UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

Interpretation and Public Policy: the aesthetics of evidence Panel 29

Caroline Agnew

1 Caroline Agnew

While there have been advances in the field of critical policy studies in terms of incorporating discourse analysis into the field, the use of interpretive methods has been under explored in the literature. More specifically, I intend to explore the ideas of intertextuality and mimesis in public policy. These concepts are drawn from the Gadamers study of aesthetics, as well as Ricoeurs hermeneutic phenomenology, and are used to understand a text and its relationship to its context. While they are more often associated with both anthropology and the study of aesthetics, I argue that they are useful tools in understanding the true character of policy problems.

With so much emphasis on empirical evidence in public policy, it is easy to overlook the contextualized nature of policy issues. This is especially true in cultural policy, where policy trends have been criticised for failing to take into consideration local cultures including traditions and art practices. There is also a growing concern that despite the growing body of empirical studies in cultural policy, the terms culture and art are often left ambiguous, despite the fact that they are increasingly being used as policy instruments in social and economic development. In addition, the instrumentalization of culture often overlooks the actual physical manifestations of culture as art in favour of examining social conditions in which the art was made.

This ambiguity also raises ontological concerns for empirical research in policy studies. Therefore, I would like to explore at the social construction of meaning in the policy process by looking at the relationship between cultural policy and local aesthetics. I intend to do so by looking at a series of four cultural policy documents from the City of Ottawa, and then relating them to a selection of art works that were displayed in public galleries during that time.

Context of the Research

While the mainstream literature does acknowledge that policy analysis is ambiguous, there has been a tendency to focus on using data more efficiently rather than attempting to understand the contextualized meanings of policy issues. To be more precise, there has been an inclination towards using bounded rationality as an approach rather than rational-comprehensive models of decision-making, as many scholars have commented on the difficulties in applying this second approach in policy practices. For example, Lindblom (1959) describes how policy makers should not attempt to assume full knowledge of the roots of a policy issue (the rational comprehensive model) and to begin from there, but should instead make small incremental changes to policies and review them as time goes on. Etzioni (1967), on the other hand, recognizes that incrementalism has its place in policy-making, but argues that there are some problems that must be more closely and thoroughly examined. Furthermore, Forester (1984) acknowledges context in decision-making processes, but limits it to bounded rationality and the ability to act on information, rather than on the quality of the information itself or the ontological foundations of the research.

2 Caroline Agnew

Furthermore, in the traditional literature, there is a conviction that the larger the pool of data, the better policy decisions will be made. Lasswell (1955) and Simon (1976) both argue that the growing computational capacity of computers would make it possible to include a wider set of variables in decision processes. Interestingly, both Lasswell and Dror (1970) believe that both context and culture are important factors in policy-making, and Simon goes on to illustrate how organizational culture can shape how information is used. Dror even goes so far as to recognize the role of common sense in the policy process. However, one thing that these authors share is the belief that greater computational power will result in better, more neutral and more comprehensive policy making than could be accomplished by humans alone. While they do admit the importance of context, it would seem as though the rise of technocratic decision-making processes has increased the focus on instrumental rationality while neglecting the human element in public policy.

More recently, to counter trends in New Public Management and technocratic governance, some scholars are attempting to incorporate discourse into policy studies. These studies draw mainly on Foucault and Habermas in order to better understand how identity and language shape policy discussions. Frank Fischers (1998, 2003) work incorporates Foucaults argument that the speaking subject has the power to shape how the object of study is perceived. His work illustrates how policy-makers are able to frame the recipients of policy as deserving or undeserving. In addition, other authors have described how indigenous knowledge is often not seen as legitimate in policy debates (Juillet, 2007), and how mainstream policy discussions do not take womens issues into account even though women make up half of the population (Hawkesworth, 2010). These critiques of construction of knowledge and the ability to control policy discussions indicate that the use of purely empirical evidence in the policy process can indeed be problematic.

Habermas contribution to the use discourse analysis in policy studies is often drawn from his work on deliberative democracy and ideal speech situations. Rather than focusing on rationality and efficiency, Habermas argues that establishing means of open communication will create a more democratic and level policy arena (Heysse, 2006). This work has led to some very interesting cases in which attempts are made to create an open dialogue among policy actors. These attempts have been met with mixed success, as Habermas work has been interpreted differently in various countries as a result of their pre-existing institutions, both formal and cultural (Dryzek & Tucker, 2008). However, when the deliberative model is used successfully, it can open up lines of communication which facilitate learning and cooperation even between competing interests (Innes & Booher, 2003).

While there has been a growing academic interest in critically examining policy analysis as well as creating more bottom-up models of democratic participation, there is also a sense that contemporary policy practices actually reflect an entrenched commitment to rational choice methods. Over the past thirty years, countries and regions such as Britain, Canada, the United States, and the European Union have seen increased reliance on technocratic decision-making.

