Lupte universitare la sfîrșitul pactului educațional*

de George Caffentzi

Pe măsură ce studenții din lumea întreagă încep să ia atitudine împotriva reducerilor de fonduri operate de guvernele naționale pe seama universităților, George Caffentzis vede apariția unui nou domeniu de luptă, cel îndreptat împotriva pactului necinstit al unei educații costisitoare în schimbul

unei precarități de o viață.1

„Nu trebuie să cerem distrugerea universității, dar nici păstrarea ei. Nu trebuie să cerem nimic. Trebuie să ne cerem nouă înșine și celorlalți să preluăm controlul asupra acestor universități, în mod colectiv, pentru ca educația să poată începe.“ (Text dintr-un fluturaș găsit la Academia de Arte Frumoase din Viena, scris inițial la Universitatea din California)De la masiva revoltă studențească din Franța, din 2006, împotriva așa-numitului „contract pentru

prima angajare“2, și „valul anormal“ din Italia, din 2008, protestele studențești au înregistrat

escaladări aproape peste tot în lume, sugerînd o revenire a impetuozității din 1968. În toamna și iarna lui 2009 s-a înregistrat un crescendo, cînd grevele și ocuparea campusurilor au proliferat din California pînă în Austria, Germania, Croația, Elveția și ulterior Marea Britanie. Pe site-ul Tinyurl.com/squatted-universities s-au înregistrat 168 de universități (majoritatea din Europa) unde au avut loc acțiuni între 20 octombrie și sfîrșitul lui decembrie 2009. Iar valul e departe de-a fi luat sfîrșit. Pe data de 4 martie 2010, în Statele Unite, cu ocazia unei zile naționale dedicate acțiunii (prima din mai 1970 pînă azi) organizate în sprijinul educației publice, una dintre organizațiile coordonatoare a

enumerat 64 de campusuri diferite unde au existat forme de protest.3 În aceeași zi, Congresul

Studenților Sud-Africani [South Africans Students’ Congress] (SASCO) a încercat să închidă nouă universități, chemînd la o educație universitară liberă. Protestul de la Universitatea din Johannesburg s-a dovedit cel mai problematic, forțele de poliție alungînd studenții de pe o baricadă în flăcări cu ajutorul tunurilor de apă.La originea celor mai recente mobilizări se află reducerile bugetare pe care guvernele și instituțiile academice le-au implementat ca urmare a dezastrului de pe Wall Street și creșterea taxelor rezultată de aici, de pînă la 32% la Universitatea din California și cu procente similare la unele universități britanice. În acest sens, noua mișcare studențească poate fi privită drept principalul răspuns organizat la criza financiară globală. Mai mult decît atît: „Nu vom plăti pentru criza voastră“ – sloganul studenților italieni aflați în grevă – a devenit un strigăt de luptă internațional. Criza economică nu a făcut însă decît să exacerbeze acest sentiment general de insatisfacție, avîndu-și originea în reforma neoliberală a educației și în restructurarea producției din ultimele trei decenii, și

care au afectat toate aspectele vieții de student din întreaga lume.4

Sfîrșitul pactului educaționalCele mai importante elemente ale acestei restructurări au fost corporatizarea sistemelor universitare și comercializarea educației. Universitățile create „pentru profit“ sînt încă o minoritate pe scena academică, dar „afacerea înfloritoare“ academică e foarte avansată, în special în SUA, unde datează de la votarea Legii Bayh-Dole din 1980, care le permitea universităților să obțină patente ale „descoperirilor“ făcute în propriile lor laboratoare și pentru care companiile trebuiau să plătească pentru a le putea folosi. De atunci, restructurarea mediului academic ca afacere profitabilă a continuat neabătută. Deschiderea laboratoarelor universitare spre afaceri private, vînzarea de cu-noaștere pe piața mondială (prin educație on-line și învățămînt off-shore), precarizarea muncii academice și introducerea unor taxe de școlarizare tot mai mari, care i-au silit pe studenți să se îndatoreze și mai mult, au devenit elemente standard ale vieții academice americane și, cu diferențele regionale specifice, aceleași direcții pot fi înregistrate acum în întreaga lume.În Europa, lupta care rezumă noua mișcare studențească a fost purtată împotriva „Procesului Bologna“, un proiect al Uniunii Europene care instituie o Zonă Europeană a Educației Superioare și promovează circulația forței de muncă pe teritoriul ei prin omogenizarea și standardizarea programelor și a diplomelor școlare. Procesul Bologna pune fără rușine universitatea la dispoziția mediului de afaceri. El redefinește educația ca producție de muncitori mobili și flexibili care posedă abilitățile solicitate de angajatori; centralizează crearea de standarde pedagogice, le confiscă actorilor locali controlul și devalorizează cunoașterea locală și preocupările locale. Acțiuni asemănătoare au mai avut loc și în numeroase sisteme universitare din Africa și din Asia (Taiwan,

1

Singapore, Japonia), care sînt, în același timp, „americanizate“ și standardizate (în Taiwan, de exemplu, prin impunerea Registrului de citate din științele sociale [Social Science Citation Index] pentru evaluarea profesorilor) – pentru ca, în felul acesta, corporațiile globale să poată folosi „muncitori din domeniul cunoașterii“ [knowledge workers] indieni, ruși, sud-africani sau brazilieni, și

nu americani sau europeni, avînd siguranța că sînt potriviți pentru acele slujbe.5

Există o recunoaștere generală a faptului că această comercializare a sistemului universitar a reprezentat, parțial, un răspuns la luptele studențești și la mișcările sociale din anii ’60 și ’70, care au marcat sfîrșitul politicii educaționale dominante în epoca keynesiană. Pe măsură ce campus după campus, de la Berkeley pînă la Berlin, au devenit focare de revoltă antiautoritaristă, risipind iluzia keynesiană că investiția în educația superioară se va dovedi profitabilă sub forma unei creșteri a productivității generale a muncii, ideologia educației ca pregătire pentru viața civică și pentru binele

public a trebuit abandonată.6

Dar noul regim neoliberal a reprezentat și sfîrșitul unui pact de clasă [class deal]. Odată cu eliminarea stipendiilor, a alocațiilor și a educației gratuite, costul „educației“, altfel spus costul pregătirii în vederea muncii, a fost transferat direct forței de muncă, aceasta traducîndu-se printr-o micșorare masivă a salariului, extrem de împovărătoare avînd în vedere că precaritatea a devenit principalul raport de muncă și că, la fel ca orice marfă, cunoașterea „cumpărată“ e devalorizată rapid de inovația tehnologică. Acesta e și sfîrșitul rolului statului ca mediator. În cadrul universității corporatizate, studenții se confruntă acum cu capitalul în mod direct, în săli aglomerate în care profesorii nu mai reușesc să asocieze chipuri numelor din cataloage, în expansiunea învățămîntului complementar și, mai presus de toate, în datoria studențească în creștere, care, transformîndu-i pe studenți în servitori angajați ai băncilor și/sau ai statului, acționează ca un mecanism de disciplinare a vieții de student, aruncînd o umbră întunecată asupra viitorului acestora.Cu toate acestea, în anii ’90, înregimentarea studenților a continuat să crească în toată lumea, sub presiunea unei restructurări economice care făcea din educație o condiție pentru angajare. În ultimele două decenii, de la New York pînă la Paris și Nairobi, a devenit o obișnuință să se susțină că, odată cu apariția „societății cunoașterii“ și a revoluției informației, indiferent de costuri, educația superioară e o „necesitate“ (Banca Mondială, 2002). Statisticile au părut să confirme înțelepciunea ascensiunii pe scara educației, indicînd o diferență de 83%, în Statele Unite, între salariile absolvenților de învățămînt superior și cele ale muncitorilor care au absolvit un liceu. Dar creșterea gradului de înregimentare și de îndatorare trebuie înțeleasă și ca o formă de luptă, ca respingere a restricțiilor impuse de subordonarea educației față de logica pieței, o formă ascunsă de apropriere, care se manifestă în timp sub forma creșterii numărului celor incapabili să-și achite datoriile.Nu există nicio îndoială, în acest context, că actuala criză financiară globală, declanșată în 2008, țintește spre această strategie de rezistență, îndepărtînd, prin reduceri de buget, concedieri și prin masificarea șomajului, ultimele garanții rămase. Fără îndoială că „pactul educațional“, care promitea salarii și o satisfacție a muncii mai mare în schimbul preluării de către muncitori și familiile lor a costului educației superioare, e desființat și el. În criză, capitalul denunță acest „pact“, fără doar și poate din pricina proliferării incapacității de plată și pentru că astăzi capitalismul refuză orice garanții, cum ar fi promisiunea unor salarii mari pentru viitorii lucrători din domeniul cunoașterii.Criza financiară din universitate (creșterea taxelor de școlarizare, reducerile de buget, concedierile și disponibilizările) are ca țintă directă eliminarea garanției unui salariu pe care se presupunea că o aduce educația superioară formală și îmblînzirea „cognitariatului“ [cognitariat]. La fel ca în cazul muncitorilor imigranți, atacul la adresa studenților nu semnifică faptul că nu e nevoie de lucrătorii din domeniul cunoașterii, ci că aceștia trebuie disciplinați și proletarizați printr-un atac la adresa puterii pe care au început s-o revendice parțial și din cauza poziției lor în cadrul procesului de acumulare.Rebeliunea studențească are deci rădăcini puternice, perspectiva unei sclavii a datornicilor întemeindu-se pe un viitor nesigur și pe sentimentul unei alienări față de o instituție percepută drept mercenară și birocratică și care, pe deasupra, mai produce și o marfă supusă unei devalorizări rapide.Revendicări sau ocupări de sedii?Mișcarea studențească, pe de altă parte, se confruntă cu o problemă politică, mai evidentă în Statele Unite și, într-o mai mică măsură, în Europa. Mișcarea prezintă două aspecte. Pe de o parte, ea revendică o educație universitară gratuită, reînviind visul unei „școlarizări de masă“ finanțate public, propunînd, în aparență, revenirea la modelul epocii keynesiene. Pe de altă parte, ea reprezintă o revoltă împotriva universității ca atare, chemînd la o dezertare în masă a acesteia sau

2

urmărind transformarea campusului într-o bază pentru producerea de cunoaștere alternativă,

accesibilă celor aflați în afara „zidurilor“ ei.7

Această dihotomie, caracterizată de unii drept o întoarcere la disputele trecute „reformă versus revoluție“, a devenit cea mai vizibilă în dezbaterea stîrnită în timpul grevelor de anul trecut [2009] de la Universitatea din California, cu privire la „revendicări“ versus „ocupări“, și care uneori a căpătat un ton caustic pe măsură ce acești termeni au devenit niște semnificanți complecși pentru ierarhii și identități, raporturi de putere distinctive și consecințe ale asumării unor riscuri.Distincția nu este una pur ideologică. Își are rădăcinile în contradicțiile cu care se confruntă toate mișcările antagoniste de azi. Restructurarea economică a fragmentat forța de muncă, a adîncit diviziunile și, nu în ultimul rînd, a făcut să crească efortul și timpul necesare pentru reproducerea zilnică. O populație studențească ce are două sau trei slujbe e mai puțin probabil să se organizeze decît echivalenta ei mai înstărită din anii ’60.În același timp, există la mulți sentimentul că nu mai este nimic de negociat, că revendicările au devenit inutile, din moment ce, pentru majoritatea studenților, dobîndirea unei diplome nu mai constituie o garanție pentru un viitor care promite să aducă și mai multă precaritate și o constantă autoreciclare. Numeroși studenți realizează că sistemul capitalist nu poate să ofere nimic acestei generații, că niciun „nou pact“ nu este posibil, nici măcar în regiunile metropolitane ale lumii, unde se află acumulată cea mai mare parte a bogăției. Deși există peste tot tentația de a o reînvia, poli-tica keynesiană a grupurilor de interese, de a face revendicări și „pacte“, e de mult apusă.De unde și sloganul „ocupați totul“ – ocuparea clădirilor fiind privită ca un mijloc de preluare a puterii, de creare a unor spații pe care studenții să le poată controla, o breșă în fluxul de muncă și de valoare prin care universitatea își extinde sfera, și producerea unei „contraputeri“ care să prefigureze raporturile de punere în comun [communalising] pe care studenții de azi doresc să le construiască.E greu de spus cum se va rezolva conflictul „revendicări/ocupare de sedii“ din cadrul mișcării studențești. Ce e sigur e că există o provocare majoră pe care mișcarea trebuie s-o rezolve pentru a-și spori puterea și capacitatea de a intra în legătură cu alte lupte. Acesta e un pas necesar dacă mișcarea dorește să cîștige putere pentru a recupera educația din mîinile autorităților academice și ale statului. Ca următor pas, în prezent se discută mult despre crearea de „cunoștințe comune“ [knowledge commons], în sensul creării unor forme de producere de cunoaștere autonomă, care să nu fie finalizată sau condiționată de piață și care să le fie accesibilă celor aflați în afara zidurilor universităților.Între timp, așa cum au recunoscut cei de la Edu-Notes,mișcarea studențească își creează deja un bun comun propriu chiar în toiul luptei. Cu viteza luminii, știri despre greve, manifestații și ocupări de clădiri au circulat în jurul lumii provocînd un tam-tam electronic global al schimbului de comunicate, slogane, mesaje de solidaritate și sprijin, avînd ca

rezultat un volum excepțional de imagini, documente, povești.8

Da, principalul „bun comun“ pe care mișcarea va trebui să-l construiască e extinderea mobilizării spre alți muncitori afectați de criză. Cheia acestei construcții o va constitui problema datoriei, care este opusul perfect al „bunului comun“, întrucît înseamnă transformarea surplusului colectiv, care ar putea fi folosit la eliberarea muncitorilor, într-un instrument al înrobirii lor. Desființarea datoriei studențești ar putea fi liantul dintre mișcare și cei care se împotrivesc prescrierilor în Statele Unite și mișcarea mai amplă împotriva datoriei suverane la nivel internațional. MulțumiriAș dori să le mulțumesc facultății și studenților pe care i-am intervievat recent de la Universitatea din California, de la Academia de Arte Frumoase din Viena și de la Universitatea Rhodes din Africa de Sud, pentru că mi-au împărtășit cunoștințele lor. Aș mai dori să le mulțumesc tovarășilor din grupul Edu-Notes pentru ideile și inspirația oferite.Traducere de Alex Moldovan Note:* „University Struggles at the End of the Edu-Deal“, Mute Magazine (www.metamute.org), 2010, nu-măr special: „Don’t Panic, Organise! A Mute Special on Struggle in Education Today“. Editorii țin să-i mulțumească profesorului George Caffentzis pentru amabilitatea acordării drepturilor de traducere și de publicare a versiunii în limba română a prezentului text și a celui următor. (N. ed.)1. Nota editorului britanic. (N. ed.)2. Așa-numitul Contrat Première Embauche (CPE), „contract pentru prima angajare“, fusese o încercare de șiretlic legislativ al dreptei franceze prin care, sub pretextul „egalității de șanse“, un

3

salariat al unei companii private s-ar fi putut afla sub regimul unui astfel de contract chiar dacă nu se afla la prima sa angajare. Destinat tinerilor pînă în 26 de ani aflați în șomaj de peste șase luni, CPE prevedea o „perioadă de consolidare“ de doi ani în care angajatorul, spre deosebire de preve-derile „perioadei de încercare“, putea să rupă unilateral contractul fără a fi obligat să ofere un motiv, angajatul concediat fiind considerat demisionar și neavînd deci drept la șomaj. Deși adoptat de parlamentul francez la 31 martie 2006, în urma unor puternice mobilizări populare, la 10 aprilie 2006, proiectul CPE a fost retras de prim-ministrul francez din acel moment, Dominique de Villepin. (N. ed.)3. Vezi http://defendeducation.org.4. Edu-Factory Collective, Towards a Global Autonomous University, Brooklyn, NY, Autonomedia, 2009.5. A se vedea Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis și Alidou Ousseina, A Thousand Flowers: Social Struggles Against Structural Adjustment in African Universities, Trenton, Africa World Press, 2000; Richard Pithouse, Asinamali: University Struggles in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Trenton, Africa World Press, 2006; și Arthur Hou-ming Huang, „Science as Ideology: SSCI, TSSCI and the Evaluation System of Social Sciences in Taiwan“, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, vol. 10, 2009, nr. 2, pp. 282–291.6. George Caffentzis, „Throwing Away the Ladder: The Universities in the Crisis“, Zerowork, I, 1975, pp. 128–142 [„Renunțarea la scară: universitățile în criză”, infra, pp. 130–136].7. After the Fall: Communiqués from Occupied California, 2010, accesat la adresa www.afterthefallcommuniques.info.8. Edu-Notes, „Introduction to Edu-Notes“, manuscris inedit.

GEORGE CAFFENTZIS este filosof politic, profesor de filosofie la University of Southern Maine, SUA, membru fondator şi coordonator al grupurilor Midnight Notes Collective şi Committee for Academic Freedom în Africa, autor a numeroase articole şi al cărţilor: Parole abusate, monete tosate e governocivile. La filosofia del denaro di John Locke, Roma, Istituto dell’ Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni, 1988; trad. engleza: Clipped Coins, Abused Words and Civil Government: John Locke’s Philosophy of Money, New York, Autonomedia/Semiotext(e) Press, 1989; Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973–1992, New York, Autonomedia, 1992 (coeditare Midnight Notes Collective); A Thousand Flowers: Social Struggles Against Structural Adjustment in African Universities,Trenton, Africa World Press, 2000 (coeditare); Exciting the Industry of Mankind: George Berkeley’s Philosophy of Money, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000; Auroras of the Zapatistas: Local and Global Struggles in the Fourth World War, New York, Autonomedia, 2001 (coeditare Midnight Notes Collective). (N. ed.)Tema “Campus de luptă. Împotriva neoliberalizării universității” este concepută de redacţia revistei IDEA artă+societate şi a apărut în numărul curent # 35, 2010.

Educația și îngrădirea cunoașterii în universitatea globală*

de Silvia Federici

RezumatArticolul care urmează se bazează pe o prelegere ținută de Silvia Federici la Universitatea din Leedsin în noiembrie 2007. Autoarea abordează problema crucială a modului în care cunoașterea e îngrădită în universitatea globală. Federici are decenii de experiență în sistemele universitare din Africa, Europa și SUA, iar experiența sa din cadrul universităților africane ne-a arătat felul în care politicile de ajustare structurală au redus finanțarea universităților africane, introducînd o nouă disciplină bazată pe valorile afacerilor globale. Federici arată existența a două direcții: prima este tot mai accentuata comercializare și corporatizare a vieții academice și, în special, pătrunderea intereselor de afaceri în universitate, iar cea de-a doua este dezvoltarea instituțiilor educaționale care restructurează programele educaționale, în particular prin înmulțirea cursurilor on-line standardizate, predate în ceea ce ea numește „fabricile de diplome digitale“. Federici încheie cu o privire asupra rezistenței din campusuri, apelînd la exemplul Rețelei Educaționale pentru

Democratizare.1

4

Introducere. Ce înțelegem prin „universitate globală“În această seară vă voi împărtăși cîteva dintre experiențele și ideile mele cu privire la „Educația și îngrădirea cunoașterii în universitatea globală“. Prin „universitate globală“ înțeleg două evoluții corelate. În primul rînd, mă refer la un set de direcții care au caracterizat restructurarea la nivel internațional în anii ’80 și ’90, cum ar fi sfîrșitul educației cu finanțare publică și comercializarea și corporatizarea vieții academice. Mă refer, în același timp, la evoluția instituțiilor educaționale care nu caută doar să recruteze un corpus internațional de studenți, și deci să instruiască o elită globală, ci restructurează programele educaționale din întreaga lume, fixînd standardele de educație la nivel global. Aceste evoluții – susțin eu – au avut ca rezultat o „îngrădire a cunoașterii“, în sensul că educația este în tot mai mare măsură evaluată în funcție de profitabilitatea, nu de contribuția ei la progresul social. Altfel spus, educația a devenit o marfă a cărei producere și distribuire sînt supuse valorilor și condiționărilor pieței. Ca urmare, conținutul ei social a sărăcit, iar dobîndirea ei este organizată tot mai mult într-un mod care adîncește inegalitățile sociale.

Îngrădirea cunoașterii în Africa în urma ajustării structurale2

Prima mea întîlnire cu universitatea globală s-a petrecut în Nigeria, în timp ce predam la Universitatea din Port Harcourt între 1984 și sfîrșitul lui 1986. În acea perioadă, Nigeria se confrunta cu o criză istorică, ce în scurt timp s-a extins în restul continentului și care amenința progresele făcute de africani în lupta împotriva colonialismului. Această criză părea a fi o „criză a datoriilor“, dar foarte curînd a devenit evident că datoria era doar un instrument folosit de instituții financiare internaționale precum Banca Mondială sau Fondul Monetar Internațional (FMI) pentru a realiza o reformă majoră a economiilor politice ale Africii, reformă care a ajuns să fie descrisă drept un proces de „recolonizare“.Încurajată de explozia prețurilor la țiței și urmînd un model de dezvoltare bazat pe importul de tehnologie și bunuri străine, Nigeria, la sfîrșitul anilor ’70, a făcut multe împrumuturi care, pînă la jumătatea anilor ’80, cînd prețurile la țiței s-au prăbușit, deveniseră imposibil de controlat. În trecut, o țară insolvabilă putea să se declare falită. De data aceasta însă, instituțiile financiare internaționale au silit țările îndatorate să se împrumute de la ele în schimbul unei masive restructurări a economiilor lor. Asta însemna adoptarea unui set de politici care, combinate, au ajuns

să poarte numele de „programe de reajustare structurală“ (SAP).3 Nigeria nu a luat niciun împrumut

imediat. În orice caz, pînă în 1986 guvernul a început să implementeze aceleași politici pe care Banca Mondială și FMI le impuseseră drept condiții pentru ca țara să acceseze piața de credite: printre cele mai importante se numărau eliminarea taxelor pe bunurile importate, privatizarea avuțiilor naționale, devalorizarea monedei naționale, înghețarea salariilor și, mai presus de toate, legat de discuția noastră, sfîrșitul investițiilor guvernamentale în servicii publice cum ar fi sănătatea, transporturile publice și educația.Pînă la începutul anilor ’90, majoritatea guvernelor africane încetaseră finanțarea educației. S-au tăiat bani de peste tot: întreținerea infrastructurii, bugetele bibliotecilor, salariile profesorilor și salariile personalului neacademic. Bursele studenților (destinate hranei, transportului, cărților) au fost și ele eliminate, deși numeroși studenți erau incapabili să-și continue studiile în absența lor. În scurt timp, sistemul universitar a început să arate ca un tărîm pustiit și ca un cîmp de luptă, întrucît tăierile au fost întîmpinate cu o opoziție crîncenă, în special din partea studenților, iar această opoziție a stîrnit, la rîndul ei, o represiune feroce. Organizațiile studențești au ajuns să activeze pe ascuns, campusurile fiind închise pentru lungi perioade de timp. Foarte repede, a devenit dificil pentru oameni ca mine să mai rămînă în Nigeria. Ba, mai mult, pînă în 1986, cînd s-a declanșat reajustarea structurală, numeroși profesori, dintre care unii africani, au părăsit țara.La revenirea la New York, o parte dintre cei care predaserăm în Nigeria am creat o organizație

numită Comitetul pentru Libertate Academică în Africa (CAFA)4, care, mai bine de zece ani, între

1991 și 2004, a publicat un buletin prin care îi informa pe cei din America de Nord, în special din mediul universitar, despre situația din campusurile africane. Un rezumat al acelor buletine a fost cuprins într-un volum pe care l-am editat, intitulat O mie de flori: luptele sociale împotriva ajustării

structurale din universitățile africane.5 El cuprindea o cronologie a acestor lupte, certificînd

existența unei mișcări studențești panafricane împotriva reajustării structurale.Ce susținea CAFA era că atacul Băncii Mondiale asupra educației superioare din Africa făcea parte dintr-o restructurare a diviziunii muncii la nivel internațional, care mergea mînă în mînă cu globalizarea economiei mondiale. Cu alte cuvinte, investiția publică în educația superioară fusese

5

stopată în Africa deoarece, în planurile capitalului mondial, muncitorii fuseseră meniți ocupării unei poziții subordonate, care nu cerea ca ei să devină producători de cunoaștere. (De aceea, la o întîlnire a investitorilor africani, un oficial al Băncii Mondiale declara pe față că „africanii n-au nevoie de universități!“). Într-adevăr, în cadrul noii economii globale, Africii îi fusese atribuit vechiul rol colonial de exportator de materii brute, în special minerale, și de forță de muncă. Atacul la adresa universităților a ajutat acest proces. Numeroși tineri care ar fi devenit studenți și care, la absolvire, s-ar fi așteptat la o slujbă rentabilă au trebuit, dimpotrivă, să-și părăsească țările, să emigreze în Europa sau în SUA, unde lucrează acum ca vînzători stradali, spălători de mașini sau muncitori în fabrici. Ori populează centrele de detenție ale Uniunii Europene – asta cînd nu zac pe fundul Mediteranei, unde se estimează că peste 10.000 de emigranți s-au înecat în ultimul deceniu.Comercializarea și balcanizarea universităților africane: „studiul în funcție de relații“Sfîrșitul investițiilor guvernamentale în educația publică a fost primul pas spre globalizarea universităților africane. Următorii pași au fost comercializarea sistemelor educaționale și dezvoltarea unei „educații dependente“. Căci, odată ce finanțarea publică a fost întreruptă, universitățile au trebuit să se întrețină singure sau să dispară. Autofinanțarea a fost realizată nu numai prin introducerea unor „taxe individuale“, potrivit cerințelor Băncii Mondiale, ci și prin găzduirea de cursuri și programe de cercetare finanțate de ONG-uri internaționale sau chiar de Banca Mondială, sau prin închirierea spațiilor din campusuri pentru programe de studiu din străinătate, sau prin stabilirea de legături cu universități din străinătate care să ofere programe, cărți și alte materiale pedagogice.Din cauza opoziției susținute a studenților, programele cu finanțare publică n-au putut fi eliminate întotdeauna în totalitate, dar au supraviețuit ca niște tărîmuri pustiite, asfixiate de lipsa de resurse. Acest lucru înseamnă că în campusurile africane s-a dezvoltat un sistem educațional dublu stratificat. Pe de-o parte, există rămășițele vechiului sistem educațional cu finanțare publică, ce nu beneficiază în niciun fel de fondurile, resursele, instrumentele pedagogice și înlesnirile de infrastructură care fac studiul posibil, și cu facultăți neplătite și demoralizate, care își reduc ac-tivitatea la un minim necesar pentru găsirea altor resurse de venit, pentru a menține lucrurile pe linia de plutire. În același timp, universitățile africane găzduiesc acum programe generos finanțate, care beneficiază de cărți noi, computere, săli de cursuri cu aer condiționat, toalete funcționale, toate plătite de „donatori“ străini, de ONG-uri sau de Banca Mondială, care în mod clar profită de influența lor bănească pentru a dicta ce anume trebuie să învețe africanii. Deloc surprinzător, odată cu „educația dependentă“ s-a produs o mutație în ce privește direcția programei universitare, dinspre științele umaniste înspre contabilitatea de afaceri și, în general, cursuri menite să producă o generație de tehnocrați sensibili la nevoile investitorilor străini. E ceea ce Banca Mondială a numit

