Jim McGuigan (2009), in his widely-acclaimed article “Doing a Florida: The Creative Class Thesis and Cultural Policy” talks about Richard Florida, considered as a the guru of management in America. According to McGuigan, Florida’s work The Rise of the Creative Class was a classic case of looking impressive on the surface, but is actually riddled with flaws in the inside. In addition, Florida’s work on cultural policy leans more on the managerialist perspective which resulted to the oversimplication of the scientific reasoning and research (McGuigan 310). To a reader who has no background on the social sciences, Florida’s discussion on cultural policy may seem impressive, but at the core of it was the reality that the purpose of his work was not necessarily about cultural policy. Consequently, the intention of his book was to articulate neoliberal economics, which he did through discussing the Creative Class. The said concept, according to McGuigan, is nothing new, as it has already been discussed by several theorists which dates as far back as 1957. Florida’s take on the idea of “new class” was an amalgamation, at times an oversimplification or an exaggeration, of the existing discussions regarding the Creative Class. His claims, in what was an illustration of an exaggeration and misleading writing, that the number of Americans who belong to the Creative Class has reached 38.3 million (McGuigan 311), a rather large number that he failed to justify. In addition, McGuigan relates this deliberate glitch to Florida’s obvious intention to steer the discussion towards the Creative Class and the cities which have benefitted from it (313).
Consequently, Florida’s take on economic development was as much a replication of how he discussed his idea of cultural development. As discussed by McGuigan (2009), three factors contribute to economic growth: technology, talent, and tolerance, or what he simply termed as the three T’s (as cited in McGuigan 313). However, Florida failed to provide a clear definition and explanation as to why these three are linked in generating economic growth, especially on tolerance, other than saying that it is crucial, and the oversimplification of talent which he related to simply having a bachelor’s degree. These errors, whether they were intentional or were unwittingly committed, is a common problem in cultural policy making. By the same token, it would appear that like Florida, the problem in cultural policy today is that researchers tend to develop misleading cultural planning policies that veer towards personal interests rather than promoting cultural development. This is illustrated in the field of research by Harry G. Frankfurt (2005) in his book On Bullshit.
Subsequently, Belfiore, who wrote about Frankfurt’s book, used the concepts presented by Frankfurt in her article “On bullshit in cultural policy and practice and research: notes from the British case” published in 2009. In particular, Belfiore’s research was guided by Frankfurt’s two definitions of the term bullshit: 1) mindlessness, which refers to the total disregard of the truth exhibited by the bullshitter, and 2) the act of intentionally misleading the bullshitter’s interlocutors in pursuit of his own interests and purposes (as cited in Belfiore 343). Therefore, when related to McGuigan’s criticism of Florida’s work, both definitions aptly describe Florida’s acts in his work, such that the claims he made were either a clear replication of existing works which he failed/denied to recognize, and the total disregard for truth despite the hard evidence provided by facts, all to mislead the people for him to promote his personal interests. In Belfiore’s discussion, on the other hand, these concepts from Frankfurt were the backbone of her analysis of the British experience.
Incidentally, Frankfurt was clear in saying that there is so much bullshitting in culture that it has become an integral part of it, that its prevalence lies in the idea that despite people who know about it choose to ignore it. This, according to Frankfurt, poses serious problems in the society, thereby highlighting how it should be defined and explained well for people to understand. Similarly, in Belfiore’s analysis of Frankfurt’s book, she offered a different interpretation of Frankfurt’s ideas using different perspectives of other researchers. Likewise, Bok (1978) explains that a false person is someone who is intentionally deceitful, while Chisholm and Feehan (1977) state that a person’s intention to deceive does not equate his intention to lie, and as such, each act carry a different moral weight (as cited in Belfiore 344). However, among the definitions swirling around, Frankfurt’s idea seemed to match that of Adler (1997), which states that “a lie is a blunt instrument, easily found, promising an easy success” (as cited in Belfiore 344). Frankfurt, as a moral philosopher, expressed concern on people’s significant indifference towards accuracy in that the mindlessness consequence that was part of his definition given may threaten the “quality of public life and contemporary culture” (as cited in Belfiore 344). Moreover, he points out that the moral danger in this situation is in the extreme carelessness of determining what is true or not that breeds bullshit. For a person to lie, s/he should be able to identify first what is true and what is false, and respond to the lie by choosing it over what is true. Conversely, this is entirely different from how a bullshitter thinks as s/he has complete disregard for what is true or false. In addition, the decision to act on it is also more than intentional or a result of a careless view of truth, but was more influenced by the bullshitter’s desire to propagate his/her personal interest.