3 Caroline Agnew

In Britain, this was begun under Margaret Thatcher, but was continued and expanded by New Labour under Tony Blair (Syrett, 2003). While these strategies have, on the surface, the aim of depoliticizing policy analysis and providing more efficient ways to make decisions, they have also had the effect of reinforcing divisions between those who are considered experts and those who are not (Callon, Lascoumes, & Barthe, 2001). In addition, there are questions that can be raised about the types of expertise that are valued in technocratic processes. For example, in Canada, at least, policy analysis is dominated not by experts in a variety of fields, each giving input of equal weight, but by methodologies developed in the field of economics (Mintrom, 2007; Vining & Boardman, 2007).

This research seeks to challenge the continuing dominance of these methodologies by introducing two concepts that have received relatively little attention in policy studies. The reason for bringing in these ideas is to raise both ontological and practical questions about the focus on instrumental rationality in policy analysis. For one thing, there are concerns about the types of issues that can be studied in the instrumental rationality framework, and that issues that can be easily measured will be placed higher on the policy agenda than phenomena that are less tangible. The second question is concerned with how to use the interpretation of cultural symbols and incorporate it into the policy process.

Why is this important?

Interpretation is not a new addition to policy studies, but it has yet to find traction within mainstream policy analysis. While some authors acknowledge the importance of looking at the flow of ideas, rather than events, there is still greater weight given to empirical rather than interpretive data. However, there is also a growing belief that the ways in which evidence is used in policy processes can add additional layers of obfuscation (Belfiore, 2009).

The critique of knowledge production in policy studies is especially relevant in the field of cultural policy. While cultural policy studies originally stems from cultural studies and critically examining the role of government in supporting cultural development, over the past decade there has been an increased amount of research that either focuses on audience development or proving the social benefits of the arts (Caust, 2003). In addition, with the rise of New Public Management in the 80s, it became increasingly important for arts organizations to be able provide evidence of the social benefits of culture (Belfiore, 2004). While the ability to prove that the arts have a measurable impact has helped keep culture on the public agenda (Gibson, 2008), there are scholars who believe that many of these studies leave art and culture with ambiguous definitions (Belfiore & Bennett, 2007; Gordon, 2010).

In the context of New Public Management, the need for evidence has shifted the focus of cultural policy from culture, which is inherently ambiguous, and more towards other, presumably more measurable, phenomena such as taste and social capital. Bourdieus (1984) work on taste has set the stage for a developing field of research that studies peoples artistic tastes (For example

4 Caroline Agnew

Ostrower, 2005; What People Want from the Arts , 2008). However, these studies often frame art as a pleasant or otherwise socially positive pastime and tend to ignore the role that the arts have played in social and political dissent. While it is commonly acknowledged that the words art and culture are not interchangeable terms, many cultural policies continue to use the arts as part of their strategies. The proliferation of studies that look at the presumed benefits of the arts, such as developing social capital in different social groups (Buys & Miller, 2009; Jeannotte, 2003), without looking critically at art as a manifestation of cultural identity or at the symbolic meanings that lie behind art as a cultural expression.

In addition, much of the traditional policy literature aims to find the best ways of solving policy problems, and focuses on how questions regarding how to analyze problems and how to solve them. However, much of the critical literature looks at who questions of who is able to speak within policy discourses. I would like to focus on what questions about what is actually being studied, which I feel should be a central part of the policy process. This type of research was initiated by Yanow (1996), who looked at the localized meanings of recreation centres in Israel to see how they were used. I intend to follow in this tradition by exploring in greater depth the ways in which to use the concepts of intertextuality and mimesis.

Main concepts

The concepts that I will be dealing with are intertextuality and mimesis. The first two concepts come from the study of aesthetics, but I argue that they can be applied to policy studies as well. Gadamer introduces the idea of intertextuality in Truth and Method, using the practice of art criticism to explain how the social sciences are not the same as the natural sciences. He argues that it is not always possible to understand social relationships through the physical senses, as one would with the natural or physical sciences. He wrote that social relationships must be understood through a process of interpretation and contextualization, which he drew from Heideggers concept of DaSein. By using aesthetics as his object of study, he showed how taste, or the enjoyment of a work of art, was not sufficient to understand its meaning or its role in the society in which it exists. In other words, the physical senses alone are not enough uncover the purpose of the work and its relationship to its context (Gadamer, 1975).

Next is Ricoeurs concept of mimesis, which was originally used in literary interpretation. Ricoeur describes the three modes of mimesis, which include the speaker, the language of the text, and the reader. When the writer creates a text, she must try and convey her ideas, which is mimesis (1). The language that she uses is mimesis (2), and the readers interpretation of those words and ideas is mimesis (3) (Ricoeur, 1991). In other words, the writer cannot impart her thoughts directly into the mind of the reader. Instead, communication is always mediated through language, and also through the experiences of the reader. For policy studies, this concept can be applied in a number of different ways, including understanding the local context during the process of policy transfer, as well as interpreting the ways in which evidence is being used, and even manipulated, in the policy process.