„construcția capacității Africii“.6

În goana după profitabilitate economică, universitățile africane au trecut și printr-un proces de balcanizare. Asta pentru că a intervenit o diferențiere de clasă, în funcție de capacitatea de a face bani a departamentelor și programelor. Asta înseamnă că instituțiile și departamentele cu „relații“ și fonduri fac legea, în timp ce celelalte trebuie să se supună. La ce extreme a dus situația asta a descris perfect cercetătorul/activistul ugandez Mahmood Mamdani, în studiul său Cercetătorii pe

piață. Dilema reformei neoliberale la Universitatea din Makerere. 1989–2005.7 Mamdani arată că,

sub presiunea de a produce bani, fiecare departament a început să funcționeze ca o entitate aué-întreținută, cu un buget propriu, cu propriile mijloace de a face bani, ceea ce a dus la o tot mai accentuată fragmentare a vieții academice. Lucrurile au mers, chiar, atît de departe, încît departamentele influente doresc acum să se separe și să se organizeze independent, pentru că nu vor să împartă cu restul universității banii pe care îi fac. Asta înseamnă sfîrșitul universității ca proiect unitar, coerent. Mamdani mai descrie și cum sînt pe cale să apară războaie interne, întrucît fiecare departament dorește să predea cele mai profitabile cursuri, indiferent de propria specializare sau expertiză. În aceste condiții, predarea și cercetarea ocupă un loc secund. Profesorii se fac că predau, studenții se fac că învață, creînd adesea o diviziune a muncii între ei, astfel încît cei care frecventează anumite cursuri dau examenele în locul multor altora, siguri că profesorii lor, în mod frecvent absenți, nu vor observa.Îngrădirea cunoașterii în SUA și apariția universității globaleRestructurarea și comercializarea universităților africane n-au fost un simplu răspuns la „criza datoriei“, așa cum se presupune adesea. Aceleași acțiuni au avut loc în toate celelalte țări, inclusiv în SUA. Și aici, comercializarea cunoașterii și a vieții academice a luat forme diferite. Prima a fost sfîrșitul „admiterii libere“, care, în sistemul Universității din New York (CUNY), s-a petrecut încă din

6

1976. Începînd cu era Reagan, alocările de fonduri statale și federale pentru școli, la toate nivelurile, au fost reduse în mod constant. De asemenea, angajamentul față de „acțiunile afirmative“, adică angajamentul de a corecta moștenirea sclaviei și a rasismului instituțional în domeniul educațional, a fost abandonat. Nu numai că universitățile au eliminat înscrierea fără taxe, ci taxele au crescut atît de mult, încît educația superioară devine un lux, și asta tocmai în perioada în care e promovată drept singura poartă spre un „nivel minim de trai“. Studenții se împrumută acum de la guvern și/sau de la bănci nu doar pentru cursurile postuniversitare, ci și pentru a deveni absolvenți de studii superioare. Această îndatorare a corpului studențesc a atins un asemenea punct critic, încît în campusurile din SUA se folosește din ce în ce mai des termenul de „sclavie a datoriei“ [debt slavery] pentru a descrie statutul studentului. S-a calculat că, în medie, studenții vor avea la absolvire o datorie de 60.000 sau chiar 100.000 de dolari. Cum își vor plăti studenții datoria? Cum va cîntări această datorie asupra vieților lor și asupra deciziilor pe care le vor lua?

„Educația profitabilă“ și apariția „fabricilor de diplome digitale“8

S-a înregistrat și o corporatizare a vieții universitare. Nu numai că finanțarea corporatistă a cercetării academice a crescut; universitățile au fost reorganizate conform unui model corporatist, liniile directoare fiind eficiența și profitabilitatea. Asta a mers mînă în mînă cu un transfer ideologic prin care acum firmele sînt întîmpinate de administratorii universităților ca niște parteneri-cheie. Și de la profesori se așteaptă un comportament mai „de afaceri“ și aducerea directă de bani pentru universități, prin aplicarea pentru granturi guvernamentale și nu numai. Predarea și publicarea nu mai sînt suficiente. Astfel, și în campusurile din SUA, facultățile se împart între profesori norocoși, care beneficiază de un grant, și cei care nu beneficiază, și care, în mod inevitabil, au mai puțină putere și prestigiu. Aceasta e o turnură periculoasă, deoarece șubrezește poziția facultății în raportul ei de forțe cu administrația universității. Între timp, universitățile încearcă să intre în posesia a tot ceea ce profesorii produc pe durata contractului cu ele, de la descoperiri științifice pînă la programe. Ideea e că materialul produs de profesori pentru cursuri poate fi standardizat și pus online, pentru a sluji unui număr mai mare de studenți. Dar refuzul facultății aduce cu o violare a libertății lor academice.„Educația online“ este un rezultat direct al cursei academice pentru profitabilitate. Unii manageri de universitate privesc asta ca pe ceva utopic, căci reduce imens nevoia de investiții în infrastructură și salarii. Cine are nevoie de clădiri cînd cursurile pot fi transmise direct în camera oricui, iar un profesor poate avea sute de studenți? Se mai susține că educația online poate individualiza produsele pedagogice, pentru a răspunde programelor și nevoilor studenților, oferind o educație ieftină pentru „țările sărace“ și pentru „Lumea a Treia“. Deloc surprinzător, un suporter statornic al programelor online e Banca Mondială. Astăzi, chiar și universități prestigioase, precum Columbia University sau New York University, dispun de masive departamente online, care (de exemplu) oferă cursuri și diplome pentru soldații înrolați. În anii ’90, am mai fost martorii dezvoltării „educației profitabile“, cu alte cuvinte, universități finanțate exclusiv prin bursa de valori, deși în prezent viabilitatea lor e pusă sub semnul întrebării.Dezvoltarea „universității globale“În orice caz, principala noutate din lumea academică a constituit-o implicarea globală tot mai mare a universităților din Statele Unite în sensul unei tot mai accentuate intervenții în restructurarea educației la nivel mondial. Asta înseamnă că universități selecte cu sediul în SUA sînt din ce în ce mai intim „legate“ de universități din Africa sau Europa de Est, sau din oricare punct al planetei unde se consideră că sistemul universitar trebuie restructurat, fiind implicate în refacerea programelor acestora (de exemplu, în refacerea programei analitice sau a procedurilor de examinare sau în înființarea unor rețele de computere etc.). Astfel, universitățile nord-americane, împreună cu universități din Anglia, Franța și ONG-uri internaționale, devin paznicii educației și ai producției de cunoaștere din întreaga lume, stabilind standarde pentru ceea ce trebuie considerat valoros din punct de vedere pedagogic la nivel global. Aceleași universități recrutează un corp studențesc multinațional/multicultural, pregătind, presupunem, viitorii manageri ai economiei globale; ele pompează cursuri în colegiile din țările sărăcite/îndatorate ale „Lumii a Treia“, profitînd de faptul că, în agitația reformării, sistemele lor educaționale au fost dezmembrate, devalorizate și făcute dependente de ajutoare externe și de experți externi. Acest lucru înseamnă că globalizarea educației și a culturii a avut, de fapt, ca rezultat o centralizare a producției de cunoaștere, în sensul că acum aceasta este organizată conform unei structuri piramidale, în care aceleași țări și instituții care controlează economia mondială stabilesc și regulile, canoanele și paradigmele ideologice ale educației și ale culturii la nivel global. Astfel, în ciuda interesului aparent crescut față de

7

multiculturalism, cultura și cunoașterea din lumea întreagă devin tot mai omogenizate și mai contro-late, pentru a reflecta interesele marilor puteri.Pentru a conchide, o globalizare a cunoașterii este bine-venită atunci cînd presupune o sporire veritabilă a schimbului de idei la nivel internațional. Însă acest schimb se petrece acum într-un domeniu cu raporturi de forțe inegale, contribuind la adîncirea inegalităților sociale. Așa cum am văzut, comercializarea sistemului educațional al Africii, împreună cu liberalizarea politicilor ei economice, a produs o nouă diaspora și o „scurgere de inteligență“. Studenții și profesorii de ieri sînt emigranții de azi, care își riscă viețile traversînd Sahara sau încercînd să ajungă în Europa cu vase supraaglomerate plutind în derivă pe Mediterana. Alternativa o reprezintă o viață fără viitor, recrutarea de către una dintre numeroasele armate care îi sprijină pe conducătorii locali sau străini în exproprierea bogățiilor minerale și agricole ale Africii. De globalizarea și comercializarea educației superioare din Africa beneficiază, de fapt, firmele agricole, miniere și farmaceutice care funcționează pe întreg mapamondul, însușindu-și resursele de pe urma cărora trăiesc oamenii, inclusiv cunoașterea pe care băștinașii au dezvoltat-o în decurs de secole și pe care acum companiile doresc s-o privatizeze. Deja au curs rîuri de sînge de dragul aurului, al diamantelor, al coltanului (columbit-tantalit, n. ed.). Deja numeroase fabrici africane au fost „patentate“, un proces care, în esență, în-seamnă o expropriere directă și furtul bogăției indigene. Lipsa unor instituții educaționale autonome, capabile să protejeze această bogăție, a pus capăt „vînătorii de gene“ sau, în cel mai rău caz, negocierea unor termeni mai favorabili de „schimb“ a reprezentat un factor vital în acest proces.Opoziție, luptă și activism în campusAșa cum am subliniat, aceste acțiuni au fost întîmpinate cu o opoziție înverșunată de studenții și profesorii africani – opoziție pe care CAFA a sprijinit-o și a documentat-o. Opoziția a devenit mult mai acută și în campusurile din SUA. Profesorii se reunesc în jurul conceptului de „libertate academică“ împotriva pretențiilor universităților de a le lua în posesie munca și împotriva comercializării educației și a vieții academice. Studenții, la rîndul lor, s-au organizat și au luptat pe diferite fronturi, coordonîndu-și tot mai strîns activitatea cu cea a studenților canadieni, recunoscînd faptul că au aceleași probleme. [O bună sursă de informații cu privire la luptele studenților din Statele Unite este Campus Activism (a se vedea www.campusactivism.org). Acesta e un site de prezentare a Rețelei Educaționale pentru Democratizare [Democratising Education Network] (DEN), o largă coaliție de grupuri studențești cu sediul în SUA și Canada.]Una dintre principalele lupte ale studenților din SUA e cea dusă împotriva recrutării în campusuri de către armată și CIA, care s-a intensificat după 11 septembrie 2001 și în contextul Războiului din Irak. Un alt front de luptă important este cel împotriva datoriilor studenților. Una dintre strategiile folosite de studenți pentru a-și manifesta nemulțumirea este „modelul orașului de corturi“ [tent city model]. Aceștia au construit corturi în campusuri și au locuit acolo, atît pentru a arăta efectul pe care îndatorarea îl are asupra vieților lor, cît și pentru a arăta că trebuie să se mute dintr-o universitate care începe să semene din ce în ce mai mult cu o operațiune financiară, din ce în ce mai comercială. Studenții au fost foarte activi și în cadrul mișcării antiglobalizare, creînd coaliții împotriva atelierelor și fabricilor cu condiții inacceptabile de lucru [sweatshop], opunîndu-se prezenței în campusurile lor a obiectelor fabricate în aceste condiții și solicitînd universităților să nu mai investească în acțiunile unor astfel de companii de la Banca Mondială. Prin intermediul tuturor acestor lupte, studenții au construit tot mai multe alianțe nu numai cu profesorii, ci și cu alți muncitori din campusuri, sprijinind organizarea sindicatelor și a grevelor acestora.Iată, mai jos, Carta adoptată de DEN, care reflectă cererile studenților din SUA:– finanțare publică integrală pentru învățămîntul superior public;– acces gratuit la învățămîntul superior și desființarea taxelor;– acțiuni afirmative pentru combaterea rasismului și a sexismului instituționalizate;– recunoașterea integrală a drepturilor studenților și ale muncitorilor de a se organiza;– o autoguvernare democratică a educației superioare;– punerea în serviciul binelui public, nu al profiturilor corporațiilor;– libertate de expresie și libertate academică;– ștergerea datoriilor în cazul împrumuturilor studenților;– educație civică pentru o societate democratică;– educație, nu război;– școli, nu închisori.Traducere de Alex MoldovanImagine: Reclaim your Future!, UniCampus Vienna, 11-14 March 2010. Program coverNote:

8

* „Education and the Enclosure of Knowledge in the Global University“, www.acme-journal.org. Editorii țin să-i mulțumească profesoarei Silvia Federici pentru amabilitatea acordării drepturilor de traducere și de publicare a versiunii în limba română a prezentului text. (N. ed.)1. Democratizing Education Network, www.democratizingeducation.org. (N. ed.)2. În original, „The Enclosure of Knowledge in Structurally Adjusted Africa“: „Îngrădirea cunoașterii în Africa structural ajustată“. (N. ed.)3. „Structural readjustment programs“. (N. ed.)4. Committee for Academic Freedom in Africa. (N. ed.)5. A Thousand Flowers: Social Struggles Against Structural Adjustment in African Universities, Trenton, Africa World Press, 2000. (N. ed.)6. În original: Africa Capacity Building. V. www.acbf-pact.org. (N. ed.)7. Mahmood Mamdani, Scholars in the Market Place: The Dilemma of Neo-liberal Reform at Makerere University. 1989–2005, Kampala, Fountain Publishers, 2007. (N. ed.)8. În original: „‘For Profit Education’ and the Rise of the ‘Digital Diploma Mills’“. V. David F. Noble, Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education, Monthly Review Press, 2001. (N. ed.)SILVIA FEDERICI este activistă feministă, profesor emerit şi teaching fellow la Hofstra University, fost profesor în Nigeria, cofondatoare (impreuna cu George Caffentzis) a Comitetului pentru Libertate Academică în Africa (Committee for Academic Freedom in Africa) şi membru al Midnight Notes Collective. Carfli: Wages Against Housework, Falling Wall Press, 1975; Enduring Western Civilization: The Construction of the Concept of Western Civilization and Its „Others“, Praeger, 1995; A Thousand Flowers: Social Struggles Against Structural Adjustment in African Universities,Trenton, Africa World Press, 2000 (coeditare); African Visions: Literary Images, Political Change, and Social Struggle in Contemporary Africa, Praeger, 2000; Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body, and Primitive Accumulation, Autonomedia, 2004; Good Times! Bad Times! An Introduction to the Capitalist Crisis and What it Means for Us,56aInfoshop, 2009 (alături de Alain Badiou, George Caffentzis şi Mario Tronti).Tema “Campus de luptă. Împotriva neoliberalizării universității” este concepută de redacţia revistei IDEA artă+societate şi a apărut în numărul curent # 35, 2010.

Transformarea cunoașterii în marfă. Procesul Bologna – Strategia LisabonaUn proces coordonat la nivel europeanActul I. Procesul Bologna (1999)Așa-numitul „Proces Bologna“, în care sînt angajate azi 46 de țări europene, a fost inițiat în 1999. Obiectivul l-a constituit crearea unui sistem european de armonizare, evaluare și comparare a instituțiilor de învățămînt superior din Europa; ceea ce, pe lîngă faptul de a favoriza mobilitatea studenților și a personalului profesoral, pregătea și deschiderea spre concurență și spre transformarea învățămîntului superior într-o marfă.În 2001, la Praga, obiectivul economic devine explicit: „În Europa de mîine, întemeiată pe o societate și pe o economie a cunoașterii, a te dota cu o strategie în materie de educație și de formare continuă se dovedește absolut necesar pentru a putea răspunde provocărilor pe care le constituie competitivitatea economică…“ În 2003, la Berlin, obiectivele așa-numitei „Strategii Lisabona“ sînt integrate în Procesul Bologna. Actul II. Strategia Lisabona (2000)Strategia Lisabona, așa-numită pentru „economia cunoașterii“, urmărește mai presus de orice alinierea producției de cunoaștere la cererea pieței, prin edificarea, în sectorul cercetării, a unui „spațiu european al cercetării“ (SEC) [Espace européen de la recherche – EER], care este o piață

comună a cercetării, în interiorul căreia concurența devine „principalul principiu de cercetare“1, iar

„cercetătorul-antreprenor“, „figura ei emblematică“. În conformitate cu principiile noului management public, este introdusă o organizare antreprenorială.SEC „îi privește atît pe cercetători, laboratoarele și universitățile, cît și drepturile de proprietate

intelectuală și, în general, toate elementele constitutive ale sistemelor naționale de inovație“.2

El prevede „facilități regulamentare pentru fondurile de capital-risc; incitări fiscale pentru eforturile de cercetare-dezvoltare; o legislație privind concurența și crearea unui brevet european; o cultură

dinamică a spiritului de întreprindere; o solidă bază de cercetare publică aflată în slujba industriei“.3

Concomitent, este instaurat spațiul european al educației și al formării continue, care pune ué-

9

versitățile în competiție, acestea fiind chemate să adopte o gestionare managerială, să recurgă la finanțări private și să se transforme în niște prestatoare de formări preocupate să garanteze viitoarea „angajabilitate“ a clienților-studenți, cu scopul de a furniza o „cunoaștere folositoare pieței“, sub formă de „capital uman“.

Niște reforme declinate la nivel național în întreaga Europă4

Procesul a fost aplicat la date și în ritmuri diferite de la o țară la alta. Cel mai avansat este în Marea Britanie, foarte avansat în Italia, Spania, Franța și ceva mai puțin avansat în Germania și Belgia. Opoziția e inegală: puternică în Grecia, Spania, Franța și Italia; destul de puternică în Germania și Danemarca; slabă în Marea Britanie; aproape inexistentă în Belgia.Marea Britanie este țara în care reforma este cea mai avansată și aproape încheiată. Universitățile sînt finanțate de studenți cu pînă la 3.000 de lire pentru licență și cu pînă la 10.000 de lire după licență. La sfîrșitul studiilor, studenții ajung să aibă o datorie medie de 35.000 de lire. Universitățile nu mai sînt conduse de persoane alese. În momentul de față, sînt suprimate cursuri de filosofie, sociologie etc. Materii precum filosofia și științele politice sînt supuse din partea mediilor economice la presiuni pentru a fi transformate în locuri și în instrumente de adaptare, nu de critică. Predarea limbii engleze ca limbă străină a fost privatizată. Problema unor discipline precum filosofia este că speranța privind salariul la terminarea facultății nu este, de multe ori, suficientă pentru a permite acordarea de împrumuturi de studii. Locuințele sociale studențești au fost privatizate.La ultimul său congres, principalul sindicat studențesc a decis să abandoneze principiul gratuității studiilor. Studenții sînt greu de mobilizat, cu atît mai mult cu cît sînt implicați într-un demers de autofinanțare a studiilor de natura unei investiții individuale, care are drept consecință o totală ocupare a timpului. La contrasummitul de la Louvain, situația a fost rezumată astfel: „Studenții din clasa de mijloc trebuie să trudească în baruri pentru studenții bogați“.

În Italia, reformele au fost începute în 1999, odată cu instaurarea sistemului LMD.5 În 2004

(guvernul Berlusconi), a fost votată o lege similară LRU [v. infra]. În 2006, taxele de școlarizare se ridicau la 1.800 de euro/an. De atunci, guvernul le-a permis universităților să devină de drept privat, de unde taxe de școlarizare libere, care au crescut în paralel cu dezangajarea statului. Astfel, taxele de școlarizare la Litere în Florența au crescut, începînd din 2009, la 8.000 de euro. Școala primară a fost reformată printr-o lege din 2008: reintroducerea uniformelor pentru elevi, predarea religiei catolice, desființarea orelor de după-amiază, închiderea școlilor de mici dimensiuni, revenirea la un singur învățător pentru fiecare clasă. Numai o treime dintre funcționarii pensionați sînt înlocuiți. Precaritatea în rîndurile corpului profesoral nu încetează să crească.În octombrie 2008, niște cadre didactice au ocupat școala în care predau. De acolo a pornit o mobilizare a angajaților din întregul sistem de învățămînt, care a durat pînă la vacanța de Crăciun.În Spania, așa-numita „LOU“ inițiază, în 2004, liberalizarea și privatizarea universității: „autonomie“ ca în Franța, privatizare și autonomie decizională și financiară a universităților, creșterea puterii întreprinderilor în luarea deciziilor, selectarea studenților la intrarea în facultate. Universitățile se află în concurență, eliberînd, drept urmare, diplome care nu sînt echivalente. Masteratele stabilesc taxele de școlarizare în funcție de cerere și ofertă: cu cît mai căutat e un master, cu atît e mai scump. În 2005, stînga recent ajunsă la putere suspendă așa-numita LOU, apoi, pretextînd diferite reglementări ale Uniunii Europene, inițiază o relansare a conținutului LOU. Formarea profesorilor a fost și ea reformată, pentru a fi golită de conținut pedagogic (cf. „masterizarea“ din Franța).În Germania, creșterea taxelor de școlarizare nu a afectat, într-o primă etapă, decît anii terminali ai studiilor de lungă durată, începînd însă să fie generalizată la toți anii cu începere din 2005. În momentul de față, această generalizare afectează 6 landuri din 16. Universitățile germane au senate din care fac parte reprezentanți ai studenților (8), ai profesorilor (8), ai personalul neacademic (5). Cu toate acestea, președintele Senatului este numit de o altă instanță, iar creșterea puterii sale a avut ca efect marginalizarea Senatului. Modul de gestiune de tip LRU a antrenat o modificare a spiritului cunoștințelor predate. Sînt întreținute tot mai multe relații cu întreprinderile, ceea ce antrenează specializări. La Hamburg, universitatea a încheiat parteneriate cu întreprinderi din sectorul armamentului nuclear.În 2001, studenții pornesc primele lupte, făcînd grevă împotriva creșterii taxelor de școlarizare. În 2005 sînt organizate manifestații. În 2006 își fac apariția noi moduri de acțiune: blocare de autostrăzi, de centre comerciale etc. (studenții germani au fost inspirați de mobilizările împotriva

CPE6).

În Franța, schimbarea începe odată cu adoptarea legii așa-numitului Pact pentru cercetare [Pacte

10

pour la recherche] din 2006 și a Legii referitoare la libertățile universităților [Loi relative aux libertés

des universités] (LRU)7 din 2007, care a prilejuit puternice manifestații studențești. LRU nu este

împlinită în măsura în care taxele de școlarizare nu sînt dereglementate, totuși, regimul francez se caracterizează prin dualitatea sa: pe lîngă universități, există așa-numitele „școli“ (de comerț, de studii politice etc.), care sînt foarte „avansate“ în privatizarea finanțării, în introducerea de metode manageriale și în creșterea drepturilor de școlarizare (12.000 de euro/an la Sciences Po pentru studenții străini cu începere din 2009). Or, aceste școli dezvoltă strategii ofensive pentru a-și masifica recrutarea și a concura facultățile.Studenții s-au mobilizat în toamna anului 2007 împotriva LRU printr-o serie de manifestații și de blocări ale activității în universități. Un nou val de mobilizare a fost declanșat de cercetători în 2009, ca urmare a modificării, prin aplicarea LRU, a decretului care definea statutul cercetătorilor.În Grecia, studenții au blocat, în 2008, universitățile timp de un an, reușind în felul acesta să determine guvernul să retragă pe jumătate proiectul de reformă prin privatizare a universității.În Belgia, universitățile sînt de mai mulți ani autonome, fiind finanțate de stat în proporție de 80–90%. Învățămîntul superior este comunitar: francofon/flamand. În partea francofonă, taxele de școlarizare se ridică la 800 de euro. Cele trei mari universități sînt pe cale de a le înghiți pe cele mici care gravitau în jurul lor. Se observă o creștere a concurenței: universitățile își smulg unele altora studenții, în special pe cei internaționali. La Universitatea Catolică din Louvain-la-Neuve, LMD este în vigoare de cinci ani. La Universitatea Liberă din Bruxelles (ULB, publică), Filosofia și Literele sînt cele mai vizate de reforme. La Filosofie, s-a trecut de la 20 de cursuri pe an la 12. Obiectivele oficiale ale rectorului universității privesc cu prioritate poziția ocupată de aceasta în clasamentele interna-ționale. Cheia repartizării fondurilor în funcție de numărul de studenți a fost extinsă la numirea profesorilor, astfel încît, în mod mecanic, numărul profesorilor de la Litere scade progresiv, ducînd la desființarea unor cursuri și/sau a unor efective prea numeroase. Solvé, omoloaga lui HEC Paris, funcționează ca o întreprindere. A fost făcută să fuzioneze cu facultatea de economie a ULB, care deține acum catedre private (comerțul cu bere etc.).În Belgia nu există sindicate studențești. Impresia lăsată de contrasummitul de la Louvain este că studenții nu sînt conștienți de ceea ce se întîmplă în universitățile lor. Doi studenți ai ULB au participat, cu toate acestea, foarte activ la pregătirea acestui contrasummit.Danemarca e țara în care Procesul Bologna este cel mai puțin avansat. Educația e gratuită, iar studenții primesc o alocație (pe care nu trebuie s-o ramburseze) de 600 de euro pe lună timp de șase ani. În 2009, o serie de manifestații studențești au reușit să se opună cu succes unui proiect al guvernului care urmărea reducerea acestei durate la patru ani. Cu toate acestea, pătrunderea întreprinderilor în universități este din ce în ce mai mare. Înainte, cei 11 membri ai consiliilor de administrație erau aleși în exclusivitate din rîndurile profesorilor și ale studenților; în momentul de față, dintre cei 11 membri, 2 sînt reprezentanți ai studenților, 2 ai profesorilor, 1 din partea personalului neacademic, 6 din partea întreprinderilor. Recent, guvernul a autorizat universitățile private. În momentul de față, se află în desfășurare o mobilizare împotriva aproprierii (prin brevete) de către întreprinderi a descoperirilor universitare.Niște reforme care pun instituțiile publice producătoare de cunoaștere și de „capital uman“ să lucreze din ce în ce mai mult în slujba întreprinderilor privateStrategia Lisabona afișează ca obiectiv dezvoltarea „cunoașterii“. În realitate, aceste reforme nu urmăresc decît să permită întreprinderilor private să profite și mai mult de cunoașterea produsă de instituțiile publice, prin supunerea acestora intereselor lor stricte, în cadrul unui „nou management public“ [New Public Management]. Deschiderea spre finanțările private pentru a se putea influența opțiunile publiceDeschiderea spre finanțările private trebuie pusă în legătură cu scăderea impozitelor pe profit ale întreprinderilor, care apasă asupra bugetelor publice și atrage după sine dezangajarea statului. În felul acesta, o finanțare centralizată și alimentată din prelevări obligatorii, în care decizia e colectivă și politică, este înlocuită cu niște finanțări descentralizate și „parteneriale“, care le permit finanțatorilor să influențeze local modul de gestionare a universităților și a centrelor de cercetare, pentru a putea să profite și mai mult de creditele publice care continuă să finanțeze, în parte, producția de cunoaștere.Acesta este sensul reformelor care încurajează parteneriatele public-privat, recurgerea la finanțări private pentru programele de cercetare (în Franța, de pildă, prin înființarea Agenției Naționale pentru Cercetare) și pentru formarea universitară (în Franța, „LRU“).

