Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

In defence of instrumentality

By Lisanne Gibson

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

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2008
DOI identifier: 10.1080/09548960802615380
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/7365
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2002). Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK‟, doi
  2. (2004). Capturing Cultural Value: How culture has become a tool of government policy, doi
  3. (2004). Challenge and Change: HLF and Cultural Value, A Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund,
  4. (2005). Commentaries: John Holden‟s Capturing Cultural Value: How culture has become a tool of government policy‟, doi
  5. (2007). Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy‟, doi
  6. (2009). Cultural Landscapes and Identity‟,
  7. Cultural Trends Corresponding author:
  8. (2006). Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy,
  9. (1996). Culture and the Public Sphere, doi
  10. (1998). Culture: A Reformer’s Science, doi
  11. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste, doi
  12. (2002). Evaluating the social impact of participation in arts activities. A critical review of François Matarasso‟s “Use or Ornament?”‟,
  13. (2002). Informing Cultural Policy: The Research and Information Infrastructure, Centre for Urban Policy Research, doi
  14. (2008). Instrumental Policies: Causes, Consequences, doi
  15. (2000). Intellectuals, Culture, Policy: The Technical, the Practical and the Critical, Pavis Papers in Social and Cultural Research, The Open University,
  16. (2004). Introduction: Cultural Capital and Cultural Policy‟, doi
  17. (2007). Introduction: Liberalisms, government, culture‟, doi
  18. (2002). Measuring Culture‟, Spiked Culture, http://www.spikedonline.com/Printable/00000006DBAF.htm, accessed 01/09/2003.
  19. (2000). Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture, doi
  20. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, doi
  21. (2008). Museums Professionalism and Democracy‟,
  22. (2006). Museums: Impact and Value‟, doi
  23. (2006). Rethinking the Social Impact of the Arts: a criticalhistorical review,
  24. (2007). Rethinking the Social Impact of the Arts‟, doi
  25. (2008). Supporting Excellence in the Arts: From Measurement to Judgement, doi
  26. (2008). The cultural value of heritage: evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund‟, doi
  27. (2003). The Impact of Free Entry to Museums, doi
  28. (1989). The New Museology, doi
  29. (2000). The Politics of the Arts in Britain, doi
  30. (2004). The Torn Halves of Cultural Policy Research‟, doi
  31. (2001). Valuing Historic Environments, Ashgate, London doi
  32. (2009). Valuing Historic Environments‟, doi
  33. (2005). We are not a government poodle”: Museums and social inclusion under New Labour‟, doi
  34. (2006). Whoever speaks of culture speaks of administration as well”: Disputing pragmatism in cultural studies‟, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.