Accordingly, bullshitting and lying breeds easily in politics and the other fields related to it such as advertising and public relations. Frankfurt cites that politicians themselves own to their practice of disregarding truthfulness when in the face of political struggles. Subsequently, this gives way to the common popular belief and the insistent connotation that has been attached among politicians, which appears to be accepted by many, that politicians are perennial liars. It would appear that lying is a right of a politician, and that it is quite crucial to their success in the occupation. Wherefore, as Belfiore takes these concepts from Frankfurt in studying whether there is bullshitting in the British cultural policy, several interesting results were derived. Consequently, using Ministerial speeches and government policy documents, Belfiore was able to identify one instance of bullshitting in the cultural policy that was committed by Chris Smith when he was still a Secretary of State for Culture. In a project undertaken during his time as Secretary, a cultural consultant was commissioned to produce a literature review about the social impacts of the arts. However, reports released stated that despite the amount of art activities implemented in the neighborhood’s most financially challenged areas, there was “paltry” contribution to the neighborhood renewal.
On the contrary, this was in direct contrast to Chris Smith’s claim that the said activities are found to have possible positive results to the decrease of long-term unemployment, the decrease of crime, improved health and qualifications, contributes to the promotion of individual pride, in strengthening community spirit, and the development of sense of responsibility that would aide the communities to determine and organize programs that would help regenerate programs themselves (as cited in Belfiore 348). However, years after, Smith admits that he used any statistics that were available were all an effort to convince the Treasury to increase funding, as presenting the possible effects of the program in nurturing beauty or fostering poetry in order to improve the quality of life won’t be enough (as cited in Belfiore 348-349). Smith’s admission to using the available data strategically and selectively illustrates Frankfurt’s definition of bullshitting, where the person, Chris Smith in this instance, intentionally misled the Treasury in order to advance his personal interest which was to get more funding.
Chiefly, Australia and New Zealand are two governments that have similarities in their approach towards cultural policies. While the previous studies discussed focused on the explicit cultural policies per se, these two countries have approached cultural policy in an invisible or implicit manner. Consequently, the New Zealand Ministry tends to focus more on advice, research, and strategic activities, as opposed to the Australian Department, which leans towards delivering specific support programs and disbursing grants (Madden 2). While New Zealand was already in the process of adjusting its policies, as it takes on the review of two major cultural support agencies, namely the Creative New Zealand and the New Zealand Film Commission, in general, the country’s cultural policy is relatively quiet. In addition, it is also worth noticing that these actions of the Ministry were more into their effort to fixing the cultural sector in order to make it function better instead of formulating grand policies. Australia, on the other hand, has yet to decide on whether to form a national cultural policy, and commentators are apparently showing positive support for it. Despite strong arguments against it, more citizens and key people have highlighted the need to raise the profile of culture and to create a ‘whole of government’ approach towards culture (Madden 4). As such, a call to create a ministry of culture, at the same time develop a ‘national cultural and design strategy and policy’ was made (Madden 4).
In Canada, where a significant boom in the building construction produced eight major cultural construction projects, a relative discourse or understanding of whether this specific event promotes cultural improvement, or is more a product of contemporray patterns of global competition (Jenkins). Accordingly, the “Cultural Renaissance,” as the said project was named, is composed of five cultural buildings, namely the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, and the Ontario College of Art Design. In addition, these buildings are meant primarily to set new landmarks in the country, which also aim to bolster the image of the nation as an international and economic capital (Jenkins). Once completed, Canada perceives that the buildings will attract cultural tourists as they foresee these edifices to be the new aesthetic of global economic competition. However, apart from Toronto, the US is also on its way to either building or renovating existing museums, with 40 museums which have already declared its concrete plans. By the same token, in Europe, the same projects are also being undertaken, with the new Tate Modern, the newly-renovated Victoria and Albert Musuems already in place in London. Likewise, in several other countries such as Berlin, where the infamous Jewish Museum can be found, and in Spain, Tokyo, Vienna, and Switzerland, among other countries where the culture of museums and reviving old but important cultural heritage of the countries are being undertaken. In light of all these constructions, all around the globe, Canada’s efforts to undertake the construction of five new cultural buildings are now being seen in a different life. Although there is no indication if similar questions are being raised in the countries mentioned, Canadians are now skeptic behind the projects. While it is an impressive and valid effort to want to have more tourists in the country that would benefit the economy, and that art and culture id being promoted in the process. But what many people may not be aware about was that in order to complete the project, its $257 million dollar funding, which was taken from the provincial and federal governments will result to years of cuts that will be taken from arts fundings (Jenkins). In addition, there will also be an increase in the operating costs of those buildings. These financial discussions are effectively muted by all the press releases and excitement that the construction alone has generated, but what is lost in the process is the cultural meaning of the buildings. As it is, they now represent cultural competitiveness and opportunities for business, rather than the cultural representation that they really are. Here now lies Frankfurt’s example of bullshit in the cultural policy.