11

Introducerea de metode manageriale pentru slăbirea autonomiei corpului universitarPentru a se subordona universitățile și centrele de cercetare intereselor întreprinderilor este nevoie și de un alt mod de gestionare. Într-adevăr, corpul universitar ține la autonomia sa, mai ales față de piață. Cele mai recente reforme vizează, astfel, să slăbească această autonomie: „universitarii nu iau parte la definirea propriilor lor «obiective», care sînt stabilite de proiectele de performanță. Controlul național al calității recrutărilor de către egali pare sortit dispariției, la fel ca și statutele. Membrii agențiilor (ANR [Agence Nationale de la Recherche – Agenția Națională pentru Cercetare], AERES [Agence d’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur – Agenția de Evaluare a Cercetării și a Învățămîntului Superior]) sînt numiți de guvern. În universități, în fața președintelui ales, a cărui putere este consolidată prin LRU, consiliile nu mai au nicio putere în afara celei pe care le-o acordă președinția în ceea ce privește politica științifică a universității, recrutările de personal,

programele academice și evaluarea“.8

Creșterea taxelor de școlarizare pentru îndatorare – școală de „raționalitate economică“ pentru studenți

Creșterea taxelor de școlarizare9 îi obligă pe studenți să se îndatoreze, ceea ce constituie pentru ei

o „școală de raționalitate“ economică. Mai preocupați de modul în care vor putea să își valorifice studiile pe piața muncii (și de salariul pe care vor putea să-l obțină în felul acesta pentru a-și rambursa datoriile), ei sînt mult mai atenți la a consacra aceste studii acumulării capitalului uman așteptat de întreprinderi. Ceea ce constituie o modalitate de a-i subordona pe studenți întreprinderilor, în calitate de producători de „capital uman“.Politica de brevetare – un război împotriva împărtășirii și difuzării cunoașteriiÎn sfîrșit, politica de brevetare permite întreprinderilor să-și maximizeze profiturile legate de aplicațiile comerciale care rezultă din „inovații“. În timp ce externalitățile pozitive ale cunoașterii publice sînt făcute să crească în avantajul întreprinderilor, externalitățile pozitive legate de inovațiile „private“ (datorate, în mare parte, cunoașterii publice) sînt diminuate, în detrimentul persoanelor particulare.Astfel, „vremea cînd, prin tradiție, cunoștințele dobîndite în spațiul științific academic constituiau un patrimoniu deschis, pus la dispoziția tuturor, e de domeniul trecutului“, scrie Direcția Generală pentru Cercetare a Comisiei Europene, „în cîmpul cunoașterii, producția rimează azi cu protecția și

cu exploatarea“.10

Așa-zisa „economie a cunoașterii“ este, de fapt, o economie bazată pe raritatea cunoașterii. Războiul împotriva împărtășirii cunoașterii, purtat în mod intrinsec prin Strategia Lisabona, este un război împotriva cunoașterii. Acest război este purtat în numele întreprinderilor și al grupurilor industriale care doresc să-și amplifice monopolul asupra cunoașterii.Niște reforme profund inegalitare, care urmăresc desființarea serviciului publicDe la creșterea taxelor de școlarizare la îndatorarea studenților – eliminarea claselor populare

Liberalizarea învățămîntului superior se traduce printr-o creștere a taxelor de școlarizare11

, în paralel cu dezangajarea financiară a statului. Pe de altă parte, instituțiile de învățămînt superior (publice sau private) aflîndu-se în concurență monopolistă, competiția se poartă pe „calitate“, nu pe preț. Afișarea unor taxe școlare ridicate servește, chiar, drept indicator de calitate (teoria semnalului).Pe deasupra, într-un sector în care măsura calității intrinsece este foarte greu de stabilit, construirea unei imagini de calitate și traducerea ei în clasamentele universităților sînt costisitoare: recrutare de „staruri“ de pe piața internațională a profesorilor-cercetători și a președinților de universități, ofertă de servicii atractive în campus, cheltuieli de prestigiu, de lobbing, de marketing și publicitate etc. Așa s-a ajuns ca, din totalul cheltuielilor instituțiilor publice de învățămînt superior din Statele Unite, cheltuielile administrative să crească de la 30% în 1976 la 50% în 2001; cheltuielile de instruire pe

student au crescut cu 17% între 1960 și 2001, iar cele administrative cu 54%.12

Studiile evidențiază peste tot un impact negativ al creșterii taxelor de școlarizare asupra cererii de studii superioare în mediile cu venituri mici, ca urmare a dificultății, pentru acești studenți, de a

obține ajutoare financiare suficiente, inclusiv în cazul în care există sisteme de împrumut.13

Există, într-adevăr, o „aversiune față de risc“ a celor săraci (chiar și în Norvegia, țară în care împrumuturile sînt foarte bine securizate), care reflectă, în parte, o percepție corectă a riscului real de către niște studenți lipsiți și de suportul financiar familial în caz de nevoie, și de capitalul social din ce în ce mai necesar pentru accederea la slujbele de calitate. Tendința este, astfel, spre o

12

bipolarizare a cererii: abandon pretimpuriu pentru unii, creștere puternică a cererii pentru alții.Selectarea studenților pe piața cunoașteriiPe o piață liberalizată a învățămîntului superior, studenții sînt „clienții“ universităților și o sursă de finanțare din ce în ce mai importantă pentru echilibrul lor bugetar, dar și „factori de producție“ ai serviciului, calitatea lor fiind un element determinant pentru prestigiul universității, ceea ce poate conduce la ajutorarea financiară a studenților străluciți din medii cu venituri scăzute. Acest lucru rămîne totuși un arbitraj care se efectuează în funcție de considerente strict economice, nu de serviciu public, în care, pînă la urmă, logica ajutorării meritului (celui bogat) primează asupra logicii ajutorării nevoii (celui sărac). Într-adevăr, bogatul e mai „rentabil“, deoarece este dotat inițial cu un capital uman mai mare. Astfel, în Statele Unite, studenții cei mai săraci, care în 1995 primeau din partea colegiilor private ajutoare cu 2% mai mari decît cei proveniți din familii înstărite (între 60.000 și 80.000 de dolari/an), primesc în 1999 cu 29%, în medie, mai puțin, în timp ce ajutorul acordat studenților din familii cu un venit de peste 100.000 de dolari a crescut cu 145%… Un sistem cu două vitezeOdată cu sfîrșitul principiului repartizării echitabile în cadrul serviciilor publice, finanțările (în special cele publice) sînt dirijate prioritar spre instituțiile de învățămînt superior care sînt deja cele mai bine dotate, care primesc populațiile cele mai favorizate, în cadrul unor „regrupări de excelență“. Celelalte instituții de învățămînt superior au ca principală funcție să răspundă, prin intermediul indicatorilor de inserție, nevoilor locale, în special ale IMM-urilor. În aceste instituții, pilotarea de către întreprinderi merge în sensul unei formări „personalizate“, calată pe nevoile imediate ale bazinelor de locuri de muncă și ale întreprinderilor care finanțează universitatea.Niște inegalități care se repercutează asupra pieței munciiÎn acest sistem, formările generaliste sînt rezervate elitelor, asigurîndu-le numai lor recunoaștere și mobilitate pe piața muncii.Pe de altă parte, datoriile studențești întrețin creșterea veniturilor celor mai ridicate, care, la rîndul ei, îi incită pe o parte dintre studenți să se îndatoreze din ce în ce mai mult, pentru a avea acces la universitățile cele mai prestigioase; ele exclud cealaltă parte, care apasă asupra salariilor, venind să îngroașe oferta pe segmentele inferioare ale pieței muncii. Acest fapt adîncește inegalitățile salariale și bipolarizarea de pe piața muncii, conducînd, în consecință, la o pauperizare și la precarizarea claselor de mijloc, care provoacă un risc deflaționist (consum anemic etc.).Pierderea autonomiei corpului universitar: precarizare, sărăcire academică, penurie de creiere etc.Sărăcirea cunoașteriiSubordonarea crescîndă față de interesele întreprinderilor compromite „independența,

indispensabilă din punct de vedere social, a expertizei universitare“.14

În țările europene care au adoptat înaintea Franței principiile noului management public (NPM), „se remarcă dispariția unor sectoare întregi de cercetare și de învățămînt, insuficient de «eficiente» din punct de vedere al obiectivelor stabilite, o extraversiune lingvistică și culturală crescîndă și declinul cercetării fun-damentale“.Cunoașterea este, în felul acesta, deturnată de la funcțiile ei societale și cetățenești, fiind, dimpotrivă, pusă doar în slujba intereselor particulare și pe termen scurt ale întreprinderilor. Această „revoluție culturală neoliberală“ conduce la o cunoaștere, de la cercetare pînă la educație, din ce în ce mai segmentată, mai efemeră, din ce în ce mai incapabilă să ajute la elaborarea unei înțelegeri a lumii în globalitatea ei și din ce în ce mai puțin utilă pentru cetățean.Reculul libertăților academice și democraticeFinanțarea privată poate, astfel, să conducă la reculul libertăților academice și democratice. În Statele Unite, organizației Amnesty International i s-au interzis finanțările în interiorul unei universități deoarece denunțase compania Coca-Cola pentru sprijinirea dictaturii din Nigeria.

Abandonarea către întreprinderi și către mecenat (eventual religios15

) a finanțării și a definirii conținutului formărilor intelectuale are implicații extrem de grele în termeni de capital simbolic, de hegemonie intelectuală. Conform Comisiei Europene, încă din primele clase ar trebui insuflat

„spiritul de întreprindere“.16

Nu numai cunoașterea, ci și gîndirea și societatea ar trebui deci puse în slujba întreprinderilor…Precarizarea corpului universitar și „fuga creierelor“În Statele Unite, proporția de posturi temporare din universități a crescut de la 43% la 70% în 30 de

ani.17

Un risc este, atunci, „exit“-ul: astfel, „cele mai multe universități engleze și americane, în

13

care o proporție ridicată de profesori-cercetători este precarizată și în care libertatea academică regresează în consecință, întîmpină dificultăți tot mai mari în atragerea de candidați naționali, fiind

nevoite să recurgă la importul de creiere“.18

Traducere de Bogdan GhiuBibliografieBruno, Isabelle (2008). A vos marques®, prêts, cherchez!, Editions du Croquant.Vinokur, Annie (2007). „Study now, pay later. Endettement étudiant et restructuration de l’enseignement supérieur“, in Pouvoirs et financement en éducation: qui paye décide?, Paris, L’Harmattan.Vinokur, Annie (2008 a). „La loi relative aux libertés et responsabilités des universités: essai de mise en perspective“, Revue de la régulation. Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, 2.Vinokur, Annie (2008 b). „Vous avez dit «autonomie»?“, in Mouvements, 55–56, pp. 72–81.http://regulation.revues.org/document1783.html.www.printemps2010.eu (analize, rețele europene, mobilizări).http://isacna.wordpress.com (blog participativ, articole despre diferite situații naționale).http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal (reviste ale presei, analize, bibliografii).http://www.archive.org/download/EducationProtestsWorldwide2009/Overview2009.pdf.Rețele studențeștiContrasummitul de la Viena: http://bolognaburns.orgValuri europene de mobilizare: www.vagueeuropeenne.frGermania: http://unsereuni.atElveția: http://www.cuae.ch/spip.php?article226Olanda: http://studentenprotestutrecht.wordpress.comGrecia: http://www.cuae.ch/spip.php?Croația: http://slobodnifilozofski.org Note:1. Commission Européenne, „6ème PCRD. La coordination de la recherche ne se fera pas sans cou-rage politique“, CORDIS ocus, nr. 209, 18 noiembrie 2002.2. Ibid.3. Bruno (2008), după un citat din „Plus de recherche pour l’Europe. Objectif 3% du PIB“, comunicare a Comisiei Europene către Consiliul Europei, Parlamentul European, Comitetul Economic și Social și Comitetul Regiunilor, Bruxelles, 11 septembre 2002, COM (2002) 499 final, p. 4.4. Această scurtă panoramă a reformelor și a mobilizărilor din Europa se bazează, în principal, pe sintezele realizate de Marc Delepouve și Evelyne Perrin pentru Contrasummitul de la Louvain [25–29 aprilie 2009; v.www.sauvonsluniversite.com/spip.php?article2476].5. Sistemul LMD semnifică reorganizarea programelor universitare pe trei cicluri: licență, masterat, doctorat. (N. ed.)6. V. supra, G. Caffentzis, „Lupte universitare la sfîrșitul pactului educațional“, p. 126, nota 2. (N. ed.)7. În momentul de față, președintele universității supune propunerile de personalități din afară votului consiliului de administrație (întreprinderi…), cu excepția colectivităților teritoriale; are drept de veto în ceea ce privește angajările de personal; deține un drept de aviz defavorabil asupra propunerilor emise de „comitetele de selecție“ (care au luat locul comisiilor de specialiști). Dacă adăugăm aceste noi prerogative celor vechi (de reprezentare a universității, de ordonator al veni-turilor și cheltuielilor, de responsabil cu menținerera ordinii și a securității în incinta universității, dar și cu accesibilitatea sălilor de cursuri și a clădirilor administrative pentru persoanele cu dizabilități), rezultă că președintele universității dispune, în momentul de față, de o putere comparabilă cu aceea a unui adevărat manager de întreprindere.8. Vinokur (2008 b).9. Creșterea taxelor de școlarizare n-a fost încă introdusă în Franța, dar va fi, probabil, cît de curînd, deoarece este vorba de un element esențial al procesului de liberalizare și de transformare a învățămîntului superior într-o marfă. În Statele Unite, taxele de școlarizare au crescut între 2002 și 2007cu 40%.10. RDT info, „magazin de informare asupra cercetării europene“, publicat de Direcția generală a Co-misiei însărcinate cu Cercetarea, citat in Bruno (2008).11. Vinokur (2007).12. Ibid.13. Vinokur (2007).

14

14. Ibid.15. În „universitatea“ lui Peter Vardy, concesionar de automobile și creștin fundamentalist, „creațio-nismul se predă pe picior de egalitate cu teoria evoluționistă a lui Darwin, iar cărțile cu Harry Potter sînt interzise, sub pretextul că ar încuraja credința în vrăjitorie. Universitatea a fost inspectată de OFSTED [Biroul de norme educative britanic, agenție guvernamentală] și s-a bucurat de un raport excelent“, R. Hatcher, „L’école britannique livrée au patronat“, Le Monde diplomatique, aprilie 2005.16. Comunicare a Comisiei Europene, „Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning“, 2006.17. Vinokur (2008 a).18. Vinokur (2008 b).Tema “Campus de luptă. Împotriva neoliberalizării universității” este concepută de redacţia revistei IDEA artă+societate şi a apărut în numărul curent # 35, 2010.

Squatând crizaDespre recentele proteste privind sistemul de educaţie şi despre perspectivele de schimbare radicală

Lina Dokuzović şi Eduard Freudmann

„Nu vom plăti noi pentru criza voastră!” a răsunat în universităţile din întreaga lume. Semnificaţia acestui fapt este că avântul acestei declaraţii nu s-a răspândit doar în instituţiile de învăţământ, ci a fost prezent şi în alte sfere ale societăţii, atrăgând atenţia asupra eşecului general al capitalismului neoliberal şi asupra aproprierii de către acesta a tuturor aspectelor vieţii.

Ceea ce a fost definit ca fiind „criza în educaţie”, criză care ar trebui remediată printr-un val de reforme, a fost tratat în termeni de criză economică, care trebuie contracarată prin măsuri de creştere a profitului. O omogenizare printr-un val de reforme a avut deja loc prin Procesul de la Bologna care a desemnat Aria Educaţiei Superioare Europene (AESE). Prin această regularizare a standardelor europene de comparabilitate, EUropa încearcă să pătrundă şi să ajungă în fruntea unei economii a cunoaşterii care devine tot mai competitivă şi să-şi maximizeze profitul bazat pe domeniul cercetării prin stabilirea, în paralel, a Ariei de Cercetare Europeană (ACE). Dislocarea sistematică a structurilor democratice din universităţile din Austria s-a întâmplat odată cu implementarea Procesului de la Bologna. Organisme alese democratic au fost reduse la un fel de comitete ale personalului, iar decanatul a devenit un organism de conducere singular (decanul fiind un fel de director executiv) care este verificat şi auditat de către un consiliu de supervizare din afara universităţii, aşa-numitul Consiliu al Universităţii.

Nu doar că universităţile sunt din ce în ce mai mult conduse după modelul corporaţiilor, dar, în acelaşi timp, are loc o tranziţie lină către procesul la care au fost supuse multe dintre şcolile private din zona anglo-americană sau internaţională. Universităţile sunt conduse DE CĂTRE corporaţii. Un exemplu în care direcţia interesului acţionarilor corporatişti este vizibilă este în cazul corporaţiei media internaţionale Bertelsmann care a vândut recent acţiunile de la Sony, afirmând că încep să investească în educaţie, deoarece aceasta a devenit mai profitabilă decât industria de muzică1. Prin procesele de reformă, a fost creată o economie a educaţiei în care cunoaşterea este o marfă vandabilă. Rezultatul nu este doar că educaţia a ajuns să fie considerată profitabilă, dar şi că educaţia în sine poate fi măsurată şi vândută. Aceasta se leagă de principiile completei privatizări şi comodificări a societăţii în capitalismul neoliberal. În Australia, de exemplu, una dintre cele mai mari competitoare ale EUropei pe piaţa educaţiei internaţionale, serviciile legate de educaţie sunt considerate a treia industrie exportatoare, după extracţia de cărbune şi fier, conform cifrelor din 2006-2007.2

1 Vezi: http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachrichten/nachricht/2488718.html; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2126f740-631b-11dd-9fd0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

2 Vezi datele Biroului Australian de Statistică: http://www.isana.org.au/files/AEI%20March%20sshot%20expt%20income.pdf

15

Academia de Arte din Viena este squatată!

În urma nemulţumirilor care au apărut din cauza lentorii procesului prin care s-a încercat să se negocieze democratic viitorul instituţiei, a fost stabilită de către studenţii şi profesorii Academiei o întâlnire publică în faţa clădirii principale, pe data de 20 octombrie 2009. A fost citită o declaraţie care cerea reinstituirea structurilor democratice care au fost sistematic îndepărtate pe parcursul stabilirii unui sistem de competitivitate crescută şi de comodificare a instituţiei şi a tot ceea ce există între zidurile ei. O listă de revendicări precis articulate i-a fost adresată decanului. I s-a cerut acestuia să-şi îndeplinească datoria şi să reprezinte poziţia instituţiei în loc să marşeze pe interesele sale profesionale şi de profit în negocierea Acordului Bugetar cu Ministerul Ştiinţei şi Cercetării, negociere care urma să aibă loc a doua zi. A fost citită o proclamaţie de solidaritate cu toţi protestatarii împotriva reformei educaţiei din întreaga lume, cu protestatarii din Bangladeş, Brazilia, Croaţia, Finlanda, Franţa, Germania, Marea Britanie, Grecia, India, Iran, Italia, Japonia, Olanda, Serbia, Africa de Sud, Corea de Sud şi SUA. Apoi, cei aproximativ 250 de protestatari au intrat în clădire şi au ocupat aula magna, cel mai reprezentativ spaţiu din instituţie. Squaterii au organizat un plen bazat pe o structură democratică grassroots şi s-a decis că spaţiul va rămâne ocupat până când revendicările lor vor fi îndeplinite.

Două zile mai târziu, un grup de studenţi şi profesori de la Academie au protestat în faţa Ministerului Ştiinţei şi Cercetării, exprimându-şi nemulţumirea faţă de Acordul Bugetar şi declarând faptul că resping acest acord, un contract cu efecte legale care defineşte performanţa Academiei în raport cu suma de finanţare acordată de Minister, acord care a fost negociat într-un mod total netransparent şi nedemocratic la momentul respectiv. Grupul de demonstranţi şi-a continuat protestul, mergând în amfitreatrele şi spaţiile reprezentative a mai multor universităţi, prezentând situaţia, luând cu ei studenţii şi profesorii întâlniţi acolo, iar în felul acesta, asemenea efectului bulgărelui de zăpadă, grupul s-a mărit până când demonstraţia a ajuns în cea mai mare sală de conferinţe a Austriei, unde s-a ţinut un plenum care a declarat că spaţiul respectiv e squatat. Caracterul reprezentativ al acestei mari săli de conferinţe a atras imediat atenţia presei care, de atunci, s-a concentrat exclusiv asupra evenimentelor din acel spaţiu în prezentarea protestelor, chiar dacă în următoarele zile, protestele s-au extins rapid şi în alte universităţi din Austria şi s-au unit cu cele din alte ţări din Europa, ajungându-se în felul acesta ca sute de mii de oameni să iasă pe străzi ca să protesteze. În acest moment sunt squatate 76 de universităţi din nouă ţări din Europa, altele adăugându-se permanent.3

Discurs emancipator şi descentralizare

Procesele de organizare ale protestelor au fost structurate în mod democratic, pe baza principiilor grassroots de luare a deciziilor în comun, prin intermediul plenurilor. Grupurile de lucru şi-au împărţit în mod egal atât sarcinile practice cât şi pe cele de analiză şi reflecţie asupra desfăşurării protestelor, prin această organizare menţinându-se o fluctuaţie dinamică a celor care participă. Intenţia stabilirii unor forme de comunicare non-ierarhică, prin intermediul câtorva reguli de bază, a avut scopul să-i încurajeze pe toţi cei prezenţi să contribuie activ la discuţie. Deoarece reprezentarea protestatarilor este o misiune pe care nicio persoană nu ar putea şi nu ar trebuie s-o îndeplinească singură, este extrem de important să nu se aleagă doar un purtător de cuvânt ci să existe o rotaţie a celor care vorbesc. Consecinţa este că se reduc discursurile programate neuro-lingvistic (limbajul de lemn), iar revendicările şi ideile grupurilor sunt prezentate într-o manieră care nu este exersată dinainte sau precondiţionată. Această formă de comunicare directă reprezintă un act de vorbire emancipatoriu, pentru că codurile existente de limbaj comodificat, vorbirea ca mijloc de „a-ţi vinde marfa”, sunt respinse prin însuşi mecanismul actului vorbirii.

Un alt element semnificativ, rezonând pe parcursul protestelor la toate nivelurile, a fost descentralizarea. Aceasta a decurs din însuşi procesul de de-democratizare a universităţilor, proces care s-a desfăşurat pe parcursul ultimilor ani, şi prin care toate organismele de reglementare legitimizate democratic au fost reduse la o faţadă pseudo-democratică şi, în consecinţă, lipsite de orice putere. Faptul că protestele nu au fost conduse de indivizi aleşi ca lideri prin procedurile democraţiei reprezentative şi faptul că ele nu au fost asociate cu niciun partid parlamentar, i-a luat prin surprindere pe politicieni, cum ar fi decanii sau cei din Ministerul Ştiinţei şi Cercetării, care nu au

3 www.tinyurl.com/squatted-universities; pagină consultată pe 25 noiembrie 2009

16

ştiut cum să facă faţă şi cum să se raporteze la proteste. Descentralizarea nu se referă doar la fluctuaţia celor care reprezintă protestele, fluctuaţie menţionată mai sus, ci şi la acţiuni directe, aşa cum ar fi squatarea temporară a biroului vice-decanului Academiei de Arte, squatarea sălii de mese din Ministerul Ştiinţei şi Cercetării sau ocuparea scenei în timpul unei piese la Burgtheater, cel mai renumit teatru din Viena.

Să luăm toată bucătăria, fir’ar ea să fie

În ansamblu, protestele nu s-au limitat la de-ierarhizare, la aproprierea spaţiului/spaţiilor, la auto-organizare şi la analizarea condiţiilor de muncă şi de studiu. Ele au fost, mai degrabă, dominate de cereri, critici şi revendicări care merg dincolo de contextul imediat al educaţiei şi universităţilor, şi care se extind asupra identificării felului în care logica pieţei capitalismului neoliberal a infiltrat toate sferele vieţii, transformându-le în marfă şi izolându-le una de alta prin politici de excluziune rasiste şi sexiste care deteriorează tocmai colectivitatea pe care protestele şi-au propus s-o stabilească. O dovadă pentru autenticitatea protestelor este şi înţelegerea că lupta pentru un sistem de educaţie mai bun nu poate fi redusă doar la sistemul de educaţie ci, de fapt, depinde de întregul sistem social şi trebuie să reflecte nevoia de a schimba întreaga structură a acestuia, schimbare realizată nu prin omogenizarea unor reforme de sus în jos ci prin democraţie grassroots. Nu este vorba să ceri o bucată mai mare din plăcintă, sau să vrei toată plăcinta doar pentru tine, ci trebuie să iei afurisita de bucătărie cu totul.

Strategiile de apropriere ale protestelor de către diferiţi actori politici au început două săptămâni mai târziu. Aceste strategii au culminat cu declaraţii absurde de solidarizare din partea unor grupuri cum ar fi cel al Administraţiei de stat din Burgenland. Acest fel de grupuri, cât şi decani şi alţi reprezentanţi ai universităţilor au început să instrumentalizeze elanul protestelor pentru propriile lor scopuri, cum ar fi stabilirea unor înţelegeri şi politici bugetare adiţionale. Chiar şi ministrul Ştiinţei şi Cercetării a mulţumit protestatarilor pentru că l-au pus într-o poziţie avantajoasă în negocierile bugetare cu ministrul Finanţelor. Totuşi, măsurile represive violente care au fost luate în Statele Unite şi în Germania împotriva protestatarilor pasnici4 sunt în contradicţie cu măsurile „reformate” de apropriere sau de “preluare non-ostilă a afacerii”.

