Culture by itself does not transform social reality: George Yúdice

To make culture a vehicle for social transformation, it is necessary to stop thinking of it as a “resource” for social or economic development, and start discussing it and rethinking it in a much broader sense, that is, as the germinal part of a construction process. of subjectivities, exchange of knowledge and recovery of the sense of community.

That is, broadly speaking, the approach of the Costa Rican researcher George Yúdice, professor of Latin American Studies in the Department of Modern Languages ​​and Literatures at the University of Miami, who remotely offered the conference “In addition to criticism, how to build”, in the opening of the International Colloquium “For a critical management of culture. Management as production”, convened by 17, Institute of Critical Studies, which takes place from last Monday until next Saturday, January 28 at the Tlatelolco University Cultural Center.

The Economist spoke by telephone with the specialist, author of the book “The resource of culture”, to deepen about the proposed model, especially since in recent years, in Mexico, emphasis has been placed, particularly from the State, on the cultural offer as a “transforming axis”, and public resources have been redirected to take it to the peripheries with a view to overcoming marginalization, rebuilding the social fabric and providing options to young people who are recruited by drug trafficking or forced to migrate.

“Culture by itself, understood as a resource, or as an artistic exhibition, is not capable of resolving social problems; (It is thought) that through ‘culture’ (understood as visual arts, dance, music, etc.) young people can be removed from gangs and generate decent work opportunities for them, and this is not the case; It is difficult for a young man from the periphery to be able to make a living from this, unless he becomes a professional and enters the market, and we know that this possibility is remote”, affirms Yúdice.

In response to social realities —he says—, cultural projects must be accompanied by other types of interventions, it is not enough to make the aesthetic experience available to the public in the social peripheries, but to design other more holistic models that help to train people, aware of themselves, their surroundings and their territories, and that from there they build possibilities that respond to their needs and interests.

He reflects, however, that these are long processes in which the State does not invest because often its sights are short-term. “Private funds are needed, critical awareness and solidarity, willingness to exchange knowledge, and therein lies the work of cultural managers and art creators who seek to trigger transformations.”

As an example, he comments that for 12 years he has been working on a project in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which in Spanish would be called “Youth Network Agency”, which “has touched the lives of more than 6,000 young people in 50 favelas.” in an environment lacerated by violence and exclusion. “The immediate objective is not to generate work for these children, but to work on their subjectivities, generate a sense of value for themselves and create networks of mutual support.”

art as detonator

Faced with the State’s cultural policies, which prioritize political profitability, or market initiatives, which seek economic gain, Yúdice sees another model of cultural management, which he figuratively calls ‘hacking’, where art can be a detonator of processes of social and community transformation.

“Art can do very little if it doesn’t leave the galleries, theaters and museums and get into people’s lives, go out into the territory”, he assures; but neither does it help if it is imposed as a governmental or private program behind the neighbors’ backs, he notes.

“Many of the State’s cultural offerings do not respond to the needs and interests of the communities and that is why they fail or soon become extinct, which is why it is necessary to ‘hack’ cultural initiatives”, underlines the academic.

And he explains what cultural ‘hacking’ means: “In Mexico there is more than one project, where art in a neighborhood cultural space triggers a process that encourages people’s creativity, giving rise to processes of construction of subjectivities , ‘assembly of different knowledge’ -as Benjamin Mayer, the founder of 17, Institute of Critical Studies, says- and generate collaboration networks that respond to the real needs and interests of people and communities”.

This is exemplified by the “Casa Gallina” project, in the working-class neighborhood of Santa María la Ribera, Mexico City, which turned from an exhibition cultural center into a space for community exchange, where the residents themselves have been in charge of managing various programs such as vegetable gardens , planting of milpas, recovery and cultivation of seeds, a “shop” for lending tools, various workshops, dialogue forums and also artistic expressions. It is an example of how the community went beyond the artistic work, appropriated a space and converted it, he points out.

“What you have to look for is to create spaces that promote the meeting of knowledge, where people get together, dialogue, exercise creativity and seek solutions to their problems, and there art can be the detonator.”

Often, in Mexico, many community cultural spaces appear lonely, abandoned, without a budget, oblivious to the needs and interests of their audiences, and closed to alternative intervention. Even so, they represent a ‘hacking’ opportunity for cultural managers, but how to deal with cultural bureaucracies?

The governance instance must have the will to allow things to exist that go beyond what was programmed”, answers George Yúdice.

About the interviewee:

George Yúdice (New York, 1947) is Professor of Latin American Studies in the Department of Modern Languages ​​and Literatures at the University of Miami. He researches cultural and creative arts, practices and industries: music, audiovisual and visual arts; with special interest in the new aesthetic phenomena in the digital era. He is the author, among other titles, of “The resource of culture” (Gedisa, 2002), “Cultural Policy” (Gedisa, 2004), “New technologies, music and experience” (Gedisa, 2007), “Emerging cultures in the Hispanic world in the United States” (Fundación Alternativas, 2009) and “Cultural policies for diversity: disturbing gaps” (2016).

Know more:

The colloquium runs until Saturday, January 28 at the CCU Tlatelolco; Know the details of the programming: https://17instituto.org/posgrado/xxxiv-coloquio-internacional-por-una-gestion-critica-de-la-cultura-la-gestion-como-pro-duccion/

francisco.deanda@eleconomista.mx