Chiefly, art is a reliable tool that enriches and makes possible social inclusion which also contributes to the economic development of urban and rural areas. While there are several data that were already collected in the past, they were mostly manipulated on how they were used, such as that of Chris Smith, in order to suit one’s personal agenda. Still, in Britain, these data were commonly misrepresented in order to propagate efforts and policies that would decrease fundings. Consequently, with the changing of the government, which should be taken as a beacon of hope in the persistent debates on budgeting, but it doesn’t appear to be that way. Rather, actors and representative of the arts and cultural policy present in the discussion strongly feel that instead of political argument, they should be shifting the emphasis towards the value of their institutions and the work that they do. Unlike other factors in the government, data do not really account for the importance and the social relevance of art, especially the performing ones. Thus, it is only understandable and accepted that when they take on the task of finding fundings, numbers won’t be of great importance. Perhaps other officials involve may also take a leaf on Chris Smith’s methods of manipulating data, such that the data presented were selected and were strategically used in order to sway the government. The questions stand, then. Is bullshitting the only way for cultural policies to get the fundings that they need? Why is there no enough funding for cultural policies when they were formed by the government, accordingly to address other issues in the culture which are not included in those which cannot be presented through ‘statistical’ and ‘graphical’ presentations? Singularly, Chris Smith’s admission of committing bullshit during his term as Secretary of State for Culture seems to have a garnered popular following which elicits doubts and fears. Incidentally, the British culture maintains its ways and methods of narrowly utilitarian assessment of what they consider to be a legitimate expenditure of tax revenue allocated to arts and culture. While it is somewhat accepted by many in some degree that politicians are perennial liars, what then happens to the concept of honest politics? Does that even (still) exist? How do the cultural policies in art fare when decisions are based on statistics, but there is no clear and established method of doing so? Hence, art can’t be measured and be represented in statistical data form, but its importance lies beyond what data and tax revenues imply.
On the contrary, there are several issues on cultural policies that are brought into the surface in the past years. While these don’t concentrate on one topic alone, the idea of bullshit, as introduced by Frankfurt, attracts so much attention due to its close link to the underlying practices of many people in positions of authority. Consequently, this concept of bullshit causes a divide and conflict between those who are involved, mainly the government, the artists, private organizations, and the general public. In addition, there are several literature that addresses this problem, but no concrete solution has been offered on how to solve it. Perhaps the right thing to ask now is whether or not there is really a solution to this? According to the examples mentioned, it would appear that there is none, or if ever there is, it wouldn’t be only one. Hence, this discussion leads to the old and long practice of politicians in lying. Is there a way to stop it, or is it even possible to stop it? Consequently, cultural policies promote one way of life in place of another, and when the question of culture and policy come into play, the way humans will live is at stake (Sterne 85). There is a need to address this problem of researchers, people of the government, and other entities’ wrong practice in the cultural policy, as it is ultimately the people who are going to be on the losing end.
Works Cited
Belfiore, Eleonora. “On bullshit in cultural policy and practice and research: notes from the
British case.” International Journal of Cultural Policy. Web. 27 Apr 2016.
Belfiore, Eleonora. “Cultural Policy and the Concensus of Bullshit.” RSA. Web. 27 Apr
2016.
Jenkins, Barbara. “Toronto’s Cultural Renaissance.” Canadian Journal of Communication 30(2).
Web. 27 Apr 2016.
Madden, Chritopher. “Issues in cultural policy, Editorial.” Cultural Trends 20(1).
Web. 27 Apr 2016.
McGuigan, Jim. “Doing a Florida: The Creative Class Thesis and Cultural Policy.” Web. 27 Apr
2016.
Sterne, Jonathan. “Cultural policy studies and the problem of political representatioin.” The
Communication Review 5, pp.59-89. Web. 27 Apr 2016.
Exit Survey
While working on this assignment, I read the handout extremely well and had to constantly refer to it in order to be properly guided.
In the same way, I also had to refer to my notes during the Argumentative Synthesis lecture to make sure that I follow the correct way of writing an argumentative essay.
I also went to the Writing Center with the handout in order to make sure that I get to learn everything there is that would be useful to the completion of the paper.
This is also the same reason why I went out my way to visit Ms. Anne Marie Smeraldi and asked for her assistance about the best materials that I can use to make the paper comprehensive and interesting.
I was not confident about finding articles for the homework, but upon checking the Search Engine, I concluded that it was not that difficult, so I was able to get the materials I needed and made sure that I got my Work Cited information so that I won’t have to go back again anymore.
While doing the research, I also had to make an outline so that I will have a guide to follow while writing it. I found out that it was extremely helpful to have an outline because it made the whole writing process so much easier.
In the same way, it also helped me make sure that my thesis statement is the way it should be: argumentative in nature, accurate, clear, and limited.
During the course of the semester, I had to make sure that I kept up with the readings. I am not very confident with the way I write, and by referring to the book, I somehow felt that I was on the right path.
After I was done writing the paper, I had to re-read it several times to find any spelling or grammatical mistakes, and to make sure that all the ideas I wanted and had to present are there. In the same way, I also had to make sure that I follow the proper MLA citation, both in-text and in the works cited page.
Upon getting the draft back, I had to consult the checklists in the book to make sure that I had everything checked. I must say that these handouts were extremely helpful as I was able to see all the things I had to include in the paper, and make sure that when they are not in my draft, I am able to include them.
While working on this homework, I made sure that I read the supplemental handouts to make sure that I am writing the paper correctly and that I am following the instructions properly. I found it helpful to consult the handouts every now and then because it got me guided all through out the completion of the paper.
When I encountered a stumbling block, I made sure that I set a conference with the instructor to ask what I had to do and get the right advice.