Revoltele şi protestele mişcării din 1968 (care fuseseră decalate cu câţiva ani în Austria) au lăsat în urmă o înţelegere din partea autorităţilor a faptului că eventualele viitoare proteste ar trebui tratate strategic, o înţelegere a faptului că măsurile represive pot fi contra-productive. În schimb, instrumentalizarea protestelor neutralizează orice subversiune. Strategiile de apropriere au evoluat apoi, în condiţiile unui sistem neoliberal în dezvoltare, sistem în cadrul căruia mulţi dintre cei din generaţia ‘68 deţin acum poziţii cheie. Pe lângă strategiile de apropriere, au fost şi strategii de infantilizare, care pot fi văzute ca fiind mai degrabă binevoitoare. Acestea sunt inerente însăşi structurii educaţiei tradiţionale, în care profesorul cunoscător câştigă control asupra celor neînvăţaţi prin ridiculizare, împărtăşind din cunoştinţele lui strategic, atunci când crede de cuviinţă. Bazându-se pe propria lor biografie, caracterizată de trecerea de la Marx la economia de piaţă, reprezentanţii sistemului acceptă o oarecare doză de rebeliune, de vreme ce o înţeleg ca pe un proces educaţional prin care presupuşii lor succesori învaţă tehnici şi strategii politice care vor fi fundamentale pentru îndeplinirea viitoarelor lor funcţii şi a viitoarelor lor sarcini. Protestele din domeniul educaţiei sunt transformate în proteste educaţionalizate.5

Arta şi şcolile de artă ca paradigme pentru capitalismul neoliberal

Faptul că protestele din domeniul educaţiei au fost iniţiate în Austria într-o instituţie de artă nu este un fapt lipsit de importanţă. De vreme ce logica (neo-)liberalismului se bazează pe libertatea individului, artistul/a şi libertatea lui/ei artistică se potriveşte perfect cu acest sistem. De fapt, nu numai că există dorinţa şi trendul de a aduce instituţiile de artă mai aproape de industriile creative vandabile, dar arta şi educaţia artistică pot fi văzute ca fiind chiar paradigma pentru capitalismul

4 De exemplu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOI5l2_RghQ; http://ow.ly/Ehjx, http://twitpic.com/qb6qu; http://tinyurl.com/yglzurr; http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/22/california.student.protest/index.html; http://www.bildungsstreik-hd.de/2009/11/22/gewaltsamer-polizeieinsatz-gegen-landesweite-bildungsstreik-demonstration-in-stuttgart/

5 „Educaţionalizarea capitalului” este o expresie folosită prima oară de Stewart Martin in „Pedagogia capitalului uman.” Vezi:

http://www.metamute.org/en/Pedagogy-of-Human-Capital

17

neoliberal, cu artistul şi producătorul cultural ca modele pentru o piaţă a muncii care este tot mai neoliberalizată6. Flexibilitatea şi infinita creativitate împreună cu auto-disciplinarea şi cu relaţiile de muncă precare sunt la baza profesiei artistice.

Implementarea reformelor legate de Procesul de la Bologna la Academia de Arte din Viena, reforme cum ar fi înlocuirea vechiului sistem din universităţi cu structura B.A./M.A. (structură care împarte anii de studiu în perioada finalizată prin diploma de licenţă şi perioada de masterat- n.tr.), a fost întârziată din cauza unei ciudate alianţe între susţinători ai tradiţiei şi între cei mai progresişti, alianţă care a ţinut procesul în suspensie. Mulţi dintre susţinătorii tradiţiei s-au simţit ameninţaţi de reforme, din cauza orientării reformelor către ştiinţă şi către modele ştiinţifice, o sferă academică care le ameninţa atât cunoştinţele cât şi refugiul lor în „autonomia artei”. Generaţia mai progresistă, pe de altă parte, nu credea în autonomia artei, dar fiind supuşi unor condiţii de muncă precară şi unei logici de piaţă orientate spre profit, s-au opus, de asemenea, reformelor. Astfel, această simbioză dubioasă a făcut ca noul sistem să stagneze.

Povestea Ucenicului vrăjitor, scrisă de Goethe, începe cu un bătrân maestru vrăjitor care îl lasă pe ucenicul său să facă treburile în laborator. Sătul de sarcinile plictisitoare, ucenicul vrăjeşte o mătură ca să-i aducă ea apa de la fântână. Nefiind destul de învăţat ca să controleze mătura fermecată, el încearcă s-o distrugă, făcând-o bucăţi cu un topor. Dar bucăţile devin alte mături care continuă să-şi facă treaba, ieşite din control. Măturile progresiste se întorc împotriva noului lor stăpân. Povestea se încheie, totuşi, cu bătrânul vrăjitor care se întoarce acasă şi rupe vraja, măturile fiind dezvrăjite şi totul întorcându-se la vechea ordine. Nici sistemul stăpânului bătrân nici cel al celui tânăr nu pot să-şi păstreze stabilitatea fără puţină magie, dar metoda stăpânului bătrân a reuşit deocamdată să pună măturile la punct.

În cazul Academiei, colaborarea dintre susţinătorii vechiului sistem şi cei mai progresişti funcţionează, pe când vraja incontrolabilă a noului sistem neoliberalizat scoate lucrurile din ordinea lor – nu pentru că este considerat neapărat ca fiind cel mai prost sistem, ci pentru că cei care au depins de vechea structură un timp îndelungat adaptează orice tendinţă de progres propriului lor model. Ironia este că această înclinaţie către „autonomia” artistică seamănă foarte mult cu „libertatea” artistică care-i permite artistului să creeze un perfect model neoliberal. Întreaga logică începe să se învârtească în acest punct – ca un câine în jurul cozii.

O profesie bazată în mare parte pe individualism, imagine şi unicitate a ajuns la propria ei criză, în timp ce studenţii şi profesorii grevişti au încetat să se mai înveţe unii pe alţii şi pe ei înşişi cum să se individualizeze şi mai mult. Au încetat să facă acest lucru atunci când s-au unit ca să se opună împreună structurii. După ce s-au învârtit în cerc ani de zile, după ce au fost într-un pericol serios să ameţească şi să cadă, a venit momentul în care protagoniştii au reuşit, în sfârşit să prindă lucrul după care alergau în cerc, moment în care şi-au dat seama că, de fapt, după propria lor coadă au alergat în toţi anii aceştia. Arta şi educaţia servind capitalul şi servind ca modele pentru capital au fost expuse ca atare. Totuşi, nu trebuie să rămânem prinşi în celebrarea acestui moment, ci să continuăm să chestionăm şi să punem în discuţie acest moment ca pe un moment de tranziţie, în loc să folosim colectivismul ca pe un exerciţiu pentru crearea personalităţilor noastre unice şi inovatoare pe care să se bazeze viitoarele noastre cariere. Structura care a fost întreruptă şi chestionată nu trebuie să se reîntoarcă ciclic la aceeaşi structură. De fapt, marea ironie a situaţiei nu este aceea că actualul val de proteste internaţionale a izbucnit într-o ţară ca Austria, care e dominată de tradiţia „parteneriatului social”. 7 Ci constă în faptul că şcoala de artă, care este doar o componentă a maşinăriei de producere de indivizi neoliberali a ieşit la suprafaţă, expunând întregul paradox al sistemului construit în jurul lor.

„Criza din educaţie” şi criza capitalistă

Cum poate fi folosită această tranziţie într-un mod constructiv cu scopul de a continua aceste ocupări a spaţiilor şi această rezistenţă şi, mai important, cu scopul de a restructura problematicele

6 De exemplu: http://eipcp.net/transversal/1106/lorey/en7 O relaţie de cooperare între sindicat şi Camera austriacă de comerţ, cu scopul de a elimina conflictele social-politice prin politici agreate consensual –

făcând astfel imposibile radicalismul, protestele sau antagonismul.

18

sisteme cum ar fi cel de educaţie şi alte sisteme asociate acestuia, cum ar fi cel de artă? Cum pot fi aceste sisteme restructurate de jos în sus pe viitor? Unii protestatari s-au referit la crearea unui „scenariu la infinit” ca model de protest, conform căruia spaţiile care au fost revendicate şi apropriate să rămână auto-organizate, fără niciun compromis. De fapt, în îndelungata istorie a reformelor neoliberale, cel mai profund punct de de-politizare a fost probabil deja atins, şi protestele globale privind educaţia ar putea marca punctul de cotitură după care să urmeze re-politizarea. În acest sens, este necesar să se ia în considerare actuala „criză” din educaţie ca fiind direct proporţională cu criza economică. Această corelaţie arată foarte clar încercările de a transforma educaţia în noua frontieră în care criza capitalistă să-şi investească resursele împuţinate şi, în consecinţă, repetăm… NU VOM PLĂTI NOI PENTRU CRIZA VOASTRĂ!

Criza economică care, de fapt, reflectă eşecul capitalismului însuşi, capitalism care e un sistem bazat în mod fundamental pe inegalitate, excludere şi crearea categoriei „celălalt”, sistem care duce la moartea „celuilalt” pentru profit8, arată, de fapt, un nivel extrem al unei crize sociale generalizate. Acest lucru trebuie luat în considerare şi lupta trebuie să se facă împotriva tuturor crizelor aflate în interdependenţă, nu doar împotriva crizei din educaţie. Dacă acest lucru nu este luat în considerare, atunci va rezulta cu siguranţă o repetiţie şi reproducere a realităţii capitaliste atotcuprinzătoare.

Drept de rezidenţă şi libertate de mişcare pentru oricine

În timpul plenurilor, interviurilor, a prezentărilor şi discursurilor, persoane care nu avuseseră în prealabil o uşurinţă de a vorbi în public au fost vizibile. Acest lucru are două potenţialităţi, aşa cum am menţionat mai sus. Pe de-o parte, poate pregăti manageri mai buni, dar pe de altă parte poate crea o structură descentralizată de discuţie şi reprezentare democratică. Beneficiul acestei situaţii pentru cei care nu sunt capabili să vorbească bine şi cărora li se dă o şansă să o facă, este un început. Dar ceea ce este important să se aibă în vedere este diferenţa faţă de cei care nu pot vorbi deloc, pentru că nu li se dă voie să vorbească (femeile care sunt în mod sexist defăimate şi atacate, musulmanii care sunt huiduiţi afară din spaţiul public, migranţii care sunt ignoraţi, etc.) şi diferenţa faţă de cei care nu-şi permit să fie prezenţi. Aceştia din urmă sunt cei care fac munci precare ilegale sau semi-legale la orice oră din zi şi din noapte, în timp ce sunt supuşi legilor de imigrare rasiste9 şi rasistei Legi universitare10 şi în timp ce trebuie să obţină note mari la examene şi să dovedească un nivel maxim de productivitate în studiile lor pentru a putea rămâne legal în ţara în care studiază. Întorcându-ne mai degrabă la metafora despre muşcatul propriei cozi, în locul învârtirii în jurul cozii: cei care-şi petrec timpul căutând mâncare nu au timp să îşi vâneze coada. Revendicarea centrală a protestatarilor, „educaţie liberă şi gratuită pentru toată lumea” poate fi îndeplinită numai dacă există libertate de mişcare pentru toată lumea , dincolo de graniţele naţionale şi supranaţionale.

Ultimul Acord de la Lisabona a propus să se facă un amendament la următorul acord (din decembrie 2009) stabilind educaţia ca fiind cea de-a cincea libertate de mişcare în UE, pe lângă capital, servicii, bunuri şi cetăţeni, cu scopul de a întări bazele Ariei Educaţiei Superioare Europene, susţinută de Procesul de la Bologna. Obiectivele profitabile ale creării unei Arii a Educaţiei Superioare Europene, care se presupune că va aduce o „nouă Renaştere”11 în Europa, ar începe să se năruie dacă ar fi comparate realitatea mobilităţii cu cea a migraţiei.

8 „Necropolitica şi necroeconomia, metode de acumulare practicate în contexte coloniale de actori economici specifici – corporaţii multinaţionale, de exemplu – care includ exproprierea, moartea, tortura, sinuciderea, sclavia, distrugerea mijloacelor de trai şi violenţa controlată.” Vezi Subhabrata Bobby Banarjee, „Live and Let Die: Colonial Sovereignties and the Death Worlds of Necrocapitalism,” Borderlands ejournal, Volume 5, Number 1, 2006.

9 În Austria, pentru a primi sau extinde permisul de reşedinţă, un student care nu provine dintr-o ţară UE/CEE trebuie să prezinte dovada că deţine cel putin €6,210 pe an, precum şi dovada că a studiat, că şi-a terminat studiile minime, că nu are cazier etc. Pentru studenţi e imposibil să ajungă la această sumă în mod legal, pentru că dreptul lor de muncă este limitat strict la cel mult €300 pe lună.10 Deşi oficial se spune că s-au „abolit,” taxele de şcolarizare încă există în Austria. Amendarea legii universitare din 2008 nu a introdus decât scutirea pentru anumite grupuri de studenţi, cel mai mare dintre aceste grupuri fiind cel al studenţilor austrieci şi provenind din UE. Studenţii din ţări ne-membre UE plătesc aceleaşi taxe ca şi înainte de 2008.11

Vezi Raportul Comisiei Europene: „Pregătind Europa pentru o nouă renaştere – vedere de ansamblu asupra cercetării europene”: ec.europa.eu/research/erab/publications_en.html. Pentru o analiză a rădăcinilor coloniale ale Renaşterii, vezi Walter Mignolo “The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Colonization and the Discontinuity of the Classical Tradition” („Obrazul întunecat al Renaşterii: Colonizarea şi discontinuitatea tradiţiei clasice”) Renaissance Quarterly, Vol 45, No. 4 (Winter, 1992), pp. 808–828.

19

În consecinţă, am dori să facem şi noi un amendament la declaraţiile şi revendicările pe care le-am făcut până acum, declarând că până când menţionata realitate socială nu este confruntată, democraţia nu poate funcţiona cu adevărat. Prin urmare, propunem, ca pe un prim pas, ca suma de 34 de milioane de euro care a fost acordată ca o măsură de urgenţă universităţilor de către Minister12 să fie folosită ca platformă de finanţare pentru ca ORICINE – gândindu-ne la cei supuşi politicilor opresive rasiste şi sexiste – să poată participa la proteste, astfel ca protestul real să poată, de fapt, să înceapă. Mai mult, următoarea măsură ar trebui să fie ca viitoarele sume să fie alocate creării şi menţinerii unei platforme care să asigure în continuare această participare democratică. Doar atunci vom putea continua să ne articulăm revendicările şi să ne direcţionăm atenţia asupra schimbărilor din structurile universitare, plănuind investiţiile financiare viitoare. Progresul real, care nu reproduce formele discriminatorii ale avantajului şi dezavantajului inegal, este posibil doar dacă se încearcă în mod direct demolarea fiecărei structuri de opresiune care a fost în mod conştient adresată în timpul protestelor. Dacă aceste lupte sunt izolate unele de altele, ele vor ajunge, în mod inevitabil, să fie parte din aproprierea capitalistă a tuturor sferelor existenţei. O schimbare radicală poate avea loc doar dacă diferitele lupte pentru această schimbare se asociază.

25 noiembrie 2009Traducere din limba engleză:h.arta

http://eipcp.net/projects/creatingworlds/dokuzovic-freudmann/en

Culture and Education or Spillover Knowledge Economies

Lina Dokuzović

The production of knowledge and of cultural or artistic practices has been inextricably linked throughout history, whether having been formally recognized, taking place in accredited institutions or not. However, there has been a recent rise in institutionalized interdisciplinary programs between culture and the sciences, PhD in artistic practice programs, artistic research programs, the emphasis on the “educational turn” in culture, curating and art, museal teaching programs, among others that link culture, education and knowledge production. These programs are marketed as hot new perspectives and have frequently been used as a selling point for placing universities, museums as well as other institutions on the map internationally. At the same time, with interrelational practices in culture and education or knowledge production having a long history,[1] the disregard of both that history as well as the political conditions and societal implications of their interrelations in the process of founding such interdisciplinary programs becomes peculiar.[2] It is also peculiar that while these programs are popping up all over the world, but particularly within Europe, that the fields of culture and education have consistently undergone drastic budget cuts and radical austerity measures nevertheless.

Pitching such interdisciplinary programs as new radical institutional perspectives not only co-opts existing practices and marketizes them, it outlines measures for a new double-standard in public recognition and financial support. This article will, therefore, outline that double-standard by initially breaking down how it is concretely applied in European Union cultural policy and look at how the EU’s broad notion of culture links to harnessing knowledge production in the first part. The second part of this article will then approach the adverse by-products or trickle-down effects of those measures, looking at the exclusion undergirding inclusion, as well as the differing perspectives on the notion of “spillover.”

Interdisciplinarity, innovation and clustering

In May 2007, the European Commission proposed an agenda for Culture, based on three common 12 Această suma, o mică picătură în bazinul tuturor universităţilor austriece, a fost acordată după ce fusese iniţial trecută la reduceri de buget. În final, a fost păstrată în „rezerva ministrului”ca o măsură disciplinară.

20

objectives, one of which is “culture as a catalyst for creativity.”[3] According to that document, cultural industries have become the fastest growing industries in many European nations.[4] In times of economic crisis, the relevance of that information becomes significant and has brought greater attention to cultural policy on an EU level. Reports, such as the Eurostat, have stated that culture functions hand in hand with knowledge production, particularly within higher education, allowing increased mobility between the two; culture has immense potential in integrating women into developing markets, particularly when interlinked with education[5]; and it significantly supports the growth of related sectors, especially in conjunction with knowledge production regarding the innovative potential necessary for scientific research and technological development. The “Interim Evaluation of the Culture Programme 2007–2013” states that:

“This contribution of culture to Europe’s economic development is of increasing interest given the recent global economic downturn. The cultural sector operates in an international and rapidly changing environment where transnational co-operation, mobility, international circulation and the capacity to work on an international level are becoming more and more important. The impact of the crisis on international cultural co-operation cannot yet be fully understood, as it may take some time before public funding cuts at the national level, or reductions in private sponsorship begin to affect the capacity of project promoters to find matching national funding. However the first indications are that budget cuts are taking place, which raises new challenges for cultural operators who wish to engage in international co-operation and also highlights the importance of EU support for such co-operation.”[6]

The benefits that culture has been reported to have for other industries has officially been recognized by the European Commission, in which its significance is not only observed independently, but has subsequently also been shifted from one particular agenda to “mainstreaming culture to all relevant policies”[7] for the support of innovative growth and development. That impact on innovation via proximity to culture is known as “spillover,” in which a wide range of industries receive maximal benefits through culture at minimal cost, i.e. “knowledge spillovers occur when new ideas and technologies developed by creative businesses are fruitfully applied elsewhere without compensation.”[8] Innovation is vital as it is a main objective for resolving some of the EU’s major economic and social challenges in today’s competitive knowledge economy in which Research and Technological Development (RTD) plays a great role. RTD is the main agenda of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and European Research Area (ERA), which were established through the Bologna Process reforms as the designated space of the European knowledge economy. RTD is one of the priorities, if not the main priority, for bringing Europe ahead as a globally competitive knowledge economy.[9]

The European Commission states that: “The link between education and culture is a thread running through the EU’s policies on education, which will be continued, for example, under the Lifelong Learning programme.”[10] The Lifelong Learning Program (LLP) is a European umbrella program for funding. Its main agendas include supporting maximal mobility in the EHEA and tapping into otherwise unrelated areas of industry through its “transversal” programs,[11] which provide for increased spillover potential. With the high capacity for spillover between culture and education, the university becomes the ideal space for implementing such agendas. Initiatives that manage to structure the power of spillover, which bring together as many industries as possible to benefit form each other at minimal cost, can be seen in so-called “cluster” building, particularly in the building of the so-called “creative cluster.” Clusters are concentrations of various interconnected interests and industries which support fruitful competitive growth. They can exist on a concrete geographic level, for example, the clustering of tourism, gastronomy, pedagogy and culture in the European Capital of Culture project or they can exist on an abstract budgetary level, such as partnering Ministries of Education and Science/Innovation to private industries through third-party funding for interdisciplinary research projects. Clusters on the university level can thereby create “clusters of excellence” – referring directly to the “excellence” that is reached when satisfying the standardized statistical outputs normalized by the educational reforms – which then in turn substantiate greater public funding for those institutions. So in effect, Lifelong Learning provides the ideal framework for spillover, with clustering providing the ideal strategy.

21

While spillover may represent the economic advantages of clustering culture – whether that advantage is through the official yet vague and broad-ranging understanding and application of culture within EU policy on the one hand, or be it the production of art and culture as social constituent, on the other – basing prosperity on co-opted accident is a rather questionable approach to begin with. If the term “spillover” is taken literally, as something which is spilled over or leaked as the accidental result of actions or relations, then it must be understood as having both positive and negative effects rather than existing as pure serendipity.

Discipline, exploitation and exclusion

The global capitalist economy functions on a “flourish or perish” basis. In a supranational structure like the EU, nationality becomes abstracted and branded, allowing a large grouping of similar yet diverse nations to in fact function as an economic cluster in fruitful competition with one another in a confined space. Inclusion into this cluster, therefore, depends highly on potential gains, profit and innovation for that space – which in turn defines and reaffirms (supra-)national inclusion. Buzzwords like intercultural dialogue, affirmative action, integration and diversity management all indicate structural attempts at filtering the productivity that is tolerated and included or that which is not beneficial and thereby excluded. Those that have integrated into the standards outlined by such programs, guidelines and laws, deliberately or not, comply with the exploitative conditions of the market economy to varying degrees, depending on the level of their inclusion. However, those who refuse to integrate or who are not given the chance, due to more extreme forms of discrimination, suffer from a wide range of marginalization or complete exclusion.

When examining profit production via social exclusion in the current European economy in crisis, two parallel levels can be observed: first, EU-internal structures and secondly, the transgressive consequences that stretch beyond the space of the EU which are displaced to the peripheries through migration and deportation policies. This process can be observed in the segregated forms of the same action with, for instance, the free movement for capital, goods, services and citizens within the EU, and the simultaneous maintenance of deportation camps, “waiting rooms” and “security agencies,” which are both complex yet permeable structures, but which are also responsible for the hoards of unrecognized bodies on the shores and at the borders of the EU, such as in the case of Frontex.

On an EU-internal level, the flourish or perish concept has wide-ranging consequences. In the fields of culture and education, flourish means cluster with more profitable industries that can aid to innovation that in turn support multiple facets of industrial development, i.e. adapt the aims and structure of the very knowledge and culture produced to be maximally profitable. Perish, on the other hand, means be wiped out by austerity cuts in the shrinking public budget if the culture and knowledge produced is not profitable or desirable enough for the broader economy (not society). They are thereby either left to the shark pool of the private sector, forced to brand and modify themselves – or presented with methods of tightly framed integration into other fields through clustering. The result is that critical or experimental production in culture and knowledge becomes severed from the public sector and structurally marginalized and subject to precariousness from the very start. The notion of Lifelong Learning becomes the embodiment of spillover, as it is essentially a voluntary investment into production in all industrial sectors with the promise of eventual compensation, resulting in a new class of workers investing into what ends up being lifelong debt.

On an EU-external level, however, with the competition for building the strongest knowledge-based economy in the world providing an essential constituent in the EU’s external policy, those consequences become reflected differently. The level of productivity that an individual displays allows those “external” workers providing high innovative potential increased access to society in the EU, allowing maximal profit through their limited inclusion. Those individuals are in turn considered part of the export economy, because of the high amount that they invest into the area before leaving, taking any risks or maintenance costs with them. It is the same process as spillover for innovation on a globally competitive scale. When understanding the notion of mobility within the EU, it becomes clear that culture and education are key players in guest economies for maximally efficient and profitable innovation, allowing temporary marginal access to the EU, supporting profitable brain-drain and spillover for innovation, supporting guest consumer and export economies.[12] At the same time, however, universities in, e.g. the UK, are put under pressure to cooperate

22

with the Home Office or actually work together with deportation camps.[13]

Education and culture are key in understanding these structures, as they each supply a kind of “untapped” immaterial resource in their endless potential, maximally assisting in times of economic crisis in a crumbling economy based on limited and over-exploited material resources. Culture and education become increasingly profitable when linked together, and even more so when linked to migration policy, tourism or other (supra-)national clusters. By taking advantage of the inadvertent affects of culture, it can become integrated into all other industries with minimal costs and maximal returns, so it is crucial to observe a structural process of how money is being squeezed out of culture and education through budget cuts, but put back in a dispersed way when linked to RTD and industrial innovation.

Thereby the numerous internationally branded interdisciplinary programs emerging should also be seen from a different perspective. They embody the structure and notion of profitable clustering, highlight Lifelong Learning agendas with frequent voluntary investments and related debt, and manage to “discipline” experimental practices which may have not been perceived as profitable in the past. The exclusion of a long history of interrelational work in culture, from artistic research to radical pedagogy, manages to aid in disciplining the future of such practices by repackaging them as a product and as a discipline, in which a formal discipline “points to the issue it keeps under control.”[14] The whole complex process of repackaging, standardizing, commodifying and “disciplining” of these practices and histories visibly exposes the consequences of critical cultural and knowledge production: Spillover effects and innovation are supported, but critical potential is not. The former will be formally disciplined through integration and the latter via marginalization.

However, if we return to the notion of understanding “spillover” literally and consider disasters that result from accidents, perhaps this knowledge can be used in a different way. While, on the one hand, programs and policy agendas explore the transversal effects of spillover within lifelong learning and clustering, transversality, interrelational practices and living learning have been used as some of the most radical emancipatory practices for contesting precisely the discipline and exclusion of culture, the arts and knowledge. The notion of transversality has been used to question the division and structure of disciplines to begin with, and living learning[15] has been a means for strengthening fights for social justice by harnessing collective experiences and alternative knowledges gained from struggle by those excluded from the institutions where knowledge is disciplined. Such concepts have been part and parcel of struggles ranging from those against austerity measures to struggles for basic existential needs, and have re-articulated and created their own parallel histories, knowledges, arts and cultures.

