In defence of instrumentality

Lisanne Gibson

doi:10.1080/09548960802615380

Abstract

The discussion of the so-called “instrumentalization” of cultural institutions and programmes has been a key focus for the cultural policy, museum and heritage studies literatures over the past few years. This article will challenge the historical accuracy of claims that “instrumentality” is a recent “threat” to the management and funding of culture. Rather I will argue that historically, instrumental cultural policies have been policies of production. Further, through an analysis of the terms of the “instrumentalization debate” in relation to museums I will show that there is no consensus in the understanding of what constitutes instrumental or intrinsic functions. The “instrumental/intrinsic” dichotomy is too simplistic to allow grounded critical engagement with the real complexities of cultural institutions and programmes. Finally, I argue that in order to work critically with institutions, policies and programmes it is necessary to engage with the practicalities of their arrangements. To do so is to recognize the complexity of institutions which are often internally divided. While commentators simply continue to de-construct the “instrumentalist” cultural policy agenda, the reality is that some cultural institutions continue to pay, at best, lip service to the political imperative to become more inclusive. In this social and political context, critical engagement, which is grounded in the practicalities of culture's administration, is crucial if we are to develop analyses that seek to understand and contribute to the development of programmes that break with the elitisms which have characterized cultural programmes in the past.

Highlights

Museum and heritage studies literatures have contained a great deal of discussion of the so called „instrumentalisation‟ of cultural institutions and programmes which is described as emerging over the last thirty or so years
To return to the question I started with, if we consider that to support one person‟s or groups‟ culture is to make a decision not to support another‟s; on what bases do we make these decisions? I have argued that far from there being a division between the critical and practical which means that it is not possible to be both critical and practical; on the contrary, valid critique is only possible through attendance to the technical contexts and conditions for cultural policy and programmes
If the findings of Pierre Bourdieu (1984) and more recently in the British context, Bennett et al (2006 & 2004) are correct, cultural programmes and their consumption have real social and political power effects. In this social and political context critical engagement which is grounded in the practicalities of culture‟s administration is crucial if we are to develop analyses which seek to understand and contribute to the development of programmes which break with the elitisms which have characterised cultural programmes in the past

Summary

Introduction

Museum and heritage studies literatures have contained a great deal of discussion of the so called „instrumentalisation‟ of cultural institutions and programmes which is described as emerging over the last thirty or so years. Even accounts which aim to focus on the specifics of policy development and operation have posited and criticised the recent development of an „instrumentality‟ in cultural policy (Gray, 2007 and 2000) In these deconstructions, primarily aimed at the poor impact studies and overblown claims made for the arts and culture, there is little to guide us towards a way of thinking about cultural policy which is constructive. As Mark O‟Neill, Head of Museums and Galleries for Glasgow City Council, concludes in his critique of John Holden‟s Capturing Cultural Value

Objectives

Conclusion