the march. This fracturing of the arts sector is itself indicative of the particular situation that holds in the Netherlands. The march also provided an important occasion for rhetorical production on all sides – including that of the most vociferous supporters of the cuts. It is also important to register the especially inflammatory rhetorics which preceded the announcement of cuts in arts funding and the aggression with which internationally recognised institutions are targeted for destruction by these cuts. There is an explicit ideological articulation of an assault on what is presented as an elite formation of privileged beneficiaries of state funding (often contrasted with the populist caricature of the fictional everyman ‘Henk and Ingrid’). This is consistent with a pattern of kulturkampf initiatives coming from ethno-nationalist and right-wing racist groupings gaining prominence across Europe – often by entering into minority alliance with mainstream neoliberal conservative parties. The minor partner in these coalitions typically seeks a speaking platform in the arena of culture rather than the economy, precisely as a way of appealing to sections of the electorate who experience a deficit of meaning in the technocratic discourses of economic management that constitutes contemporary politics. The would-be defenders of the arts against the proposed cuts have most often drawn upon a composite rhetoric that integrates the language of ideological contest (the right versus the left; ‘them’ and ‘us’) and the language of philistinism versus aestheticism. Essentially, the rhetorical bases of the debate appear to be established by the minority party in the current government. The attempt to defend the arts against cuts becomes a rehearsal of the same rhetorical devices: they appear simply inverted. Arguably, this has the consequence of consolidating the position of those who advocate for cuts in funding. The rhetoric of opposition appears to be having the effect of making more compelling the terms of the initial assault on public funding for the arts – more compelling that is, for that larger constituency that is being lobbied by the minority party in government.The situation in Ireland has been one where ideological conflict has been disavowed on both sides – by those who advocate for the cuts and by those who oppose the cuts. The contest over arts funding cuts is presented instead as a matter of different sectors seeking to make common cause in addressing the failure of state, economy and society. The exceptional condition and the many failures of the Irish state and Irish society have become internationally manifest in the seemingly endless parade of public administration and societal failures: the banking collapse; state complicity in sexual violence perpetuated against the young/poor by the Catholic church; the immaturity of an electorate re-electing unambiguously compromised politicians; and the absurdly corrupt expropriation of national assets. Against this backdrop, the formation of a ‘National Campaign for the Arts’ (NCFA) in response to proposed state funding cuts has been an important engine of rhetorical production. In this scenario there is both the intention and the effect of consolidating the dominant rhetorics of state subsidy. The core strategy is to accept that public funding must be reviewed but to underscore the value of the arts in instrumental terms: ‘We provide jobs.’ ‘We drive tourism.’ ‘We enhance Ireland’s reputation.’ The opposition to the cuts has mobilised itself as a political lobby using the acceptable languages of state subsidy and presenting itself not as a vector of dissent, but as a partner in economic reconstruction. Attempting to avoid a confrontational engagement, the debate on the cuts has only modest public visibility. There is no substantial critical debate on the function of state subsidy. The situations in the Netherlands and Ireland may be contrasted in turn with that of England. While recession, education cuts and restructuring of higher education cause violent civil unrest, there has been a much more modest showing of opposition to the cuts in the arts. The arts sector in England appears to be responding in a Balkanised way, with different institutions and different disciplines fighting their own battles within the bureaucratic systems and locally. While this individualised lobbying approach by institutions fighting for their own survival is present elsewhere, in the UK this has been absenting a collective national mobilisation to protest the cuts. The consequence here again is that the rhetoric of opposition to the cuts has tended to consolidate the established terms of state subsidy. Resistance to the cuts, where it is articulated, uses the dominant instrumental arguments about creative economy, access and social inclusion. Earlier this year the visual arts magazine Art Monthly carried an editorial outlining this: ‘For nearly two decades arts organisations have done little else but try to persuade … government funding bodies of the economic and social value of the arts … in terms of employment, urban regeneration and development, civic life and education, tourism and so on. Indeed, it could be said that … organisations lost sight of the need to make the case for the intrinsic value of the arts to society.’ The Netherlands, Ireland and the UK show a convergence between the dominant rhetorics of the state and the discourses of opposition. An important opportunity is being lost: critical debate on the proper role of state subsidy is cut short. In the Netherlands, the intensity of the confrontation indicates that a debate on the fundamental nature of state subsidy could take place. However, what is happening instead is a short-circuiting of argument to an ‘us’ and ‘them’ rhetoric, consistent with the aims of right-wing populism. The urgent need is for local mobilisation to also generate an international public-sphere debate about the role of the state in culture. This internationalisation of debate would undermine the current power of ethno-nationalist ideologues to narrowly limit the terms of debate. A possible transnational space is that of Europe, and this recommends itself for a number of strategic reasons. However, the developments in North Africa and in the Arab world would also suggest that it may be time to frame the debate within a larger sense of the international public sphere. Inevitably, those arts-workers and activists already caught up in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of specific cultural institutions will question the value of any ‘debate’ on the first principles. But, we must remember that sensationalist campaigning by the right seeks to establish a politics of the provocative gesture, to collapse reasoned debate and to evacuate the public sphere of critical reflection. Mick Wilson is dean of GradCAM, Dublin