It is not my aim to completely disqualify the value of institutionalized interdisciplinary programs. What I am trying to do though is to show that whether it takes place through mere questioning, sabotage or the re-appropriation of institutionalized knowledge to be brought back into struggles,[16] it is up to each of us to understand the complex processes taking place around us today, and to learn from a long history of radical artistic and cultural practices, autonomous educational practices, and the social and political potential that their overlaps and links generate in order to define how and under which terms we create and work with culture and knowledge. It is clear that “relevant” knowledge will not be given. It has been divided, quantified and is being sold to the highest bidder in a global competition. The histories and knowledges that are hidden, emancipatory and empowering must be retrieved, self-defined and continually re-assessed through lived experience and struggle.

[1] Making a selection of examples trivializes the history and complexity of these practices, but in order to clarify that point, I will attempt to show how vivid even a few of the most well-known examples are: e.g. Joseph Beuys’ lecture-performances as “social sculptures,” or his founding of the Free International University in which he attempted to collectively merge art, politics and education in the 1970s; the work of New Tendencies (NT) in Zagreb, which used emerging technologies to

23

explore the political potential of experimental art; or for literature, see Peter Weiss' novel, Aesthetics of Resistance, which explores a history of resistant “artistic research” from 1933–1945; or the creating worlds issue art/knowledge: overlaps and neighboring zones: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0311; among many many others.

[2] While some of the programs may very well refer to history, many of them are mainly practice-based. However, what I am explicitly referring to here is that by declaring something new and cutting edge, it implies that there was no “old” practice preceding it.

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc1199_en.htm

[4] E.g., regarding the UK: “The research also shows that the creative industries are more innovative than many other high-innovation sectors, for example professional and business services. What is more, the creative industries provide a disproportionate number of the innovative businesses in most parts of the country.” Caroline Chapain, Phil Cooke, Lisa De Propis, Stewart MacNeill, Juan Mateos-Garcia, “Creative Clusters and Innovation: Putting Creativity on the Map,” NESTA: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, Research report: November 2010, pg. 4.

[5] Eurostat, “Cultural Statistics,” 2011 Edition, Pocketbooks, European Union: 2011, pg. 48.

[6] Andrew McCoshan & James Rampton, “Interim Evaluation of the Culture Programme 2007–2013,” Final Report 2010, ECORYS UK on behalf of the European Commission DG Education and Culture, pg. i

[7] The Lisbon Treaty, Article 167, Paragraph 4; formerly EU Treaty, Article 151; See also: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc399_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc405_en.htm

[8] Ibid. pg. 24.

[9] For a critical perspective on innovation, see: http://eipcp.net/policies/cci and http://eipcp.net/transversal/0207

[10] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc405_en.htm

[11] http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/about_llp/about_llp_en.php

[12] Lina Dokuzović and Eduard Freudmann, “Fortified Knowledge: From Supranational Governance to Translocal Resistance”, The Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise, Volume 3, Dossier 2: On Europe, Education, Global Capitalism and Ideology, Ed. Marina Gržinić, Duke University: Jul 2010; http://trinity.duke.edu/globalstudies/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DokuzovicFreudmannGrzinicWKO3.2.pdf

[13] See, e.g. Valérie Hartwich, “Fortress Academy: The Points-Based Visa System and the Policing of International Students and Academics,” Manifesto Club Report, February 2010; or the map made by the countermapping qmary and £3Cs collectives, “counter/mapping: finding (y)our way through filters and borders”: http://www.countercartographies.org/activities-mainmenu-38/1-news/77-countermapping-qmary-map-released

[14] Hito Steyerl, “Aesthetics of Resistance? Artistic Research as Discipline and Conflict,” art/knowledge: overlaps and neighboring zones, creating worlds, Jan 2010; http://eipcp.net/transversal/0311/steyerl/en

[15] See, e.g. the concept behind and actions of Vidya Ashram, who base their collective movements around “Lokavidya” or living knowledge of the poor and of the whole of society: www.vidyaashram.org

[16] See the case of members of the social struggles, Rural Network, and the shack dwellers movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, in Durban, South Africa. Those movements claim that valid knowledge is not determined by the social hierarchies installed in the university, but is validated by

24

its use in practice in communal struggles. They refer to that knowledge as “living learning” and confronted the notions of “lifelong learning” by appointing members of their movements to infiltrate the university, bringing back relevant material for better articulating their collective struggle for basic needs, in which a “living archive” has been existing at the Abahlali baseMjondolo; Nigel C. Gibson, Anne Harley, Richard Pithouse, “Out of Order: A Living Learning for a Living Politics,” in: Lindela Figlan, Rev. Mavuso, Busi Ngema, Zodwa Nsibande, Sihle Sibisi and Sbu Zikode, Living Learning, The Church Land Programme (CLP), Durban: 2009.

http://eipcp.net/policies/dokuzovic/enCulture and Education or Spillover Knowledge Economies

Con-Demmed to the Bleakest of Futures: Report from the UK

Claire Bishop

In the last three months I’ve been organizing a series of public seminars at CUNY Graduate Center on “deskilling” in the arts since 1945, and in the article that follows I may have undergone some deskilling myself—from an art historian/critic who writes about art to a commentator on cultural policy. I apologize if the results are bland, bureaucratic and statistical; I’m finding my feet here. In what follows, I will argue that in the wake of the general election in May 2010, which resulted in a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition—the UK’s first coalition government since 1945—the ensuing cuts to culture cannot be seen as separate from an assault on welfare, education, and social equality. The rhetoric of an “age of austerity” is being used as a cloak for the privatization of all public services and a reinstatement of class privilege: a sad retreat from the most civilized Keynesian initiatives of the post-war period, in which education, healthcare, and culture were understood to be a democratic right freely available to all.

1. Background: CultureIn the UK, public funding for the arts is administered by Arts Council England via a government body called the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Following the change of power in May 2010, the DCMS asked Arts Council England to take a 29.6 percent cut to its budget. This translates as a cut from £449 million for the arts each year, to £350 million—the biggest cut to the arts since government funding began in 1940. In the years that followed, public expenditure on the arts was established with a mandate to promote the accessibility of culture to the British public and to operate at an “arm’s length” from government policy (an autonomy principle typical of the Cold War period).In recent decades, the Arts Council’s “arm’s length” policy has been severely strained, and particularly so since the neoliberal turn of Thatcher’s Conservative government (1979–1997), and again under Blair’s and Brown’s New Labour government (1997–2010). Both parties instrumentalized culture, but to different ends. Detecting that the arts were a vehicle of dissent, Thatcher enforced a populist, profit-making model: weaning culture off a welfare-state mentality and encouraging an entrepreneurial approach in which “bums on seats” became a more important criterion than “ideas in the head.”1 The shift did not close down culture but led to some powerful expressions of resistance, especially in film and theatre—even if the popular successes of this period were primarily musicals by Andrew Lloyd Webber. New Labour also viewed culture as an economic generator, but in a different fashion, recognizing the role of creativity and culture in commerce and growth in the “knowledge economy.”2 This included museums as a source of regeneration, but also investment in the “creative industries” as alternatives to traditional manufacturing.3 As such, New Labour adopted a far more openly instrumental approach to cultural policy than previous UK governments, and this extended to intervening in the National Curriculum to facilitate the development of creativity within schools as an equal to literacy and numeracy.4 They also introduced free admission to all museums, which—along with the Turner Prize, Saatchi’s collection, and the opening of Tate Modern in 2000—generated a massive popular audience for the consumption of culture in Britain. Labour advocated greater public participation in the arts, sought to develop culture in the regions, and to support the

25

training and integration of black and ethnic minorities into positions of cultural power through positive action “cultural diversity” schemes. Labour’s commitment to creativity was such that a Green Paper from 2001 even opens with the words “everyone is creative,” presenting the government’s mission as one that aims to “free the creative potential of individuals.”5 However, it is important to recognize that this aim of unleashing creativity was not designed to foster greater social happiness, the authentic realization of human potential, or the utopian imagination of alternatives, but rather to accelerate the processes of neoliberalism. In the words of sociologist Angela McRobbie, it aimed to produce “a future generation of socially diverse creative workers who are brimming with ideas and whose skills need not only be channeled into the fields of art and culture but will also be good for business.”6 In short, the emergence of a creative and mobile sector minimized reliance on the welfare state while also relieving corporations of the burden of being responsible for a permanent workforce. As such, it became important to develop creativity in schools, not so that everyone could be an artist (as Joseph Beuys declared), but because the population is increasingly required to assume the individualization associated with creativity: to be entrepreneurial, embrace risk, look after their own self-interest, be their own brands, and be free of dependence on the state.7 To cite McRobbie once more: the answer to so many problems across a wide spectrum of the population—e.g. mothers at home and not quite ready to go back to work full time—on the part of New Labour is “self employment,” set up your own business, be free to do your own thing. Live and work like an artist.8 But the present-day government has no such plan for perpetuating creativity as a cornerstone of the “knowledge economy,” as can be seen in the depth and types of cuts it has prioritized, in culture but more importantly in education (as I will discuss below). For example, it has disbanded Creative Partnerships, an organization dedicated to developing the creative capacity of individuals by employing artists, poets, writers, and musicians to work with schools and teachers in the most disadvantaged communities. It has also axed A Night Less Ordinary (which offered free theatre tickets to people under 26—a student body already faced with a hike in tuition fees) and Find Your Talent, two initiatives that encourage young people to participate in cultural activities. The educational charity Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) will have its budget halved to £19 million; it too provides access to the arts for children in over 2,500 schools. The underlying class agenda here is not difficult to detect. The middle class always finds a way for their children to take part in the arts, but children from poorer households require the assistance of state subsidies, which are precisely what is being cut.

2. Culture Since May 2010The funding cuts imposed on the DCMS by the Tory–Liberal Democrat coalition have occasioned a surprisingly concerted opposition from artists. Over 100 of them—including 19 Turner Prize winners and 28 previous nominees—signed a public letter to the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt (head of the DCMS). In it, they express concern for the fact that smaller museums and galleries, especially regional ones, will be worst hit, making the important point (true also for myself) that “many of us had our first inspiring encounters with art in these places.”9 In a letter to The Guardian, Patrick Brill (aka Bob and Roberta Smith) referred to the cuts as “an unprecedented war on culture,” while Tate director Nicholas Serota has described them as operating with “the ruthlessness of a blitzkrieg.”10 Depressingly, the chief executive of Arts Council England, Alan Davey, was in vocal support of the cuts, claiming that “it’s something we would have wanted to do anyway.”11In the midst of all this, it is worth remembering that in March 2007, the previous Labour government diverted £675 million from the arts to pay for the Olympics.12 But New Labour was also (in)famous for its numerous “quangos”—governmental agencies that acted as independent bodies of expertise and funding, but were perceived by many on the right to be draining financial resources. Under the new regime, dozens of quangos have been abolished, including the Council for Architecture and the Built Environment (which advised on long-term urban planning and design), the UK Film Council, and the Museums, Libraries, and Archives Council. The list of organizations to suffer cuts also includes eight small museums not decreed to be “national institutions”; their funding will be entirely halted by 2014–15, with the understanding that they “should be the responsibility of local communities.”13 These include the Horniman Museum—a gem of a time warp in South London with an insane taxonomy collection that finds space even for a pickled mermaid—which will lose 85 percent of its budget. The Geffrye Museum, an exquisite collection in Shoreditch devoted to interior design since

26

1600, will lose 75 percent of its budget. Three museums outside London will also see their funding grind to a halt: the People’s History Museum in Manchester, the Museum of Science and Industry (also in Manchester), and the National Coal Mining Museum (in Wakefield). These latter cuts are perhaps the most telling, because they reveal the government’s bias towards depoliticized forms of high culture. To cut the People’s History Museum is to effectively de-institutionalize the working class’s own history and ensure that its narrative will be presented by the victors. Axing funding to these institutions inevitably sends the message that such museums are dispensable, and that only commercially viable museums can continue to operate—a market-based logic that now looms over the country’s entire cultural and educational future. The National Theatre (which receives £19.7 million annually from the Arts Council) has already secured £10 million from Travelex, while Mastercard has stepped in to sponsor the South Bank Center’s 60th Anniversary of the Festival of Britain. This kind of corporate funding is not available to regional, less high-profile and less glamorous institutions, and moreover impedes long-term planning even for those who do manage to secure it.14 Arts Council England was told to pass only 15 percent of the cuts to “front-line” arts organizations—in other words, to preserve wherever possible the funding for “central” organizations in London (Royal Opera House, English National Opera, The Royal Ballet, the National Theater), which also happen to be the institutions that find it easiest to attract corporate and individual patronage, and whose ticket prices are the most prohibitively expensive to those on an average wage and below. One of the Arts Council’s new goals is to promote private philanthropy—but the UK lags far behind the US in this field. Although John Sainsbury has given a £25 million donation to the British Museum, and in 2008 the dealer Anthony d’Offay sold his £125 million collection to the Tate and National Galleries of Scotland for £26.5 million, these are isolated instances, since Britain lacks the philanthropic mentality that characterizes the US. While the US system is held up as a model, the fact that it is tied to the fortunes of the market means that it’s currently experiencing a 35 percent drop. Jeremy Hunt has offered to match £80 million of private donations with £80 million from the government over five years, yet this money has already been promised to organizations from the National Lottery, so it’s hardly a generous offer.15 Additionally, the UK has no tax incentive to encourage private philanthropy, since donors do not receive the tax break, only the charities (unlike the US, where private individuals gain from giving).

Even if incentives were in place, there is little to be said for the cultural benefits of a move to private and corporate funding. As can be clearly seen in the US, private funding hinders creativity and risk-taking, and promotes a blockbuster mentality that serves the patrons first and culture second; social status trumps cultural vitality every time. Some productions are fatally unattractive to sponsors: one of the most widely cited in defense of UK public funding has been Lucy Prebble’s Enron, a hugely successful play about corporate greed that began as a small-scale regional production before making it to London, and eventually Broadway. My experience of cultural funding in New York is that experimental projects rarely receive support, while private sponsorship encourages self-censorship and the triumph of market imperatives. But a deference to big business is explicitly being encouraged in the UK: another of the Arts Council’s stated new targets is to pay heed to the Foreign Office’s emerging power priorities (China, India, Brazil, Gulf states, Russia, Japan). The message seems to be that there’s funding for Chinese art (which paves the way for international commerce), but not for local history. And the latter will have to be looked after by the local populace, rather than valued as national patrimony. Such a reliance on local volunteerism is of course exemplary of what David Cameron calls the “Big Society”: ostensibly, a form of people power in which the public can challenge how services like libraries, schools, police, and transportation are being run, and potentially take them over (talk about deskilling!). Pitched as a “dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street,” the Big Society is basically a laissez faire model of government dressed up as an appeal to foster “a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social action.”16 It’s a thinly opportunist mask: asking wageless volunteers to pick up where the government cuts back, meanwhile privatizing services crucial to education, welfare, and culture.17 The Big Society is just another word for sacrifice: responsibility is devolved downward, and Jeremy Hunt (with a personal fortune of £4 million) tells us we all need to dig deeper to fund culture. The biggest sacrifice of all is demanded of the lower classes, who are the hardest hit by an “age of austerity” prompted by an obscenely reckless deregulated banking system, its bailout by the taxpayer, and exacerbated by

27

Britain’s commitment to the 2012 Olympics.18 3. Privatizing EducationAh, the Olympics. One of the many decisive moments in my departure from the UK higher education system in 2008 was the depressing diversion of funding away from postgraduate education to subsidize the 2012 Olympics. At the same time, it was one of Labour’s goals to get 50 percent of the population into higher education by 2010 (they failed; it remains somewhere in the 40s). This could only be done by making higher education a more commercial operation, and resulted in a constant pressure to accept more students (especially those from non-EU countries who pay the highest fees) and a culture of administration and accountability that decimated faculty energy for research. Accompanying this was a foreclosure of academic freedom: individual grants for doctoral study in the arts and humanities—already scarce and highly competitive—were replaced by thematic “block grant funding” running across several departments, so that prospective postgraduates would have to fit their proposed research area into predetermined themes. Faculty research grants in the Arts and Humanities, meanwhile, were subordinated to governmental agendas, pushing the humanities to engage in “useful” areas having very little to do with the humanities proper, including “Global Threats to Security,” “Ageing: Lifelong Health and Well-being,” and “Living with Environmental Change.”19Under the new coalition—best referred to in this context as “Con-Dem”—this coercion of the arts and humanities is about to become outright liquidation. The government body responsible for the public funding of universities, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), is cutting 80 percent of its teaching grant for universities and replacing it with income from tuition fees. The remaining 20 percent will be ring-fenced for four priority subject areas, referred to as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths). In other words, the teaching of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in universities will no longer receive state funding after 2014–15, forcing these departments to follow a market logic: degrees in these subjects can continue to be issued as long as there are enough students willing to pay high enough fees. This is a significant change in the ethos of education. Instead of giving funding directly to universities to administer as these institutions wish, the government will lend money to students to “invest” in a course (and their own career), which they will pay back, with interest, over the course of 25–30 years, according to each graduate’s level of income.20

There are two main points here: first, an attack on the humanities (and the critical thinking they stand for), and second, the privatization of education, which is no longer considered a democratic right and a channel for social mobility. Before I address these, a little context is necessary. Unlike the US, the UK has had a model of entirely free education since the 1940s. Following the end of World War II: tuition fees were covered by a local authority and were accompanied by a generous “maintenance grant” to support living expenses. Things continued in this vein until 1988, when Thatcher’s Education Reform Act sought to create a “market” in education, with schools and universities competing with each other for customers (pupils/students), universities funded according to their performance, and the abolishment of academic tenure. From a student’s perspective, not a huge amount changed until a decade later, when tuition fees were introduced and a means-tested maintenance grant was replaced by a government loan to be repaid as soon as graduates earn an income of £15,000 or more. At the moment, tuition fees are capped at £3,224 per student per year. Under the new system, fees will be at least £6,000 per year, with an option of rising to £9,000. (Given the prestige associated with scarcity, it is likely that most universities will raise their fees to the maximum amount.) The government claims that the poorest quarter of students will be better off under the new scheme, paying less per month in repayments—but for a longer amount of time (a mortgage-like life sentence of 25–30 years). There has been a great deal of number-crunching as to whether or not the proposed repayment scheme actually does leave students from low-income backgrounds better off, but it misses the ideological point.21 All students will be saddled with debt of at least £40–50K that will inevitably hit the poor hardest. (Even though the rich will not be allowed to repay their loans in one go, no statement has been made as to whether there will be a penalty if wealthy students do not take out a loan.) For the lowest income students, it will surely reduce the inclination to go to university altogether, despite Cameron’s tokenistic talk of a £150 million subsidy for scholarships for the poorest. (There are currently 750,000 students from lower economic backgrounds in higher education, and the proposed scholarships will only cover the first year of tuition fees.22) Dressed up

28

in a benign rhetoric of egalitarian progressiveness (now everyone can be educated—and in debt!), the blithe snobbery of the government’s position can be sampled by glancing at an article by Michael Gove, now Education Secretary, from 2003: “Anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place.”23 The arrogance and privilege of this statement beggars belief. It is utterly obscene that a post-war generation who enjoyed free education as a democratic right can now, while in government (as a result of that free higher education), condemn future generations to a lifetime of liability. Further assaults on the ability of low-income students to enter university have also been made by axing the Education Maintenance Allowance, a benefit that allows 16–18 year olds to stay in education, rather than feel pressured to go out and earn a living. An independent report by the Universities and College Union (UCU) finds that a number of universities are now at risk of closure—most critically those that teach “non-priority” areas (i.e. the arts and humanities), those without a large number of high fee-paying overseas students, and those that attract students from the poorest backgrounds.24 It’s a Darwinian mentality: universities with a strong track record in STEM, and in the corporate investment it already attracts, will survive, while the specialist arts colleges will fail. And those universities with the most to invest (in facilities, resources, services, the student experience) will be those able to charge the most—and this advantage will replicate itself by propagating an ever-wider gap.

All of which renders the government’s claim for making education more egalitarian and progressive through market choice a patent lie. The idea that students are best placed to decide what they should expect from higher education makes a mockery of the idea of education producing sound judgment in the first place (as Stanley Fish points out, “if students possessed it at the get-go, there would be nothing for courses and programs to do”).25 But such an objection contradicts the government’s most fundamental assumption—that what students want from higher education is value for money, not critical thinking about value itself. Faced with a future debt of up to £50,000 (if one takes into account loans necessary for accommodation and maintenance), there will inevitably be a decline in student enrollment for degrees in the humanities. As Martin McQuillan (Professor of Literary Theory at Kingston University) wryly observes, “The unregulated market being flawless, if all students choose “priority” subjects, then as a matter of dogma it is fine for Art History and Classics to go out of business.”26 Departmental closure is not unheard of: back in the 1980s, when the market principle was first introduced, numerous departments of Chinese, Russian, and Islamic Studies were shut down because there was insufficient demand for them.27 Perhaps more insidious, though, are the underlying class consequences of subjecting the humanities to a free market. Courses that deliver employability will thrive, while those that don’t will disappear—or be propped up by the children of the rich. It’s a policy that can only re-cement rigid class and cultural distinctions: “philosophy for the bourgeoisie; ‘vocational’ courses for the masses.”28 A number of academics, all from the Humanities, have vividly spoken out in public—although none of them have been Vice Chancellors in positions to take a practical stand. Several have used the metaphor of death to describe the withdrawal of support for the humanities, seen as the lifeblood of universities. Alex García Duttman (Professor of Philosophy at Goldsmiths) has argued that a university without humanities will survive only as a simulacrum of life, a death worse than death, a life of zombies, with students no longer being students but clients and consumers, and with academics no longer being academics but replaceable entities in a service industry designed to satisfy the desires of clients and consumers who pay a high price for such satisfaction. Today, the value of an academic is already measured against his ability to provide money by being successful at getting enormous grants. The model of the academic is the networker and the lobbyist, not the researcher and the teacher.29Terry Eagleton, former Professor of English at Manchester University, continues in a similar vein:What we have witnessed in our own time is the death of universities as centres of critique. Since Margaret Thatcher, the role of academia has been to service the status quo, not challenge it in the name of justice, tradition, imagination, human welfare, the free play of the mind or alternative visions of the future. … there is no university without humane inquiry, which means that universities and advanced capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. And the political implications of that run far deeper than the question of student fees.30

29

Eagleton’s point invites us to consider the urgent question of whether universities can indeed be run like businesses, or whether the academy—and the humanities in particular—is fundamentally inimical to commerce. As Bill Readings has argued, the university was once “linked to the destiny of the nation-state by virtue of its role as producer, protector, and inculcator of an idea of national culture.”31 Under neoliberalism, the university is no longer tied to the production of culture and moral values, but to the profit motive (or what has been called “academic capitalism”).32 The idea that the university might be a place where research cannot always be accounted for, where teaching cannot be reduced to supply and demand, is entirely foreclosed in the Con-Dem cuts. To quote García-Düttman once more, the life of the university “depends on a surplus, on the superfluous and the excessive, on what cannot be measured, calculated, integrated, put to work.”33The idea of state withdrawal from university funding is so deeply ideological that it barely needs to be stated. It is driven by a belief in the free market as the best way of organizing education, and seeks to curtail the freedom with which it has traditionally governed education and culture. Other European countries dealing with equally huge national deficits have decided to protect funding for universities, severely compromising Cameron’s statement that “We have no choice. We need change… it’s right that when it comes to doing this, successful graduates pay their share.”34 (The language of “there is no other choice” is one of the central rhetorical tenets of neoliberalism—recall Thatcher’s “there is no alternative.”) A language of personal accountability replaces one of social investment; in Tory eyes, only those who go to university should pay for it. (Is it only a matter of time before this logic is applied to hospitals too?) This line of thinking doesn’t even keep with neoliberalism’s ethos of socialized risk and privatized benefit (as was demonstrated so appallingly during the bank bailout), since it now privatizes risk at the individual level of education. As Fish comments, “Higher education is no longer conceived of as a public good—as a good the effects of which permeate society—but is rather a private benefit, and as such it should be supported by those who enjoy the benefit.”35 That the present generation of students, parents, and faculty has taken to the streets to protest against this threat to everyone’s future shows how profoundly this ideological shift in British education is being experienced.

ConclusionCompared to how the Con-Dem cuts will impact education, cultural funding is in a relatively stable position. But there is a still an underlying narrative tying both together. Culture—like the arts and humanities in education—is seen as an indulgence in “these difficult times” when vital social provisions (hospitals, housing benefit, and so forth) are all being cut back. But the attitude that the arts are a luxury—that they are intrinsically privileged, simply because they can’t be accommodated by a market logic—actually creates and perpetuates this lie: without public subsidies, culture and the humanities are actually transformed from human necessities into luxuries, becoming the preserve of a wealthy few. The fight against cuts to arts and humanities funding is not a question of defending a luxury, but should be seen as part of a broader opposition to the destruction of the welfare state and the whole principle of austerity measures in general, in which the working and lower middle classes have to bear the brunt of the bank bailout to sustain the status quo. The “age of austerity” is only a screen for the further dismantlement all public services in the UK (from the NHS to free education to public funding for the arts), the most civilized of Britain’s accomplishments in the twentieth century. The end of public funding is the end of the public sphere, our most progressive institutions, and their commitment to non-commercial activity as a good in its own right. It goes without saying that a subordination of cultural activities to market logic leads to the reinstatement of class division and privilege. Future generations of youth who want to improve their chances in life through higher education will not have the freedom of indecision and intellectual exploration available to them, and will instead need to make strategic financial decisions at the age of eighteen that will saddle them with lifelong debt. This is balancing budgets as class offensive, profoundly inimical to a socialized mentality in which everyone’s taxes pay for everyone’s education and society’s gain. Of course, dreaming of an alternative society, in which everyone has access to higher education as a democratic right, is decried by those in power as a lack of realism. In December, the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said, “I would feel ashamed if I didn’t deal with the way that the world is, not simply dream of the way the world as I would like it to be.”36 But what a sorry world it is when we can’t even envisage alternative horizons, such as addressing the deficit by other means: pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, scrapping Trident, and clamping down on corporate

30

tax evasion, for a start.37 Graduating in 1994, I was part of the last generation to receive a full maintenance grant and tuition fees from the UK government. My parents were in the lowest income bracket; I lived in the middle of nowhere (a small village in Wales), and went to a state school where there was never mention of students applying to university. I studied Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic—in the eyes of the present government surely one of the most futile subjects known to man, offering zero social and economic benefit. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life, but reading sagas and deciphering runes somehow kept my soul alive, as did the switch to Art History, and my eventual ability (only a decade later) to earn a living from this decision. It pains me unspeakably to see that the freedom of an open cultural horizon is no longer available to future generations, who will be piled up with debt from the age of 18, tied into a debtor-speculator model that so benefits neoliberal political elites. All power to the protests, and to spreading the word that there are alternatives: not everything can or should be subject to the rule of the market.

