{"id":5358,"date":"2008-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/noticia\/instituciones-monstruo\/"},"modified":"2008-06-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-16T00:00:00","slug":"instituciones-monstruo","status":"publish","type":"noticia","link":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/noticia\/instituciones-monstruo\/","title":{"rendered":"Monster Institutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, the latest monograph of
\n
\n Transversal<\/a>
\n <\/em>
\n<\/strong>, the webjournal<\/em> of the
\n Transform<\/a>
\n<\/strong>,<\/em>
\n <\/em>
\n<\/strong>project, was published. This project is itself derived from another project of the
\n European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies<\/a>
\n<\/strong> (EIPCP), called
\n Republicart<\/a>
\n<\/strong>, which was a “transnational research”<\/em> initiative launched by the EIPCP itself between 2002 and 2005 with the intention of “promoting research and the development of interventionist and activist public art practices<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

The publication has generated considerable expectation in certain circles since it addresses a hot topic today: “the relationship between \u201cinstitutions\u201d and \u201cmovement.\u201d And it does so not to eternalize the controversy over the binomial \u201cstate apparatuses versus autonomous politics,\u201d but to critically focus on the state of movement institutions and postulate the possibility of undertaking a new phase of institutionality that we call hybrid and monstrous, which ultimately favors the materialization of another policy <\/em>.\u201d Proof of this monstrous hybridization is the fact that the monograph is the result of collaboration between Transform, which is a project of the
\n European Commission for Culture<\/g>
\n<\/g>, and the
\n Nomadic University<\/g>
\n<\/g>, which defines itself as “an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, decolonial and feminist laboratory for the organization of production and theoretical and intellectual transmission and an agency for post-national and post-European political intervention of the new global and transnational labor forces […]<\/g>.” That’s quite something. <\/p>\n

We insist that the topic is “very topical” at a time when the critical discourses of social movements are being re-appropriated or are being established in or from the heart of some “official” cultural institutions (see the nearby case of the MACBA<\/strong>). One more example that seems pertinent to us regarding the complexity of this process\/phenomenon: <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We read in the YP blog<\/a> (we hadn’t mentioned them for a while) that the
\n Department of Cultural Studies<\/a>
\n<\/strong> at Goldsmiths<\/strong> has launched a series of work sessions involving both students and the university staff<\/em> themselves, which aims to rethink the role of the discipline in the academic context and which are titled a very significant
\n Attack the Headquarters<\/em>
\n<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

One of the contributions to the program blog<\/a> highlighted by the YP guys is Will Davies’<\/a>, who emphasizes the fluidity of the borders between the University, capitalism and the state. Davies points out four strategies with which this situation is usually confronted and which he characterizes as: “resistance<\/g>“, “forgetfulness<\/g>“, “ironic<\/g> celebration<\/g>” and “exploration<\/g> of<\/g> power<\/g>.” Davies advocates for the latter, defining it as an exploration of the functioning of bureaucratic apparatuses and power from within. <\/p>\n

We find it insufficient to reduce action to a mere exploration and awareness, although it is a necessary step for any transforming action in a “counter-hegemonic” or “antagonistic” sense. On the other hand, we understand and share the position of Will Davies (and the YP) when they affirm that criticism and antagonism have become a constitutive part of the power of the State, although we can think that the State, although it may seem otherwise, is not a monolithic and homogeneous entity, and that its capacity to be embodied in critical discourses and practices is not equal or synchronic in each and every one of its estates. An example to clarify this last point: although the cultural elites, through institutions such as the museum or the university, can incorporate critical discourses to offer an image of radicalism and social commitment that ultimately reinforces their position, other institutions such as the school remain anchored in discourses and forms of organization that correspond to those of the beginning of modernity. <\/p>\n

In any case, it should perhaps be said that, although the museum or the university (or more exactly, some museum or some university) have been able to incorporate (the movements’) critical discourses into their own, it would be necessary to review to what extent these institutions have structurally and socially significantly modified their organization and their modes of operation. Hence, the idea of a “monster institution” may be interesting. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[],"class_list":["post-5358","noticia","type-noticia","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/noticia\/5358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/noticia"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/noticia"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lafundicio.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}