Neo-­liberalism  and  Cultural  Policy

Neo-liberalism is a theory of political economy, which connects the freedom of markets and of trade as a guarantee of individual freedom (Harvey 2005: 7). The neo-liberal doctrine opposed state interventionist theories, which were represented by Keynesian economics. Moreover, the role of the state in the neo-liberal idea was to keep it intervention with the markets as minor as possible (Ibid., 20). In the past thirty years neo-liberalism has become one of the most influential forms of political economy and political ideology (Gamble 2001: 127).

Both Gamble (Ibid., 133) and McGuigan (2005: 229) refer to neo-liberalism as a hegemonic condition. The years of 1978–1980 constitute the turning point of the social and economic development worldwide (Harvey 2005: 1). The central ideas of neo-liberal thought, deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision, undermine the welfare state, making the markets the principal domain for all human action (Harvey 2004: 2–3).

22

As a result of the global liberation of the financial markets in the 1980s, also Finland entered the era of neo-liberalism. In the recession of the 1990s, neo-liberalism had already managed to reach a leading position in the Finnish political ideology. A politics of competitiveness started to prevail as a primary principle in society. (Patomäki 2007: 55.)

The idea of prevailing market mechanisms in all domains brings forth commodification as a salient feature connected to neo-liberalism. “The commodification of everything” (Harvey 2005: 165) is the imperative, which implies that everything can be treated as a commodity meaning that anything from processes to social relations may be priced, privately owned and traded. Gray (2007: 203) argues that the political, social and economic changes that started in the early 1980s resulted in ideological conditions where exchange-value exceeds use-value. He further claims that the process of commodification has led to the instrumentalisation of arts and cultural policies (Ibid., 204). Also Adorno (1981: 99), although perhaps not with neo-liberalism in mind, argues that the cultural commodities are governed by the principle of realisation as value (exchange-value), not by their own specific content (use-value).

The shift from use-value towards exchange-value constitutes the central argument of the commodification thesis termed by Gray (2007). The thesis provides a way of understanding the advancement of instrumental policy forms. The essence of the instrumentalisation of policy is that the focus is extensively starting to shift towards considerations external to the content of the policy sector itself (Gray 2007: 201). Through the commodification thesis Gray affirms that the initial reason for the shift towards external factors is the ideological re-focusing towards exchange-value. As a result the focus moves away from the internal details of the policy itself and towards how policy contributes to commodified forms of exchange relationships (Ibid., 210). Moreover, Gray argues, this ideological change is embedded in policymaking, thus ensuring that the content external to the policy receives amplified attention (Ibid.). Examples of this are to be found e.g. in the various cultural projects that are discussed in terms of urban regeneration, tourism and social cohesion.

McGuigan (2005: 232) further proposes that the effects of neo-liberalism on cultural policy in general and culture in particular need to be considered through the ideological mediation of culture and economy:

Theoretical critique of neo-liberal thought and practice is necessary, but what catches attention most from a cultural analysis rather than a strictly political economy perspective is the command of neo-liberalism over popular consciousness and everyday life.

23

The effect of having the command of popular consciousness and everyday life, as McGuigan puts it, is the same as the effect of a discourse. According to Young (1981: 48) discourses makes “it virtually impossible to think outside of them”. The connection between discourse and neo-liberalism is relevant since neo-liberalism proliferates the use of a certain type of language.

According to McGuigan (2005: 233) neo-liberalism brings forth the language of branding, consumer sovereignty and market reasoning. Bourdieu and Wacquant (2001) term the new language as ‘NewLiberalSpeak’. This new vocabulary seems to have ‘sprung out of nowhere’

and contains terms such as: globalization, flexibility, exclusion and new economy. It is noticeable that everyone including researchers, writers and artists adopts this Speak. (Ibid., 2.) This only asserts the pervasive nature of discourses.

Neo-liberalism has contributed to a shift in paradigm, bringing forth a prevailing economic reason in all practices of social life. In cultural policy this has meant an increasing emphasis on the instrumental value of art in the sense of its economic and social benefits. The social impacts of art may also be considered as economic. When policy measures seek to increase wellbeing, prevent social exclusion or decrease unemployment rates through art, the ultimate aim is often in fact to save money.

*

Adorno (1981: 99) claims that the culture industry eliminates the autonomy of art. When it comes to art and its position in society the social critics seem to agree that there are powers that threat the autonomy of art.

Art – beginning as a simple, human means of communication – has become the matter of many controversies during centuries. Not with the same altitude as religion but still constituting one of the most disputed topics of social science and philosophy. More or less influential figures throughout history have had their say on what the value of art is, what its purpose is and how it should be supported. But the time we live in now, distinguishes itself in many ways from any time before. Matters of technology, to name one, has changed the pace and forms of communication, distribution and production. Market forces dominate and with its powerful mechanisms easily invade domains that earlier where exempt from its influence. Therefore, an examination of what the value and position of art in the 21^st century is and how it has changed appears justified.

24