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/con-demmed-to-the-bleakest-of-futures-report-from-the-uk/

Everyone is Creative’. Artists as Pioneers of the New Economy?Angela McRobbie

To begin with I offer a critical commentary on the recent Green Paper (April 2001) titled Culture and Creativity The Next Ten Years (DCMS 2001a) and on the Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001 (DCMS 2001b). The attention to these papers is due to the new direction for policy drafted in the Green Paper, the informational material collated in Mapping Document and overall for government’s role in the process of ‘cultural individualisation’. This commentary also allows me to set the scene for the provisional arguments stated below. The issues engaged with are first the new phenomena of the arts and culture becoming a model for how economic growth is to be pursued and with this the patterns of freelance work and self employment associated with being an artist. Second there is an account of how the intensification of individualisation in this sector and the rolling back of the state has consequences for the very nature of arts and culture, and how the ‘talent-led’ economy leads to the emergence of new inequities. Finally I consider the prospects for ‘post-individualist’ practices in arts and culture as a requirement for democracy. Maybe this is the right moment to take note of a symptomatic inversion. In the past the arts and culture were in a sense overlooked by government and of relatively little interest to big business. They were consequently under-funded but possessing degrees of autonomy. In the post war years these realms came to be increasingly associated with social and political critique. But nowadays culture is of the utmost concern to commercial organisations and art seemingly ‘no longer questions the social’.

As the entrepreneurialisation of arts and culture becomes more normative there is also a decline and marginalisation of the sociological accounts of the world of arts and of cultural studies, both of which had hitherto flourished. Now they are even further removed from the realms of policy and legislation (despite a centre left government). In contrast the writer with the greatest impact on government who has been consistently dealing with the transition to the ‘new economy’ is Charles Leadbeater. Leadbeater is a journalist and policy advisor to New Labour and author of Living on Thin Air The New Economy a book which carried an enthusiastic blurb written by Tony Blair himself (Leadbeater 1999a). He is typically cast by sociologists as irresponsible in his enthusiasm for the successes and failures of the new entrepreneurial culture which he champions. His new right thinking is disguised by the breezy, youthful and characteristically modern tone of his writing. There is a tendency however on the part of both old left and mainstream social scientists to fail to confront the scale of the transition to more individualised cultural work, often of a freelance or self employed nature as a critical feature of UK labour markets. Instead old left critics bemoan a mantra of losses (the decline of trade unionism, the lack of interest in political culture among the young people who flood into these areas of employment, the loss of rights and regulations in employment from the period of the Thatcher government onwards) and fail to actually look at what is happening. This means they are unable to detach individualisation from capitulation to neo-liberal values. The individualised careers which are characteristic of work in this sector also are problematic to social scientists who

31

traditionally have been interested in the ‘mass worker’ or whose workplace studies have had the advantage of fixed location, duration of employment and visible hierarchies of power and responsibility. But these fast moving and precarious careers have a great deal to tell us about the dynamics of change, they can also provide a kind of concrete grounding for what social theorists have variously described as the shift from structures to flows, or the transition to ‘reflexive modernisation’. Thus as a starting point I want to propose that individualisation as manifest in the working practices of the cultural sector must be separated from neo-liberalisation. It is only by investigating individualisation-as-lived that we can recognise the possible spaces it opens up for critique of neo-liberalisation of arts and culture.

Individualisation is a strategy of government which in the context of the culture industries breathes fresh life into what had become a redundant modernist conception of individual creativity as an inner force waiting to be unleashed. Thus sweeping aside writing and scholarship on the social and collective processes of creative production (Becker 1982, Bourdieu 1993, Wolff 1981, Negus 1992) the current Green Paper seeks instead to resurrect a traditional notion of tapping into talent. The source of such talent is of course ‘the individual’ who if provided with the right kind of support can then be best left alone to his or her own devices to explore personal creativity unhindered by bureaucracy and red tape. Interestingly in the Green Paper it is children and young people, indeed babies, who are the focus of attention (1). This indicates how the workforce of the future is to be envisaged. The paper opens with the words ‘Everyone is creative’ and quite quickly the impact of Leadbeater’s ideas can be traced across the pages. The thinking expressed in this Paper is to further extend access to the arts and culture for producers and consumers alike with particular emphasis on those who in the past considered these fields as ‘not for them’. Thus the encouragement to the socially disadvantaged to develop their own creative capacities has a double purpose, to increase the employability of future generations including those from low income backgrounds by channelling creative talent in the direction of economic activity and at the same time to effect the transition from the mass worker to the individual freelance. Referring in passing to the range of new employability schemes from the New Deal to the Sure Start programme for pre school children the report sums these policies as being about ‘excellence’, ‘access’, ‘education’ and ‘economy’. The rhetoric is libertarian as the mission of government is to ‘free the creative potential of individuals’. To achieve this goal of ‘freeing excellence’ a number of initiatives are proposed including a Cultural Pledge which will involve finding creative partners for individual children in school by bringing in creative artists performers and others to work with children, setting up Culture Online an access the arts website and also the provision of ‘books for babies’.a gift from government in the form of library cards , babybooks and invitations to free story telling sessions. Alongside these are plans for Centres of Excellence, Specialist Arts Colleges and University Innovation Centres. Apart from the acknowledged socially valuable role of the arts and culture it is the possible contribution to economic growth which underpins these proposals for the reason that the culture industries are, the paper claims, ‘expanding at a rate of 16% per annum’.

This Green Paper brings together three elements , the individual, creativity (now extended to mean ‘having ideas’) and freedom. Bureaucracy and institutions stifle the creative process, the funding councils need to be able to make awards direct to individuals rather than to organisations, and the universities and art colleges receive little credit for the long tradition of ‘excellence’ in training artists and cultural producers instead they are berated for often failing to produce the right kind of cultural workforce. No role at all is envisaged for cultural studies, instead the aim is to bring together practitioners with pupils. To sum up the Green Paper looks forward to a future generation of socially diverse creative workers who are brimming with ideas and whose skills need not only be channelled into the fields of art and culture but will also be good for business. Most importantly these will be self standing or self sufficient individuals whose efforts will not be hindered by the administrations of the state. These features mirror almost all the themes in Leadbeater’s Living on Thin Air, and indeed when we turn to the recent DCMS Mapping Document we find a phrase from the book quoted in the foreword. This is a report on the culture industries in the UK and inevitably perhaps the tone is upbeat with only a sprinkling of euphemisms every now and then indicative of difficulties faced by the sector. The various comments about the importance of the creative industries to the UK economy and in particular the potential for growth (reporting 16% growth from 1998/1999) marks a glossing over of less hopeful features. The growth referred to was almost entirely the result of the expansion in software and computer services, which was also the location for the rise of almost

32

135,000 jobs from 1998. However the small print reveals this figure to include ‘ employees, the self employed unpaid family workers and people on government training schemes’). Looking at the fashion sector (which is well within my own expertise) we find that 75% of companies have turnovers of less £1m. (Which according to my own study means that designers themselves are often surviving on less than £20,000 a year (McRobbie 1998)). And that the 200 or so companies in existence at any one time might well not exist in 5 years time, but despite this the headlines to the section announce that UK fashion designer sector is the fourth biggest in the world. (There is a huge disparity between revenues for fashion in Italy, France and the US and those in the UK). Experts in other sectors could likewise go through the figures and the prose and what would emerge I would argue is a conclusion that no matter how important the culture industries are for growth, this is a sector with low capital returns and while employment, in particular self employment, may be buoyant it is also a low pay sector (‘poor in work’). Finally it is also as volatile and as vulnerable to the moves of multi-national capital as many more traditional fields eg garment manufacturing. I would argue that what the culture industries in the UK comprise of are personnel, not so much the quick thinkers and ideas people celebrated by Leadbeater as the products of a long historical traditional of training in fields of expertise (in the public funded UK art schools and colleges) of which there are no equivalents elsewhere in the world. They are valuable commodities. The asset is the art school system, under-funded with crumbling over- crowded buildings which as the Rector of the RCA recently commented were more like Social Security offices in appearance. The industries themselves, from film and TV to design and publishing are more thoroughly part of the global economy. Those which are UK owned tend to be small micro-economies of culture, otherwise it’s a matter of the UK feeding the bigger companies and corporations with highly trained graduates. This then is a further source of individualisation. The career pathways are unlike other more traditional occupations, they make their own way, they are always on the move, they have to get their names known, they are their own brands, they have to look after their own self interest ,they are ‘artistic individuals’. Having said that we are currently presented with the full accomplishment of the neo-liberalisation of the UK cultural economy, the question is what does this mean? There is another question. How can the relentless process of individualisation in the world of cultural work be kept apart from the seeming inevitability of local and global neo-liberalism and be re-directed as a force for re-vitalising the democratising process? Can it put these anti-social forces into retreat? It is in the field of the cultural and creative industries that we find the fullest expression of an ‘ideal local labour market’ from the viewpoint of a New Labour government committed to full employment, to freeing individuals from dependency on state subsidies, to creating a thriving entrepreneurial culture and to a new work ethic of self responsibility. This requires not a labour market as such, more a network of creative persons for whom jobs or projects are negotiated like actors going to audition for a ‘part’. Thus we find a curious scenario of a centre-left government whose priority it is to perform a double act of neo-liberalisation, first to minimise social welfare support for those unable to earn a living wage (so that earnings now become multi-sourced, with creatives holding down two or three jobs at once), and second to set individuals to their own devices in terms of job creation so that the large corporations are less burdened by the responsibilities of a workforce. ‘Paid employees’ and ‘welfare recipients’ and ‘labour market’ become what Beck might call ‘zombie categories’ both dead and alive, and in this case what is least wanted by key players in the new economy (Beck 2000). The answer to so many problems across a wide spectrum of the population eg mothers at home and not quite ready to go back to work full time on the part of New Labour is, ‘self employment’, set up your own business, be free to do your own thing. Live and work like an artist. And creative work is particularly appealing to youth because of the emphasis on uncovering talent, because of their proximity to the kinds of fields flagged up as already successful ie popular music, film, art, writing, acting, fashion, graphic design and so on.

This sector provides Britain with the possibility of re-invigorating a distinctive national economy in the light of global competition by drawing on an indigenous and migrant tradition of popular ( working class, and subsequently youth ) culture which emerges more forcefully in the early 1960s (2). Forty years later this warrants a rhetoric of ‘we’re good at this sort of thing, the UK record industry accounts for 16% of trade worldwide, our fashion designers are internationally well known, our ‘young British artists’ have re-invigorated the art world and our writers and columnists are providing Hollywood with some of their best scripts’ . But, with hundreds of fine art graduates leaving the many art departments up and down the country we might reasonably ask, how many

33

creatives can the economy accommodate? Or, is it that individuals must become their own labour market? The labour market melts away, in Bauman’s phrase, it liquidifies (Bauman 2000). In a talent led economy the individual only has him or herself to blame if the next script, film, book or show is not up to scratch. Or as Giddens puts it individuals must now ‘be’ their own structures. How can we think both with and beyond individualisation to avert the timebomb of a fully freelance economy? Will network sociality (Lash) create new lasting social bonds in the light of the decline of ‘narrative sociality’? Will reflexivity extend to the social analysis and critique of new work?

The Decline of the Indies, The Question of Value

My current research points to a shift from first wave producers for whom the lines of distinction between working autonomously or independently and working in a more overtly commercial or corporate environment were clear, and who were more or less left to their own devices, relying on the dole to allow them the time to set up in art or design, to second wave de-specialised cultural entrepreneurs (or entrepreneurs of the self) for whom an even more aggressively free market cultural environment now shapes the opportunities and possibilities for how they work in the cultural sector. If the first wave is embodied in the figure of the artist/designer, the second wave gives rise to the incubator, the cultural strategist. What this means is that the distinct categories outlined by the DCMS as marks of training or professional identity or sector are now increasingly diffuse, blurred and merging in and out of each other in a more speeded up, corporatised and globalised market for cultural goods and services. Architects double up as online editors, arts administrators are employed on a freelance basis by government funded bodies on one off projects, which keep them going for 2/3 days a week, which means looking round for projects to fill the remainder of the 7 day working week. The groups of young cultural workers dubbed by Leadbeater and Oakley as the new ‘independents’ are nothing of the sort, in fact they are sub-contracted creative workers wholly dependent on bigger companies for the services they provide which are now outsourced rather than produced in house (Leadbeater and Oakley 1999b).

This work in progress shows the first wave to have lasted from 1985-1995, the time of the ‘indies’. The second wave has the effect of interrupting careers and imposing multi-skilling on creative individuals. It comprises of de-specialisation, adapting to the growth of new media and its opportunities, and it sees the birth of the ‘cultural entrepreneur’. Creative activities of this sort are self driven, but culture is also big business. Capital which in the past has allowed the indies (or non commercial) cultural sector to be looked after largely by the state now designates this terrain as a site ripe for investment and expansion alongside its extensive media and communications interests. From 1997 onwards the New Labour government has shifted to a more entrepreneurial model for the arts and culture. But even when the state tries to make it easy for capital or propitious for investment there is no mutual responsibility on the part of capital. Thus the government potentially loses political ground by undoing provisions of social security while capital speeds up and moves on, having created conditions beneficial only to itself. Let me illustrate. In fashion design the period which saw the emergence of a distinctive sector which was neither haute couture (as in France or Italy) nor corporate (as in the US) but was what I would label ‘independent’, art school trained, and connected with associated forms of cultural activity eg music, magazine production, graphic design, came into being out of a combination of unemployment (with some benefits in the form of housing subsidies and the EAS) and the ‘do it yourself’ ethos which was the product of the punk generation (so many of whom also had an art school training) (McRobbie 1998). The fashion designers in my study were specialists in their fields, and they gained their reputations by working in the first instance as independents, setting up as small scale entrepreneurs or as semi-self employed (in the informal economy ). They were able to do this with access to cheap spaces in the form of urban street markets or tiny outlets in busy city locations. However by the late 1990s the big brands from Europe and the US including both the high street chains like Gap and Diesal and the designer labels like DKNY or Prada moved determinedly into the fashion market, pricing the indies out of the retail property market, employing a handful on very short contracts, employing their associates in the fields of styling, graphic design, image making to re brand their own images to fit with the diverse worlds of young consumers and the whole field of UK independent fashion design virtually disappears to be replaced by a series of internationally branded products. Fashion designers (of whom there are 4000 graduating each year) are then forced from first to second wave. They must

34

diversify/dilute their skills, set up in other related activities, work for dot.com companies, downgrade their expectations about seeing their ‘own work’ in shop windows, relinquish the time for creative thinking and research, move into the mainstream of the high street chains as ‘freelance fashion consultant’ if lucky and perhaps return to teach for a couple of days a week. The fashion and style trends magazine iD reports uncritically on this phenomenon (3). ‘Fashion multi-taskers: suddenly they’re everywhere . But its not easy to do two, three or more things at once: there’s never enough time, it doesn’t earn them any more money than having one job and they cant always count on being respected for what they do’. And its addictive. Once you’ve tried doing four jobs you’ll never want anything less’. …Its no longer necessary to be a full time anything to be successful and respected …One fashion multi-tasker says she is also trying out being a DJ ‘It could be a budding new career. It doesn’t feel like extra work’ (Rushton 2001) An additional profile comments on Joanne Koller ‘Koller’s multiple roles give her a seven day week . ‘Its like a drug’. (The underlying and never upfront question here is how much do these busy people earn and what are the conditions that propel them to take on so much work?)

The shift to the second wave sees the dilution of talent, the dispersal of cohorts of designers working alongside each other sharing premises like the Hyper Hyper Units (now also disappeared) which I reported on in my study and thus totally disaggregating and de-socialising what we might even call a collectivity or movement, to a rootless collection of individuals unrepresented, unorganised, and highly mobile. The first wave thus comprised of an innovation milieu or hub ..small shops, retail outlets, market stall spaces, magazines and their workforce as culture intermediaries, art schools and colleges as reference points for advice, support and student interns, clubs, pubs and the street an excerpt from e-flux journal #22, January 2011for venues and networking. The second wave is less site specific, more mobile, more located in non –places (Auge 1995), with a faster turnover of ‘jobs’. , and consequently less accessible to policy makers and researchers. London as a fashion design centre in effect no longer exists, the moment of there being hundreds of small companies is over. Instead there are corporate fashion companies and individuals moving from one project to the next and being dropped at short notice when buying in young designers fails to restore profits as in Marks and Spencer.

The second wave cultural practitioners also come to fruition in the UK through the ‘young British artists’. Here we can see the results of investments of corporate capital in sponsorship and promotion, in the arts and business unashamedly working alongside each other so that for example property dealers willingly offer two derelict schools due for refurbishment as lofts and penthouses to over 130 artists from Goldsmiths and the RCA as free spaces for a major exhibition of student work (Assembly November 2000). They do this for the publicity the show will bring to the locations, and for the cultural capital of being a company with a demonstrable track record in the arts, plus then the sky high prices they can ask for the properties. The second wavers who no longer can live and work cheaply as artists used to do now must find venture capitalists to help them out, they must re invent themselves as ‘incubators’ or else they are artists and curators and DJs and events organisers and entrepreneurs. The business of art takes off through the new media, eg companies like ‘art to go’ and ‘eyestorm’. There is a proliferation of categories of art work drawing on the language of business, for example visual support consultant, and there is a flurry of business cards being exchanged in the members only clubs which now provide a businesslike environment for those on the guest list. The commercialisation of art finds reflection in cultural policy, the new Film Council will only support projects aimed at a popular market, and artists themselves are celebrated for their strenuous self promotional efforts, Tracey Emin for example is described as ‘not really an artist, but important as a phenomenon’ (BBC Late Review Friday 27th April).

The business ethos as it pervades the cultural world imposes its own brand of ‘fast capitalism’. Art and culture have traditionally been spaces for thinking and reflection. But if as Aggers argues the time and space of the new economy ‘undermines the power of the book’ (quoted in Lash and Urry 1994) then the time of reading, arguing and intellectual activity becomes compressed. (Tracey Emin says in interview that she went through a period of reading a lot but then nothing at all, now preferring to watch soap opera). The culture which is produced is increasingly populist, easy, thin or ‘flattened out’ (Lash). If as Bauman suggests capitalism now ‘travels light’, then what is produced is as I and others have suggested, ‘art lite’(McRobbie 1999). Artists increasingly create works which are merely extensions of what is all around them in popular culture, in the tabloids and talk shows.

35

In cultural worlds we find an endless flow of what Beck describes as ‘biographical solutions to systemic contradictions’(Beck 1997). Emin is a prime example of this, having elevated her own biography to the subject matter of her art. Its certainly not the first time its been done in art, but in this case the work is reduced of complexity, it refuses to think or reflect beyond the confines of a cliched vocabulary of personal experience, pop song lyrics and female pain. Thus at the very moment that the government sees fit to free up the creativity within us all, especially young people, the UK cultural economy is being rapidly transformed into an arena of good ideas (and also bad ideas), of gimmicks, of essayistic formulations and of formulaic literal art (for example Tracey Emin’s recent Helter Skelter piece).

There are problems in introducing questions of value into a discussion like this. The sheer scale of cultural production, the vast numbers of art works being created and exhibited at any one time, the proliferation of visual images, the novels, films, TV programmes, the way in which the flow of television comes to stand as a norm for the flow of culture, and the mode of its consumption creates a crisis in judgement. So often looking at an art work demands little more than the distracted glance of the TV audience. There is also the danger of reading off too easily a judgement about art and culture from an analysis of its political economy. To avoid this we might consider Spivak’s suggestion that culture is ‘comparable to Foucault’s use of ‘power’. It is a name which lends itself to a complex strategic situation in a particular society’ (Spivak 1999 p 353). Thus so far I have attempted to outline the arrangement of forces which embody a strategy of re-defining the terrain for cultural practice. The extension of training and skills to disadvantaged groups is merely one part of an attempt to create a new kind of cultural or artistic subject, highly individualised but also more likely to draw on a business vocabulary to plan and execute a successful career. This is quite at odds with the conventional image of the artist who has turned his or her back on money and materialism in favour of alternative values. In the past the idea of an artist with a business plan in which he or she believed would be ridiculous, now it is unremarkable. But the point I also want to make here is that there is a danger again that sociologists or cultural studies academics merely note this transition and equate it unanimously with the ‘full accomplishment’ of a neo liberal order in the field of arts. What we really need to know is how this business model works out in practice? To what extent is it a fully effective (or merely half baked) entrepreneurialism? How exactly are artistic careers conducted as small businesses?

The Inequities of the Informal, The Cruelties of Cool

Mass youth culture also creates the model for new careers in culture. The club is the hub, in Castell’s terms the ‘innovation milieu’ (Castells 1996). Or in the German case ‘Love Parade als arbeitsamt’. The energy and investment of time in these cultural forms of job creation mark a rupture with older notions of ‘work’, ‘job’ ‘career’. Early in the 1990s this gave me reason to argue that youth cultures marked a strong investment in the social, they were deeply engaged, they were spaces of critique. But now less than ten years later so heavily capitalised are they and so disconnected are the under 30s from political debate that this social investment which was at the heart of youth culture goes into suspended animation. Too uncool. There is meantime a kind of taken for granted anti-racism, a ‘gay is also cool’ assumption. Combine this with a love of money and love of consumer culture and we have another flattening out process, youth culture capitalism emerges. You can make it if you really want. About those outside the loop, no questions are asked. Over the hill in age terms? Too unconfident to manage the presentation of self? There are only privatised and therapeutic solutions as Giddens has pointed out (Giddens 1991). Too miserable to party? Only OK once established and then able to behave badly. In London this is the ‘Shoreditch effect’ where artists effect a working class style while retaining the services of public school educated agents who are from the deeply conservative middle classes and who have great connections for both publicity and sales (the Notting Hill effect’). This then is a New Labour classless dream, a hi energy band of young people driving the cultural economy ahead but in a totally privatised and non subsidy oriented direction. Using their knowledge of culture to expand into related areas, employing their friends and others in an informal capacity, and then by the late 1990s moving into the dot com world and showing themselves to be willing risk takers who will put in very long hours, entertain all kinds of venture capitalists to drive this new sector forward. In London the Cultural Entrepreneur Club marks the convergence of art, business, new media, new jobs and the presence of the venture capitalists.

36

Exclusive, by invite only, but organised in a club setting with DJs, free vodka all night thanks to Smirnoff and hosted by C4, accountants Cap Gemini, ICA Goldsmiths and the Arts Council, and overseen by Leadbeater himself (McRobbie 2001).

This field of activity poses real difficulties for sociological research. The speed and the flows deter those researchers working with traditional methodologies. Without the fixed locations of workplace it appears to comprise of freefloating individuals brought together according only to the requirements of this or that short term project. The sociology of individualisation finds itself challenged by the reality of non-groups, non labour markets, non- institutions as well as non places. Let me therefore first propose that new social inequities emerge within this informal youth cultural economy. As a series of studies carried out in Glasgow have shown these fields of work and other associated areas including the new bar and restaurant business are also fields of ‘aesthetic labour’, employing according to the right look, the right body shape, even the right accent (Warhurst et al 2000). Age constraints are in operation. Hidden variable of class and cultural capital also have an effect the young single mother for example is less likely to be able to invest in her own appearance than her well educated and childless counterpart, who once again will have three or four jobs going at once. (A new divide opens up between young women, the childfree and the young mothers?) Project work picked up on the grapevine appears to be exactly ‘good luck’ (4). Or the disappearing-structures are replaced by a ‘scene’ where the buzz of ‘talent’ and the blurring of the interface between work and leisure conceal the material obstacles which limit the mobility and the self discovery of ‘talent’ on the grounds of poor location, poor education, poor access to the social capital of the network, and lack of access to funds to fall back on between jobs or while working for nothing in the hope of it being turned into a paid job. Needless to say these are risks which older people cannot afford to take. There is an unthinkable indignity of older people ‘working for nothing’ in the hope of it turning into a real job. What my current research on this sector shows are a) totally de-regulated often inter-secting spheres of activities and services which are cultural but which have no accountability structures, where problems at work are not systemic but merely time to move on, where an incredibly amount of time must be invested in social contacts and networking because to be out of the loop could mean being out of a job, b) the recognised need for new points of support, the time and space of the public sector often providing a 2 day a week haven where there are employment laws in operation even for temporary or part time workers c) incredible investment in self and image, endless self monitoring, the ethos of success creating a mentality of as Bauman puts it ‘must try harder and harder’ d) self reliance but falling back on parental support without that many wouldn’t be able to carry on these experimental careers e) motivated by the ‘chaos of reward ‘ (Young 1999), by the hope of making it as the next Stella McCartney, the next Alexander McQueen ie the star and celebrity system. These dreams merge with the new meritocracy of the Blair government which with the power of the visual media further bury the social democratic vocabularies of workplace protection, job security, sickness pay and so on.

There are two ways of seeing this inequitous situation. On the one hand we could argue that young people are being designated agents of the neo-liberal order, expected to see it through into fruition, relying only on their own talents, lonely, mobile, over- worked individuals for whom socialising and leisure are only more opportunities to do a deal. The Green Paper produces the categories of talent and creativity as disciplinary regimes, whose subjects are taught and told (apparently from birth onwards through primary, secondary and tertiary education,) to inspect themselves, look deep inside themselves for capacities which will then serve them well in the future. If culture is thought of as a ‘complex strategic situation’ then the brilliant additional move in this new discursive formation is that it simultaneously appears to do away with older forms of reliance on labour markets, on the dull compulsion of labour, on routine, mindless activities. There is now scope for ‘pleasure in work’ and as Donzelot argued appealing to the authentic self, has the incredible advantage of turning the individual into a willing work-horse, self flagellating when the inspiration doesn’t flow out onto the page. The Green Paper celebrates the importance of creativity and its encouragement in schools, nurseries, at home, and in other cultural institutions. Children and young people will have to do more than routine tasks, they will now be expected to be creative. Even if they don’t go on the earn a living in the cultural sector thinking creatively is now at the heart of the new knowledge economy. But most important is the disconnect feature, the aim is to be individually successful. But success here means self reliant, self employed and successfully independent of state, welfare and subsidy. This is a way of transforming the future world of work. As older categories of social division seem to

37

fade (class and gender) generational divisions become more marked and in turn give rise to their own ripple of internal differenciation processes. Thus there is a social rupture as the political order conforms with economic global rationalities to tax the young with being its new subjects, they are being charged with bearing the brunt of unforeseen circumstances. Thus they are being done to in an inegalitarian way. We might call this the ‘domination’ model.

The alternative scenario is to recognise the utopian dynamics in the novel ways of working which as I have described happened first in the indies and then in the underground of dance and club culture and then latterly have been taken up by government whose strenuous attempts thanks to Leadbeater’s enthusiasm for the ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ have resulted in policy. By utopian I refer to socially transformative action which carries within it and on a seemingly individualistic basis some desire for a better way of living, a better kind of work. This for example was definitely the case with the young women fashion designers and there may indeed be a gender element in the determination to make work ‘work for you’. After all is work is now for life, it is hardly surprising that attempts are made to make it pleasant and enjoyable. (Both my own and Ursells study of TV producers describe the ‘passion for work’) (Ursell 2000). Such unpatterned and disorganised working lives could produce a diversity of outcomes. New inequities of age might well produce age related identity politics as pressure groups form out of modes of self reflexivity which in turn produces social bonding in what Beck and Giddens call sub politics or life politics but which I prefer to designate as pressure groups politics reliant on sophisticated knowing (or reflexive) use of media to push towards legislation, accountability, change. Given the proliferation of life politics, protest and environmental politics it is perhaps surprising that ‘new work’ politics has been so slow to emerge. There is a good deal more action and mobilisation at the consumption end (the anti Gap campaign for example) than at the production end for the reason that the artists and cultural workers at present do not sufficiently analyse their own working conditions. This might change and form the basis of new and as yet unimaginable campaigns and action groups. .

Post-Individualist Cultural and Artistic Practice

The sociologists (Marxist and non Marxist alike) have got well established arguments to deal with this sector. They are a Metropolitan elite, highly educated and with sufficient cultural capital to take risks and test the ground of the new cultural economy with enough resources material or symbolic to fall back on if things go wrong. They are also able to be individualistic by virtue of their assets and are thus ‘in waiting’ to have rewards come their way and meanwhile are presiding over and in effect complicit with an economy characterised by ever increasing divides between wealth and poverty. They are well placed as agents of the new anti-egalitarian meritocracy. Alternately they are part of a new middle class strata currently being proletarianised. Granted they may be more diverse than in the past, certainly there are women and people from ethnic minorities but this degree of enforced entrepreneurialism with the traditional middle class search for status in work permits extraordinary degrees of self exploitation in what is a de-regulated unprotected sector. Granted, by virtue of being well educated this strata of young people will bring to bear progressive elements in regard to identity politics into their cultural practice. But hyper-individualisation, the decline of the politics of the workplace (where there is no workplace) and the access to ‘private solutions’ means that only the try harder and harder mentality will prevail.

Against this I would propose the need to apply some of the insights of recent work on re-thinking the political to new cultural work. This is needed for the very reason that without more forward thinking on these issues the bold and imaginative ideas of Leadbeater in the UK feed directly into government and policy without facing any serious argument. The left and feminists seem unable to invent a new vocabulary for engaging with individualisation other than that neo-liberalism is winning every battle. We need to be alert to the possibilities for critique and change from strange and interstitial spaces, as part of a chain of connection from one nodal point to another, from one city space to another, from the flows of movement of labour. Its not enough however to gesture to the existence of for example the flattening of hierarchies in the new media economy (Lash 2000) the existence of network sociality (also Lash 2000) or the wilful optimism which suggests that meritocracy and talent in the context of non bureaucratic workplaces make them ‘open minded spaces’. At the same time the self flagellating model of Bauman (‘must try harder and harder’) can

38

only interpret pleasurable immersion in ‘the project’ as ultimately self delusion.

This leaves us with ‘reflexivity’ as a tool for forward thinking, however those sociologists who have most developed this concept have done so without a full theory of media, art, culture or communication. Recently Scott Lash extends Beck’s account of reflexive individualisation to argue that choice is predicated on the requirement on the part of the denuded individual without the taken for granted support of visible structures (the dole office or job centre) to investigate and find the rules of the new social (dis) order for him or herself. (‘This chaos becomes totally normal’ (Lash 2001). If the institutions (or non institutions) of the new culture are ‘almost unrecognisable’ then it follows that whatever political sociality which will appear will take a different shape. If indeed even the notion of the new social movement now seems incapable to tracking the flows of ‘labour power’ (see Hardt and Negri 2000) and harnessing its potential into something more stable and concrete then perhaps we are thinking about post-individual political formations. If once again there are across the whole social terrain many instances of ‘trans-national life politics’ or what Beck calls ‘sub politics’ and what I prefer to label global pressure politics or simply campaigns then might it not be possible to look forward to alliances emerging of ‘new labour’ (what an irony!). on a fluid, international basis, connecting somehow the self exploiter at home sweating over her sewing machine in the hope of becoming the next Stella McCartney and the Gap seamstress in the South East Asia, who is now the object of attention from the anti-capitalist protest movement.

A key element in the chain of equivalence by which means alliances and partnerships in this field of youthful cultural economic activity might be formed is through the interventionist role of intellectuals of perhaps an ‘older generation’. We have to confront the embeddedness of business studies and enterprise culture in a population who have not grown up as subjects of ‘welfare regime’, ‘public mindedness’ and public sector employment. If the categories no longer exist then neither do the subjects (this is the logic of Foucault). Thus as Hardt and Negri propose we are witnessing, with the rise of the informational economy and its associated categories, a ‘a new mode of becoming human’. Beck argues that reflexive modernisation gives rise to both self critique and social critique. The self monitoring subjects of the second modernity /late modernity / late capitalism must have access to information and analysis in order to be reflexive. Where are such resources to be found? Are they wholly reliant on the findings of the neo-liberal think tanks? Or are their pathways to the information and communicative technologies not also littered with ‘cultural studies’, sociology, commentary and critique by Naomi Klein, the work of Richard Sennett, the websites of Tony Giddens and so on? Thus access to an earlier critical tradition is within the orbit of the hyper individualists. But it is of course contingent, difficult to perceive patterns or the appearance of regular variables. We need more ethnographies of such critical reflexivities. We need to be able to describe the diversity of cultural entrepreneurial practice to assess the social mix of those working in this capacity. If Leadbeater harnesses talent and creativity for the purposes of simple growth and wealth creation, cannot the sociologists more forcefully rehearse the various critiques of these categories which have been central to the discipline, from Bourdieu and the sociology of art to most of those working in educational sociology and pedagogics. It should also be possible to re-vitalise creativity in education for critical pedagogy nor should it be forgotten that the most influential of Marxist thinkers from Adorno himself to most recently Jameson have argued for the redemptionist, utopian and pedagogic functions of art. Gilroy has his own version of the same argument. The individual might be or perceive him or herself to be alone or ‘singular’ but reflexivity requires engagement with texts, images, musics, communicative networks and books and writing. Yes, for a ‘creative’ in a big ad agency this means ‘ransacking’ film noir for the right look, but does it necessarily stop at that? Is the freelance subject of this media world only to be understood in this capacity or are there other points of identification within his/her own differenciated subjectivity, ie s/he is also black or Asian, also connected to a strand of ‘life politics’ through some biographical feature eg health, family, children, neighbourhood etc. Bauman describes such phenomena as ‘non additive’ ie they do not add up to anything properly political. I disagree. These can be seen as ‘productive singularities’ (Hardt and Negri) which come into being despite the attempts by power to ‘block community and co-operation’.

This is not to posit art and culture as essentially critical, or human beings as essentially co-operative. Rather that as Hardt and Negri once again put it ‘exhausting powerlessness’ forces us to overlook the ‘productivity of being’. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari they argue that the current co-

39

mingling of politics, economics and social (and I would add the cultural) produces unprecedented energy and desire which are generative (as human labour is ) and that ‘enriched’ with the new informational and knowledge structures, pathways or highways they are able to confront the forces of ‘corruption’. This is in fact an argument about how individualisation can give way to ‘new productive singularities’. These in turn would challenge neo-liberalism by showing it to be productive only of truncated, flat or emptied out narratives of being. By drawing on Foucault’s concept of bio-power by which means regulation and discipline is inculcated through individual bodies so that the individual must inspect himself or self monitor, and self regulate, and combining this with Deleuze and Guattari’s desiring machines as flows of power the working body becomes a point of intersection with other working bodies and if desire is productive of attachments and identifications why not also desire or ‘energy’ in work? Thus work (and here creative work) becomes a site for re-socialisation, since it is better done with or for ‘others’.

Notes

1)18/6/01 Gordon brown Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a speech stressing the importance of building a more successful entrepreneurial culture with children and school pupils being more actively encouraged to consider the future in terms of self employment (precise ref to come).

2) The convergence of working class youth in the UK art schools from the late 1950s onwards, the increasing visibility of ‘race’ following the riots of 1958 in London’s Notting Hill and indeed the emergence of Cultural Studies are strands variously addressed by Frith and Horne 1987, and Ang 1996.

3) This article appeared following a public lecture I gave at the V and A in London Nov 2000 on ‘Prada-Isation, Decline of Fashion Design and the Rise of the Multi-tasker’. Since the audience was mostly fashion professionsla including journalists I cannot help but see Rushton as a reply.

4) Good luck jobs. Good looking young guy sitting in bar in Soho, has dropped out of Goldsmiths College and is working as a DJ but not earning more than a pittance. Girl chats him up, asks him if he is interested in sound production for films, next day he drops by the studio, gets a job, six months later he is fully skilled, highly trained working in the film industry based in London but travelling regularly to LA. Many other examples will appear in forthcoming volume McRobbie 2002.

References

Auge M (1995) Non Places Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity Verso London Bauman Z ( 2000) Liquid Modernity Polity CambridgeBeck U (1997) Risk Society sage LondonBeck U (2000) lecture at LSE LondonBecker H (1982) Art Worlds Berkeley Univ of California Press Bourdieu P (1993) The Field of Cultural Production Polity Press Cambridge DCMS (2001) Creative Industries Mapping Document LondonGiddens A (1991) Modernity and Self Identity Polity Press CambridgeGreen Paper (2001) Culture and Creativity Ten years On DCMS LondonLash S and Urry J(1994) Economy of Signs and Space Sage LondonLash S (2000) Unpub Paper Goldsmiths College LondonLash S (2001) Introduction to Beck and Gerscheim Back Individualisation Sage LondonLeadbeater C (1999a) Living on Thin Air Viking LondonLeadbeater C and Oakley A (1999b) The Independents DEMOS LondonMcRobbie A (1998) British Fashion design Rag Trade or Image Industry? Routledge LondonMcRobbie A (1999) In The Culture Society Fashion, Art, Popular Music Routledge LondonMcRobbie A (2001) Club to Company forthcoming in Cultural Studies (eds Nixon S and Du Gay P) McRobbie A (2002) forthcoming Economies of Artists and Cultural Entrepreneurs, Reaktion Books Negus K (1992) Performing Pop Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry Edward Arnold LondonRushton R (2001) Me Myself and I .i_D magazine The Bathroom Issue London

40

Spivak G-C (1999) Ursell G (2000) Television Production Issues of Exploitation Commodification and Subjectificiation in UK Television labour Markets in Media Culture and Society vol 22 no 6, Nov pp 805-827Warhurst Cet al (2000) Looking Good Sounding Right Style Counselling for the Unemployed in Industrial Society London Wolff J (1981) the Social Production of Art Macmillan London

http://www.k3000.ch/becreative/texts/text_5.html

Aesthetics of Resistance? Artistic Research as Discipline and Conflict

Hito Steyerl

What is artistic research today? At present no one seems to know an answer to this question. Artistic research is treated as one of the multiple practices which are defined by indefinition, constantly in flux, lacking coherence and identity. But what if this view were indeed misleading? What if we actually knew more about it than we thought? In order to discuss this proposition, let’s first have a look at current debates around artistic research. It seems as if one of their most important concerns is the transformation of artistic research into an academic discipline. There are discussions about curriculum, degrees, method, practical application, pedagogy. On the other hand, there is also substantial criticism of this approach. It addresses the institutionalization of artistic research as being complicit with new modes of production within cognitive capitalism: commodified education, creative and affective industries, administrative aesthetics, and so on. Both perspectives agree on one point: artistic research is at present being constituted as a more or less normative, academic discipline.

A discipline is of course disciplinarian; it normalizes, generalizes and regulates; it rehearses a set of responses, and in this case, trains people to function in an environment of symbolic labor, permanent design and streamlined creativity. But then again, what is a discipline apart from all of this? A discipline may be oppressive, but this is also precisely why it points to the issue it keeps under control. It indexes a suppressed, an avoided or potential conflict. A discipline hints at a conflict immobilized. It is a practice to channel and exploit its energies and to incorporate them into the powers that be. Why would one need a discipline if it wasn’t to discipline somebody or something? Any discipline can thus also be seen from the point of view of conflict.

Let me give an example: a project I recently realized, called The Building. It deals with the construction history of a Nazi building on the main square in Linz, Austria; it investigates its background, the stories of the people who actually built it, and also looks at the materials used in the building. The construction was performed by partly foreign forced laborers and some of the former inhabitants of the site were persecuted, dispossessed and murdered. During the research it also actually turned out that some of the building stones were produced in the notorious quarry of concentration camp Mauthausen, where thousands of people were killed.

There are at least two different ways of describing this building. One and the same stone used for the building can be said to have gained its shape according to the paradigm of neoclassicist architecture, which would be the official description given on the building itself. Or it can be described as having probably been shaped by a stone mason in concentration camp Mauthausen, who was likely a former Spanish Republican fighter. The conclusion is obvious: the same stone can be described from the point of view of a discipline, which classifies and names. But it can also be read as a trace of a suppressed conflict.

But why would this very local project be relevant for a reflection about artistic research as such? Because parts of this building also coincidentally house the Linz Art Academy. This building is a location, where artistic research is currently being integrated into academic structures: there is a department for artistic research inside this building. Thus, any investigation of the building might turn out as a sort of institutional metareflection on the contemporary conditions of artistic research as such.

In this sense: where is the conflict, or rather what are the extensive sets of conflicts underlying this

41

new academic discipline? Who is currently building its walls, using which materials, produced by whom? Who are the builders of the discipline and where are their traces?

Discipline and Conflict

So, what are the conflicts, and where are the boundaries then? Seen from the point of view of many current contributions, artistic research seems more or less confined to the contemporary metropolitan art academy. Actual artistic research looks like a set of art practices by predominantly metropolitan artists acting as ethnographers, sociologists, product or social designers. It gives the impression of being an asset of technologically and conceptually advanced First World capitalism, trying to upgrade its population to efficiently function in a knowledge economy, and as a by-product, casually surveying the rest of the world as well. But if we look at artistic research from the perspective of conflict or more precisely of social struggles, a map of practices emerges that spans most of the 20th century and also most of the globe. It becomes obvious that the current debates do not fully acknowledge the legacy of the long, varied and truly international history of artistic research which has been understood in terms of an aesthetics of resistance.

Aesthetics of Resistance is the title of Peter Weiss’ seminal novel, released in the early 1980s, which presents an alternative reading of art history as well as an account of the history of anti-fascist resistance from 1933 to 1945. Throughout the novel Weiss explicitly uses the term “artistic research (künstlerische Forschung)” to refer to practices such as Brecht’s writing factory in exile. He also points to the factographic and partly also productivist practices in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union, mentioning the documentary work of Sergei Tretjakov, among many others. Thus he establishes a genealogy of aesthetic research, which is related to the history of emancipatory struggles throughout the 20th century.

Since the 1920s, extremely sophisticated debates about artistic epistemologies were waged on terms like fact, reality, objectivity, inquiry within the circles of Soviet factographers, cinematographers and artists. For factographers, a fact is an outcome of a process of production. Fact comes from facere, to make or to do. So in this sense the fact is made or even made up. This should not come as a surprise to us in the age of poststructuralist, metaphysical skepticism. But the range of aesthetic approaches which were developed as research tools almost 100 years ago is stupefying.

Authors like Vertov, Stepanova, Tretjakov, Popova and Rodchenko invent complex procedures of investigation, such as the cine-eye, the cine-truth, the biography of the object or photomontage. They work on human perception and practice and actively try to integrate scientific attitudes into their work. And scientific creation is flowing as a result of many of these developments. In his autobiography, Roman Jakobson describes in detail how avantgarde art practices inspired him to develop his specific ideas on linguistics.

Of course throughout history many different approaches of this type of research have existed. We could also mention the efforts of the artists employed by the FSA (Farm Security Administration) of creating essayistic photojournalistic inquiries during the Great Depression in the US. In all these cases, the artistic research is ambivalently co-opted into state policies – although to a different extent and with completely different consequences. Around the same time Tretyakov got shot during the Stalinist terror, Walker Evans had a solo show at the MoMa.

Another method of artistic inquiry, which is based on several related sets of conflict and crisis is the essayistic approach. In 1940, Hans Richter coins the term film essay or essay film as capable of visualizing theoretical ideas. He refers to one of his own works already made in 1927 called Inflation, an extremely interesting experimental film about capitalism running amok. Richter argues that a new filmic language has to be developed in order to deal with abstract processes such as the capitalist economy. How does one show these abstractions, how does one visualize the immaterial? These questions are reactualized in contemporary art practices, but they have a long history.

The essay as filmic approach also embraces the perspective of anticolonial resistance. One of the first so-called essay films is the anticolonial film-essay Les statues meurent aussi, by Chris Marker and Alain Resnais, about racism in dealing with African art. The film is commissioned by a magazine called Presence africaine which counts as its editors people like Aimé Césaire or Leopold Senghor, main theoreticians of the so-called negritude movement in the 1930s. Only a few years later

42

Theodor Adorno’s text, The Essay as Form, appears in which he ponders on the resistant characteristics of the essay as subversive method of thought. To Adorno the essay means the reshuffling of the realms of the aesthetic and epistemological, which undermines the dominant division of labor.

And then we enter the whole period of the 1960s with their international struggles, tricontinentalism and so on. Frantz Fanon’s slogan: “...we must discuss, we must invent...” is the motto of the manifesto Towards a Third Cinema, written by Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino in 1969, in a context of dictatorship in Argentina. The relation of art and science is again explicitly mentioned in Julio Garcia Espinosa’s manifesto For an Imperfect Cinema (1969). Other methods of artistic research include situationist derive and workers inquiries, constructivist montage, cut ups, biomechanics, oral history, deconstructive or surrealist anthropology, the diffusion of counterinformation as well as aesthetic journalism. Some of these methods are more easily absorbed into the art mainstream than others. Especially strongly dematerialized practices with pronounced modernist features are quickly absorbed into information capitalism because they are compressed, quick to absorb and easily transmitted.

It is no coincidence that many of the practices mentioned here have been dealing with classical problems of documentary representation from very different perspectives: its function as power/knowledge, its epistemological problems, its relation to reality and the challenge of creating a new one. Documentary styles and forms have forever grappled with the uneven mix of rationality and creativity, between subjectivity and objectivity, between the power of creation and the power of conservation.

It is no coincidence either that many of the historical methods of artistic research are tied to social or revolutionary movements, or to moments of crisis and reform. In this perspective, the outline of a global network of struggles is revealed, which spans almost the whole 20th century, which is transversal, relational, and (in many, though far from all cases) emancipatory.

It is a coincidence, however, that Peter Weiss´ Aesthetics of Resistance also mentions the main square of Linz: the site of The Building. He describes a scene in which members of the International Brigades in Spain listen to a broadcast of the enthusiastic reception for Hitler and the German troops on Linz’s main square in March 1938. But Weiss’ protagonist notices a very small (and entirely hypothetical) moment in resistance pointed out by the radio journalist: some of the windows on the square remain unlit, and the journalist is quick to point out that the flats of the Jews are located there. Actually during the research it turned out that one of the Jewish families living there had dispersed to three different continents and two members of the family had been murdered. One of the latter was a person called Ernst Samuely who was supposedly a communist. After many ordeals, he joined a Jewish partisan group on the Polish border before disappearing. So, if we look at the Linz building from this point of view, we see that it dissolves into a network of international routes and relations, which relate to oppression but also to resistance: it relates to what Walter Benjamin once called “the tradition of the oppressed.”

The Perspective of Conflict

If we keep applying the global and transversal perspective to the debate around artistic research, the temporal and spatial limitations of contemporary metropolitan debates are revealed. It simply does not make any sense to continue the discussion as if practices of artistic research do not have a long and extensive history well beyond conceptual art practices – which is one of the very few historical examples to be mentioned, although very rarely. From the point of view of social struggles, the discontinuous genealogy of artistic research becomes an almost global one, with a long and frequently interrupted history. The geographical distribution of artistic research practices also dramatically changes in this perspective. Since some locations were particularly affected by the conjunction of power and knowledge, which arose with the formation of capitalism and colonialism, strategies of epistemic disobedience had to be invented.

A power/knowledge/art, which reduced whole populations to objects of knowledge, domination and representation, had to be countered not only by social struggle and revolt, but also by epistemological and aesthetic innovation. Thus reversing the perspective and focusing on discipline as an index of conflict also reverses the direction in which art history has been written as an account

43

of peripheral artists copying and catching up with Western art trends. We could just as well say that many contemporary metropolitan artists are only now catching up with the complexity of debates around reality and representation that Soviet factographers had already developed in the 1920s.

Specific and Singular

In all these methods, two elements collide: a claim to specificity clashes with a claim to singularity. What does this mean? One aspect of the work claims to participate in a general paradigm, within a discourse that can be shared and which is manufactured according to certain criteria. More often than not, scientific, legalistic or journalistic truth procedures underly this method of research. These methodologies are pervaded by power relations as many theorists have demonstrated.

On the other hand, artistic research projects in many cases also lay claim to singularity. They create a certain artistic set up, which claims to be relatively unique and produces its own field of reference and logic. This provides it with a certain autonomy, in some cases an edge of resistance against dominant modes of knowledge production. In other cases, this assumed singularity just sexes up a quantitative survey, or to use a famous expression by Benjamin Buchloh, creates an aesthetic of administration.[1]”

While specific methods generate a shared terrain of knowledge – which is consequently pervaded by power structures – singular methods follow their own logic. While this may avoid the replication of existing structures of power/knowledge, it also creates the problem of the proliferation of parallel universes, which each speak their own, untranslatable language. Practices of artistic research usually partake in both registers, the singular as well as the specific; they speak several languages at once.

Thus, one could imagine a semiotic square*, which would roughly map the tensions which become apparent during the transformation of artistic research into an academic and/or economic discipline. Of course, this scheme is misleading, since one would have to draw a new one for every singular point of view which is investigated. But it shows the tensions which both frame and undermine the institutionalization of artistic research.

Artistic Research as Translation

The multilinguality of artistic research implies that artistic research is an act of translation. It takes part in at least two languages and can in some cases create new ones. It speaks the language of quality as well as of quantity, the language of the singular as well as the language of the specific, use value as well as exchange value or spectacle value, discipline as well as conflict; and it translates between all of these. This does not mean that it translates correctly – but it translates, nevertheless.

At this point, one should emphasize that this is also the case with so-called autonomous artworks, which have no pretense whatsoever to partake in any kind of research. This does not mean they cannot be quantified or become part of disciplinary practices, because they are routinely quantified on the art market in the form of pricing and integrated into art histories and other systems of value. Thus, most art practices exist in one or another type of translation, but this type of translation does not jeopardize the division of labor established between art historians and gallerists, between artists and researchers, between the mind and senses. In fact, a lot of the conservative animosity towards artistic research stems from a feeling of threat, because of the dissolution of these boundaries, and this is why artistic research is often dismissed in everyday practice as neither art nor research.

But the quantification processes involved in the evaluation or valorization of artistic research are slightly different than the traditional procedures of quantification. Artistic research as a discipline not only sets and enforces certain standards but also presents an attempt to extract or produce a different type of value in art. Apart from the art market, a secondary market develops for those practices which lack in fetish value. This secondary value is established by quantification and integration into (increasingly) commodified education systems. Additionally, a sort of social surplus embedded into a pedagogical understanding of art comes into play. Both combined create a pull towards the production of applied or applicable knowledge/art, which can be used for entrepreneurial innovation, social cohesion, city marketing, and thousands of other aspects of

44

cultural capitalism. From this perspective, artistic research indeed looks like a new version of the applied arts, a new and largely immaterial craft, which is being instituted as a discipline in many different places.

Radiators

At the end, let me come back to the beginning: we know more about artistic research than we think. And this concerns the most disquieting findings of the project around The Building in Linz. It is more than likely, that after the war, radiators were taken from the now abandoned concentration camp Mauthausen and reinstalled into the building. If this plan documented in the historical files was executed, then the radiators are still there and have quietly been heating the building ever since. A visit with an expert confirmed that the radiators have never been exchanged in the Eastern part of the building and that, moreover, some of the radiators had already been used, when they had been installed around 1948. The make of those radiators corresponds to the few radiators seen in contemporary photos of concentration camp Mauthausen. Now, of course, radiators were not in use in the prisoners barracks. They were in use in some work rooms, like the laundry room. They were in use in the prisoners office and the prisoners brothel, where female inmates from another concentration camp had to work.

But what do we make of the fact that the Department for Artistic Research (its coordination office is located in The Building, according to the website) could soon find itself being heated by the same radiators, which were mute witnesses of the plight of female inmates in the concentration camp brothel? To quote the website of the Linz art academy, “artistic-scientific research belongs to the core tasks of the Art University Linz, and artistic practice and scientific research are combined under one roof. The confrontation and/or combination of science and art require intense research and artistic development in a methodological perspective, in the areas of knowledge transfers and questions of mediation. Cultural Studies, art history, media theory, several strategies of mediation as well as art and Gender Studies in the context of concrete art production are essential elements of the profile of the university.” What are the conditions of this research? What is the biography of its historical infrastructure and how can reflecting on it help us to break through the infatuation with discipline and institutionalization and to sharpen a historical focus in thinking about artistic research? Obviously not every building will turn out to house such a surprising infrastructure. But the general question remains: what do we do with an ambivalent discipline, which is institutionalized and disciplined under this type of conditions? How can we emphasize the historical and global dimension of artistic research and underline the perspective of conflict? And when is it time to turn off the lights?

*)

SPECIFIC

SCIENCE / PUBLIC DEBATE / ART HISTORY COUNTERINFORMATION

DISCIPLINE RESISTANCE

ART MARKET / AESTHETIC AUTONOMY CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

SINGULAR

45

This text appeared first in mahkuzine 8, winter 2010, http://www.mahku.nl/download/maHKUzine08_web.pdf

“Swastikas? Ornaments!” as a Continuity of Repression

History-Political Conditions of a Public Art and Educational Institution

Translated by Lina Dokuzović

Eduard Freudmann

The following article is based on the work of the Platform History Politics, an initiative of students, activists and teachers, who are affiliated with the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, of which the author is also a member.[1] The Platform History Politics began in 2009, as a self-organized project, and defines itself – as were the other work groups which arose within the framework of the 2009/2010 Academy occupations[2] – as an open collective that strives towards anti-hierarchical organizational structures and discussion-based decision-making in its work process. History-political contentions, such as those carried out by the group, are based on the notion that the construction of history and its political interpretation are immanent to both the History Sciences as an academic discipline as well as to history production as a social practice. Memory can never be terminated. We consider remembering to rather be an active process, in which we aim at producing and mediating resistant knowledge which can be empowering for emancipatory interventions into the hegemonic images of history. With our work, we aim to evoke a continuous process within which the participation of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna in colonialism, Austro-fascism and Nazism is critically reflected and dealt with publicly. Our activities have, however, consistently expanded the immanent borders of the institution, because it has proven necessary, through the observation of its involvement in regard to the far-reaching ramifications - in the fields of politics, art, culture, pedagogy, science and research, for example, meaning in the social contexts that the Academy is part of as a public art and educational institution.

***

A toast amidst swastikas

I remember the day I entered the assembly hall of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna for the first time. It was 1999, just a few days after I began my studies in Fine Arts there. On that day – I most likely ended up there for an exhibition opening – I stood in the middle of the room, stunned. It was certainly not because of the excessive imperial grandeur and patriarchal swank that filled the space, but because I saw how the Academy teachers, students and administrative employees exchanged news, wine glasses in tow, during the cheerful reunion after their summer vacation, amidst swastikas, surrounding the assembly hall in the form of ornaments.

A history-political tour[3]

First stop: memorial tabletSemperdepot, Studio building of the Academy. Bullet holes have been preserved in the outer facade, surrounding a window on the ground floor. An acrylic plaque is mounted atop them with the inscription: WOUNDS OF MEMORY.

46

This memorial tablet is the only spatial manifestation with which the Academy has related to its history over the last few decades. It was hung in the 1990s, in the course of the adaptation of the building from the former theater and opera stage depot to the Academy studio building. What one notices right away when looking at it is how nebulous it is. It is not clear who is making the statement, meaning who marked the bullet holes and identified them as “wounds of memory.” The meaning of the statement also remains unclear: is it the bullet holes that leave behind wounds in the memory – if so, in the memory of what? Or is it the memory of the bullet holes that leaves behind the wounds – if so, then wounds in what?

The holes in the facade are – in all probability[4] – the consequences of the shelling by the Red Army during the so-called “Vienna Offensive” in April 1945. In leu of those circumstances, the observation of the space of memory shows that the use of the term “wound” for describing the evidence of Vienna’s liberation from Nazism represents a twofold self-victimization: if we look at the wounds from the perspective of the Nazis, according to their delusion of “racial hygiene,” these wounds are those which were inflicted by “the Bolshevik” onto the “healthy racial corpus” that had previously been “freed from the parasites”; from the post-Nazi perspective, according to victim mythologism,[5] they represent the wounds that were inflicted by “the raiding and pillaging Russian” onto the “disgraced body” of the “suffering Viennese civil society” in the “Inferno of the final warring days.” It is certainly clear what is not being remembered here: there is no memory of the disfranchisement, dispossession, persecution, expulsion and extermination, nor of the war of conquest and its “scorched earth,” nor of the involvement of art and its institutions.

Brewing post-war stew

For special occasions, such as anniversary celebrations, the Academy releases books about its history. Wolfgang Wagner, the author of a comprehensive chronicle for the 275-year anniversary, writes in 1967: “Hardly more than two decades after the end of WWII [...] the excessive damage of the war and the NS era is entirely eliminated [...] – undoubtedly impressive evidence of the unfractured vitality of this time-honored institution.”[6] While alluding to the reconstructed wing of the Academy building having been damaged after the attack, the author brews the usual post-war stew out of victim myth and reconstruction pathos,[7] presenting us with a riddle when referring to “excessive damage [...] of the NS era” that has to be seen as “entirely eliminated.” His summoning of glory, honor and unfractured vitality must, on the contrary, be deemed sheer mockery, especially since on all 492 pages of his comprehensive chronicle, he adamantly conceals the Academy and its affiliates’ involvement in Nazi crimes. As a matter of fact, Wagner does not thereby present an exception, but the rule – the institution’s involvement was worth no mention in any of the respective, subsequent publications either.[8]

Second stop: Kaisers’ relief

Assembly hall of the Academy. In the central point across from the entrance, a relief portrays two former Austrian rulers. Corresponding dedications are situated beside it: “To Kaiser Leopold I, founder of the Academy” and “Franz Joseph I, erector of this edifice.”

For the 200-year anniversary of the Academy, that room was dedicated to two individuals that the Academy feels ties to.[9] The latter set a world war into motion with an attack against Serbia. The former united two elements in his politics that were fundamental for the colonial, fascist and Nazi processes of this country: expansionism and anti-Judaism. Leopold I prompted the commencement of the so-called Great Turkish War (1683–1699), which subsequently led to the expulsion of the Ottomans from Central Europe and the ascent of Austria to a Great Power. All later expansionist politics must be seen as a continuity of this war of conquest towards the East; which includes the wars under the Habsburgs, such as WWI, as well as WWII’s conquest of extermination or the economic

47

expansion politics of the last 20 years, the Austrian neocolonialism in East and Southeast Europe. Leopold I not only decreed the expulsion of the Ottomans from Central Europe, but also the expulsion of Jews from Vienna. Until 1670, there had been a relatively large and prosperous Jewish community, which lived in the area of today’s Leopoldstadt, the 2nd District of Vienna. Leopold’s Stadt (City)? The grateful profiteers did not allow anyone to take the possibility away from them of denominating the district in honor of the Kaiser who expelled the Jews for them, certainly not without first carrying out large-scale pogroms against them.

“Are there any Aryanized Objects in this Academy?”[10]

There was an old German style massive antique table with matching armchairs in the Academy’s conference room. After the number of participants in the collegial conferences rose, due to legal amendments, there would be a need to move to a larger room and to acquire a larger table. The massive antique table was then whisked away into the anteroom of two offices, where it remains to this day. Institution rumors claim that the table was “Aryanized,” meaning it was looted during the systematic dispossession of the Jews and everyone classified as such by the Nazis. Due to the given state of knowledge, it cannot be assessed whether or not that rumor is true or false. However, although the Academy Rector’s Office is aware of the rumor, the appropriate investigation has not been initiated to date. The maintenance of the condition of not-being-able-to-judge is remarkable insofar as it is symptomatic of the way the institution deals with the portion of its property which looted objects could be found in. The systematic research on the provenience of its furnishings and the inventory of its collections, as has been done in the Austrian federal collections as well as in comparable institutions such as the University for Applied Arts, has been missing to this day.[11]

Third stop: warriors’ memorial

A bronze sculpture in the right-hand corner of the assembly hall. It displays a nude male youth, in the neoclassical style, with the base showing the inscription “1914–1918.”

We are standing in front of the “Memorial for the Fallen Art Academics” from the year 1925. Its creator, Josef Müllner, was deeply connected to the Academy for over half a century. After having studied at the institution, he was appointed Professor during the time of the Monarchy. He exercised his teaching activities during the First Republic, during Austro-Fascism and during Nazism all the way to his retirement during the Second Republic in 1948. Müllner was closely connected to German national Burschenschaften[12] during his entire professional life. He created the prototype for the war propagandistic “Wehrmann in Eisen,” the racial-mythical “Siegfriedskopf” of the University of Vienna, a memorial for Vienna’s anti-Semitic Mayor, Karl Lueger, as well as a bust of Adolf Hitler, which was erected here at the central point of the assembly hall of the Academy. After the defeat of National Socialism, Müllner was completely absolved. The respective certification of de-Nazification attested that he “carried out no Nazi propaganda” and even more so “had spoken out frequently and fervently against the Nazi regiment [sic!].”[13] While the figure holds bay leaves in his right hand as a sign of the triumph within the defeat, he places his left hand on his forehead as a gesture of mourning. Thereby, the memorial suppresses both Austria’s responsibility for starting the war along with the fact that the art academics to be mourned are the result of the expansionist politics of Franz Joseph I, to whom homage is rendered within this very room. It thereby testifies to the self-victimization within the defeat, and should endow identity through the aestheticization of mass murder and mass death, legitimizing claims to sovereignty.[14]

The filibusterers vs. the student work group

In the foreword of the book, “Im Reich der Kunst – Die Wiener Akademie der bildenden Künste und

48

die faschistische Kunstpolitik“[15] (“In the Reich of Art – The Vienna Academy of Fine Arts and Fascist Art Politics”), from 1990, editors Michael Lunardi, Peter Josef Populorum and Hans Seiger wrote: “There was initially an attempt to initiate a project that would be supported by all groups of Academy associates (students, mid-level faculty, Professors). That attempt failed because of the filibustering done by individual commission members. Ultimately there was a symposium organized on the subject ‘Art in Fascism/National Socialism and the Academy of Fine Arts’ in 1989, which ended up being organized by only one student work group in 1989. This publication has been produced as based on the event and as the conclusion to the entire project [...]. The hope remains that the issues which are missing or have fallen short, or also the questions that have arisen within the contributions, provide the occasion for further research to be stimulated by those responsible at the respective university facilities.”

Fourth stop: SchillerplatzThe park in front of the main building of the Academy at Schillerplatz.

Immediately after the Nazi takeover in Austria, the Academy expelled teachers, students and administrative employees who were Jewish or classified by the Nazis as Jewish, those married to Jews and those in political opposition to Nazism from the institution.[16] Subsequently, the Academy initiated the expulsion of Jews and those classified as such by the Nazis from this park. The Academy titled the following letter to the City of Vienna with the demand “Schillerplatz should become Jew-free,”:[17] “The Academy’s provisional direction perceived the approval of Schillerplatz as the whereabouts for the Jew with great astonishment. The unappealing strangers we would so eagerly like to see removed from the purlieus of our city now huddle by day, of all places, on the benches under our Schiller memorial, which summons reverence for our greatest poet within every race-conscious German. […] The fact that no disturbance of the peace has arisen until now can only be ascribed to the considerate, calm tactful composure of our students. [...] The Academy commission feels compelled to indicate these facts and to request their amendment.” In the following month, the Municipality of the City of Vienna conveyed that “the case concerning the visitation of the Schillerplatz garden by Jews [...] had been taken care of by the responsible authorities in the meantime.”[18] To this day, the Academy has made no gesture of repentance on that matter.[19]

Emphases within self-representation

The Academy’s website states that: “The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna has been a leading European training centre for artists for more than 300 years.”[20] A timetable lists three entries about the institution during Nazism; literally:

“1938: ‘Cleansing’ of the teaching body, appointment of provisional direction

1941: Master class for Art Education

1944–1945: “Teaching was resumed by the provisional Rector Herbert Boeckl in the badly damaged building at Schillerplatz in April 1945.”[21]

That means four words on the expulsion of teachers (the quotation marks do not make a difference regarding the disgusting affirmativeness of the expression used), four words on the Nazification of the institution (whereas that meaning can only understood by those knowing the obfuscated notions), five words on a field of activity which was introduced at the Academy then and which remains to this day (this – entirely uncontextualized – allusion to “achievement” reminds one of the commonly established manner of argumentation, referring to highway and employment policy)[22] and 19 words of self-victimization and Reconstruction Pathos. That means zero words on the expulsion of alleged and actual Jews, on the expulsion of political resistors, on the expulsion of students and administrative employees; zero words on the Nazi paintings, Nazi sculptures, Nazi buildings; zero words on the Nazi ideology and its continuities in teaching. Zero words on the ideological role of art and its institutions in Nazism, zero words on their contribution to the racial-national construction of identity as well as to war and extermination propaganda.

49

Fifth stop: Nazi bust

At the perimeter of Schillerplatz, in front of the Academy building: a bronze bust of the Nazi poet, Josef Weinheber.

This bust was created in 1940 by the Academy graduate, Josef Bock. The time when it was placed in this location has been untraceable for us until now. After 1945, it was painted over multiple times with anti-fascist slogans, once the bust was supposedly even hijacked by unknown activists. To simplify its cleaning and protect against theft afterwards, the City of Vienna replaced the original sandstone pedestal with this one here, in 1975: it is made from granite and sealed in a one-and-a-half by one-and-a-half meter concrete foundation hidden underground.[23]

The depicted, Josef Weinheber, entered the NSDAP in 1931 and was active from 1933 as the “Fachschaftsleiter für Schrifttum” (Leader of the Department for Literature) in the “Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur” (Combat League for German Culture). Adolf Hitler placed him on the so-called “Gottbegnadeten-Liste” (God-Gifted List) in 1944, a catalog of 1,041 NS artists, who were absolved from war service due to the importance of their work. In light of the inevitable defeat, Weinheber chose to take his own life on April 8th, 1945.

Agenda of the protocol from the first meeting of the professorial council after the

liberation from the Nazis, June 27th

1945; first item: “Obituary to the deceased honorary members Prof. Rudolf Bacher and Honorary Dr. Josef Weinheber. The Rector held a warm obit for both passed honorary members […]. During a minute’s silence the commemoration of the deceased was exceptionally venerated. Those present rose from their seats for the occasion.”[24]

Respectable traditions, prestigious commemoration?

“The list of the honorary members of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna reflects the history of this institution in an impressive way,” the Academy proclaimed in June 2010, after the Rector’s Office and the Senate decided to “revive this respectable tradition”[25] and award honorary membership to the painter, Maria Lassnig, and the author, Friederike Mayröcker.

An excerpt from the condolence letter from the Academy Rector to Hedwig Weinheber from June 6th, 1945: “I was deeply shaken upon receiving the news of the demise of your consort […] indisputably, the greatest Austrian lyricist of our time. […] With pride, we count the recently deceased as one of our honorary members, and filled with woe, we commemorate the great poet’s sojourn at our institution, particularly the lectures of his own work within the Circle of Friends of the Academy and the 250-year anniversary of the Academy in October 1942, which was upheaved by our honorary member through his presence and for which celebration he versified a glorious prologue for us.[26] The name of the passed will live on in the Academy building and his commemoration will be preserved high in honor forever.”[27] The promise was kept: Josef Weinheber’s name still remains on the Academy’s list of honorary members to this day.

Sixth stop: archived resistance

The denazification of the Academy’s personnel was limited to the dismissal of a handful of exposed individuals. In order to enable them remaining at the institution, however, the majority of the Nazis received a certificate attesting their so-called “minimal burden.”[28] How secure those in question were can be deduced by the impressive account of incriminating documents which can be found in the Academy archive – apparently no one saw reason to eliminate them.

It is unknown whether any documents, which would testify to records of anti-fascist

50

resistance, have disappeared. One case, however, can certainly be reconstructed with the help of existing material: It pertains to one of the students Adrian Egger, Josef Grogger, Karl Hauser, Othmar Jaindl, Hermann Leitner, Peter Marchl, Kurt Posner, Ferdinand Ruesch, Franz Staud, Richard Steinhofer and Egon Weth’s 1938 signed intervention for the reinstatement of the Professor for Sculpture, Albert Bechtold, [29] who had been expelled for political reasons. It remained unsuccessful after all. Bechtold’s reinstatement at the Academy following the liberation from Nazism, which he had to apply for on his own initiative, was rejected by the professorial council under flimsy substantiation. 51 years after Bechtold’s expulsion, Irene Nierhaus states: “For the record, the Academy has found no gesture of recognition for Bechtold to this day.”[30] For the record, to this day nothing has changed, 22 years after Nierhaus’ statement.

“Swastikas? Ornaments!”

Back when I was stunned by the confrontation of the revelers, amidst the swastikas, I did not have the guts to ask about the pattern on the floor. The actions of the attendees seemed so natural that I feared any expressed doubts would trigger doubts about my sanity. Several years later, for a similar occasion, I stood with a group of teachers and told them about that occurrence. In the end, I asked if they were not irritated by the pattern on the floor – “No, why?” – because it consists of swastikas after all. “These are not swastikas, but rather a doubled-meander pattern,” they explained, “which were avidly used as a reference to Greek antiquity in neoclassicism.” That was clear to me, but considering the conducted appropriation of the symbol here in this region through racial-national Germanic movements and their not unsubstantial influence on the history of this country, this city, this institution, the swastika in this pattern cannot simply be repudiated. They seemed irritated: “This pattern could not have had anything to do with swastikas. After all, the admired architect worked during a time when no trace of the Nazis could be found far and wide.” They then looked at me with pity and determined: “Who claims the contrary either disregards the history of the occident or suffers from persecutional mania.”

Intervening in history-writings, attacking politics of oppression

Art is never outside, it is never uninvolved in social disparity, but is always involved in it – along with its institutions. The autonomy of art is nothing other than a frequently debunked myth. However, the way that the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna relates to its own history certainly raises the question of whether that recognition has reached the institution or not. After the appropriate contention of the history-politics of the institution, one is inclined to no longer wonder about anything anymore – not about the not-wanting-to-recognize swastikas nor about the attempt to pathologize the ability to recognize them. However, breaking the perpetuation and normalization of the practices of trivialization, repression and collective oblivion, which characteristically take place in this country, and thereby always examining, denominating and contesting the coalescence of art and power anew is incumbent on each of those of us who participate in the arts as a cultural ideological state apparatus.[31]

It is thereby essential to become aware of the time and content-oriented relations of various systems of exploitation without losing sight of their discontinuities. Nazism, for example, which is eagerly particularized as an “entirely abrupt epoch”[32] in this country, cannot be viewed as an isolated phenomenon, albeit the singularity of its crimes. To do so would be a denial of the coherence and continuities with colonialism[33] and capitalism.[34] Which relations of impact do the Habsburgian politics of expansion, the Austro-Fascist crusader identity, the Nazi “Drang nach Osten” (“Drive towards the East”)[35] and current economic neocolonialism have to one another? How deeply are Catholic anti-Judaism and genocidal anti-Semitism interwoven; how deeply are historical anti-Slavism, anti-Turkism and contemporary racist policies of exclusion interwoven?

Looking at these complexes from an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, anti-anti-Semitic and post-colonial perspective and thereby considering the genealogies of local expansionism and local racialization is the precondition for intervening into hegemonic history-writing and attacking contemporary politics of oppression. These are emancipatory processes to which the disclosure of history-political

51

monstrocities could possibly make a small contribution. This being said, I would like to conclude with a quote by the artist, Ivan Jurica: “Due to the processes of extermination and exclusion on all levels, due to the missing critical positions in history and art history in knowledge production and in our studies, I claim – and this statement is my artwork – ‘By my best will, I can see swastikas everywhere!’”[36]

[1] The following individuals have worked in the group until now: Sheri Avraham, Sarah Binder, Lisa Bolyos, Eduard Freudmann, Christian Gangl, Maria Huetter, Chui Yong Jian, Tatiana Kai-Browne, Christoph Kolar, Niki Kubaczek, Stefan Lenk, Lisa Lnenicka, Verena Melgarejo Weinandt, Katharina Morawek, Maria Muhar, Georg Oberlechner, Miriam Raggam, Christoph Schiele, Barbara Wilding and Arin Zadoorian.

[2] See, for example: Lina Dokuzović and Eduard Freudmann: Squatting the Crisis – On the current protests in education and perspectives on radical change, in: Creating Worlds, European Institute For Progressive Cultural Policies, http://eipcp.net/projects/creatingworlds/dokuzovic-freudmann/en

[3] The indented passages outline six stops of a history-political tour through the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, which was initially presented by the Platform History Politics during the Open House in January 2010, and has been repeated on various occasions.

[4] An exact reconstruction of the combat at this location is not possible. According to the Viennese Historian, Richard Hufschmied, the facade markings undoubtedly stem from the shelling of automatic rifles and machine pistols, according to the most probable of all plausible scenarios, from the Red Army during WWII.

[5] The proponents of victim mythologism, who dominated the Austrian public for a long time and who are still in practice to this day, are of the belief that Austria should be viewed as the victim of National Socialist Germany. They mainly aim at denying or trivializing all responsibility and guilt of Austria as well as its population for Nazi crimes. See, for example: “The Victim Myth,” http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/en/knowledge/stations-a-z/the-victim-myth.html

[6] Walter Wagner, Die Geschichte der Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien, published by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, 1967, pg. 351

[7] The reconditioning of facilities, which had been destroyed during the course of WWII, was stylized into an identity-generating national narrative in Austria. According to the principles of victim mythologism, there was no place for acknowledging one's own guilt for the crimes of Nazism and the compensation of its victims.

[8] See: Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien 1872–1972, published by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (Editor of the textual component: Albert Massiczek), Vienna 1972. Martin Bilek, Die Akademie der bildenden Künste 1967/68 bis 1991/92. Statistik der Meisterschulen und Institute, published by the Academy directorate for the 300-year anniversary in 1992. 300 Jahre Akademie der bildenden Künste in Wien 1692–1992, composed by the Archive of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (Ferdinand Gutschi). Die Akademie in der Zeitenwende, published by the Archive of the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna under the project management of Anja Weinberg, Vienna 2002.

[9] A temporary intervention by Platform History Politics into the memorial-political manifestation is documented here: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/intervention-kaiserrelief.php

[10] The title of a poster of the Platform History Politics announcing the history-political tour through the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna in January 2010: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/

52

html/poster-rundgang2010-01.php

[11] The “Monument of the Demand for Provenience Research and Restitution,” an intervention by the Platform History Politics, is documented here: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/intervention-tisch.php

[12] Burschenschaften are academic male communities in the German-speaking region. In Austria, they are primarily affiliated with pan-Germanism and a far-right-wing credo, some of them openly associate with neo-Nazism and its players. For more details, see e.g.: Footnote 35 in “Fortified Knowledge: From Supranational Governance to Translocal Resistance” by Lina Dokuzović and Eduard Freudmann; http://eipcp.net/transversal/0809/dokuzovicfreudmann/en/#_ftn35

[13] Academy archive: 436/1946

[14] An intervention by the Platform History Politics into the memorial-political manifestation is documented here: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/intervention-kriegerdenkmal.php

[15] Hans Seiger, Michael Lunardi, Peter Josef Populorum (Eds.): Im Reich der Kunst – Die Wiener Akademie der bildenden Künste und die faschistische Kunstpolitik, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik, Vienna 1990. Subsequently referred to here as: Im Reich der Kunst

[16] The Academy has not dealt with those expulsions yet. Therefore, there is no list of expelled persons and it is not known whether additional expulsions, besides anti-Semitic and politically-motivated ones were carried out. See, for example, the poster by Platform History Politics announcing the history-political tour through the Academy of Fine Arts in January 2010: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/poster-rundgang2010-02.php

[17] Letter from the Secretary of the Academy, Eduard Josch, on behalf of the provisional direction to the vice mayor and head of the Office of Culture, Hanns Blaschke, from December 10th, 1938 (Academy archive: 1271/1938), from: Im Reich der Kunst, pg. 32

[18] Reply from the Municipality of the City of Vienna on January 18th, 1939 (Academy archive 91/1939), from: Im Reich der Kunst, pg. 32

[19] An intervention on the topic is documented here: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/intervention-schillerplatz.php; and here: http://at.indymedia.org/node/18334

[20] http://www.akbild.ac.at/Portal/akademie/uber-uns; retrieved 10 Sept. 2010

[21] http://www.akbild.ac.at/Portal/akademie/uber-uns/Geschichte; retrieved 10 Sept. 2010

[22] In order to distract from, trivialize and relativize Nazi crimes, Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in Austria tend to allude to aspects of Nazi politics which are (able to be) seen as positive by the broader population. The purportedly “proper employment policy” (Jörg Haider) as well as the successful construction of highways, supposedly for the “good of the people,” are the most commonly used examples. The fact that such processes base and perpetuate mechanisms of Nazi rule – in the aforementioned cases, for example, on the basis of slave labor and militarization policies – always remain concealed.

[23] An intervention of the Platform History Politics is documeted here: http://www.plattform-geschichtspolitik.org/html/intervention-nazibueste.php; and here: http://at.indymedia.org/node/18334

[24] Academy archive: 350/1945

[25] http://www.akbild.ac.at/Portal/akademie/aktuelles/news/akbild_event.2010-05-20.32

53

33050875; retrieved 10 Sept. 2010

[26] Passage from the prologue, Weinheber’s “Salutation to the Academy”: “This house, sheltering its own forevermore, as only a homeland does [...]. This house! Praised, because it praises, remain the allegory of true human dignity!” From the catalog for the “Anniversary Exhibition” from October 25th, 1942 to January 1943, published by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna.

[27] Academy archive: 306/1945. Letter from Rector Herbert Boeckl, the handwritten notation “return” indicates that the letter did not reach the recipient. Apparently a letter – contained in the same file – of weakened subject matter and weakened form was sent instead.

[28] According to the National Socialist Law of 1947, “minimally burdened” Nazis were liable to temporarily limited atonement duty, which extended to tax implications, existential and career implications, political and personal implications, as well as implications on apartments and furnishing. See: the National Socialist Law of 1947. Further development of the Prohibition Law and the War Criminal Law to the NSG 1947, Claudia Kuretsidis-Haider,

http://www.nachkriegsjustiz.at/service/gesetze/nsg1947.php; retrieved Oct. 11th

2010.

[29] Letter to the Ministry of Education from March 25th, 1938. Academy archive: 682/1938.

[30] Im Reich der Kunst, pg. 89.

[31] Louis Althusser: “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (Notes Towards an Investigation), in: Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays, Monthly Review Press 1971, from the French by Ben Brewster; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

[32] Astrid Messerschmidt, “Postkoloniale Erinnerungsprozesse in einer postnationalsozialistischen Gesellschaft – Vom Umgang mit Rassismus und Antisemitismus,” in: Peripherie – Zeitschrift für Politik und Ökonomie in der dritten Welt, Issue 109/110, 28, 2008. http://www.zeitschrift-peripherie.de/109-110_Messerschmidt_Er.pdf

[33] Ibid.

[34] See, for example: Max Horkheimer: “Die Juden in Europa,” in: Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung VIII/1939. http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/~muab/horkhe39.htm

[35] The expression goes back to German nationalist discourses of the 19th century as a buzzword and was used during the 20th century in Polish, Czechoslovakian and Soviet history-writing of German politics of expansion.

[36] Passage from the performance “The Verbal Extension as the Meaning of an Image,” Graduate work by Ivan Jurica from June 2009 in the Class for (Post-)Conceptual Art Practices at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna; http://abschlussarbeiten.akbild.ac.at/over_view?a_ids=661&a_index=0

http://eipcp.net/transversal/1210/freudmann/en“Swastikas? Ornaments!” as a Continuity of Repression10 2010

54