5 Caroline Agnew

Both of these concepts deal with interpretation, but are different from discourse theory in subtle but important ways. Foucaults discourse theory was a critique of the power relationship between the speaking subject and the passive object. However, I am not looking at discourse, but at interpreting culturally imbedded objects and texts. Unlike empirical approaches in policy studies, interpretative approaches aim to understand how an object or text exists within its context. For example, people use tools to physically do things, but those tools may also function as a status symbol within a certain cultural group. Art, in particular, is a culturally embedded phenomenon, and therefore its symbolic meanings must be examined within its frame of context.

In other words, one of the questions that I will be asking is what is art in the context of Ottawas cultural policies? The policies themselves may well contain the answers to what is the art supposed to do? However, my research will focus on what kinds of aesthetic forms and themes predominate, and what they mean in this particular case. The policies themselves will be used as a way of contextualizing the work, and the work itself will show how art is defined within those policies. These two phenomena cannot be separated, as one provides the context for the other, while the other provides the definitions.

Case Study

I have chosen Ottawa as a case study for a number of reasons. First, Ottawa is often described as having a missing middle. This refers to the comparatively large number of federal cultural institutions such as the National Arts Centre and the National Gallery of Canada, as well as community centre-based arts programs. However, Ottawa is often critiqued for its lack of municipally funded professional art spaces in the city (Agnew, 2010). One of the problems is that the presence of these federal institutions has created the perception that there is a thriving cultural scene in Ottawa, and therefore does not require additional municipal funding (Beninger, 2005). On the other hand, there is a relatively strong amateur arts scene in Ottawa, several of which have contributed to the development of this citys cultural policies. In addition, during the period in which these policies were written was also the time frame in which many of the municipally-run galleries were founded. It is the relationship between the policies and the types of art that are shown that is in question here.

One of the problems with contemporary cultural policy studies is that often the research focuses on taste, rather than on the artworks themselves. Consequently, I will attempt to bridge that gap by drawing on ideas from cultural studies and art criticism to read the artwork as well as its policy context. There are a few considerations that must be taken into account in order to do this. First, art and culture are related, but not interchangeable. Art is to be seen as a manifestation of culture. Second, art theory and local cultural practices often intersect, but art theory may not have a direct influence on local cultural practices. Instead, it is more likely to be a trickle down effect, where ideas from the academic or professional art worlds may find their way into local cultural practices without any direct reference. As a result, it is important to remember that art theory is only one part of the cultural context along with other elements.

6 Caroline Agnew

Methods

In order to explore these art works and their relationship to public policies, I will be using the concepts of mimesis and intertextuality. For Mimesis (1), I will try to discern what the artist is trying to convey. I will do so by looking at the types of images that are present and how they are used in the artwork. For mimesis (2), I will try to fit these symbols and conventions in with ideas from art theory. What types of media does the artist use, and how does it help to convey an idea? For mimesis(3), I will look at my own reaction and reflect upon my understanding of the work.

I incorporate intertextuality by trying to contextualize the work. This will include looking at any biographical information that is present about the artist, as well as any themes, symbols, or images that might relate to the work of other local artists of the same time period. It will also take account of the policy environment in which the artwork was created (if that information is available) and shown. As this research questions the nature of the policy context of a social phenomenon, it is important to see if there are any trends within that context. One other thing that must be included will be to see if there are any contemporaneous themes or styles in the broader art world that are not found in Ottawas municipal galleries. This will help to also differentiate between the concepts of art and local culture.

This research will focus on the time period of the last three cultural policies, which occurred between 1981 and 2012. I will be looking at the art on display at municipally-run galleries. However, because of the thirty year time frame, I will be looking at catalogues and other records as well as at the physical works of art. These three cultural policies represent a shift in thinking that frames the arts in very similar ways, but with important differences as to their focus. In addition, each one is influenced by cultural policy trends that were occurring internationally at the time they were written.

I will be focusing my attention on four art galleries in the city

Preliminary Findings

The first document, Proposals for Development of Arts and Culture in the Ottawa-Carleton Region, was published in 1980. It recommends the establishment of an arm-length arts council, which is in line with similar contemporaneous arguments made regarding the role of the artist as an agent of political or social voice. The second document, Ottawa 20/20 Arts Plan, was published in 2003. During that time, Richard Floridas Creative Class argument (Florida, 2002) was gaining traction in the economic development strategies in cities all over the world. This document reflects this trend by highlighting the importance of the arts specifically as drivers of the post-industrial economy. The third document, A Renewed Action Plan for Arts, Heritage and Culture in Ottawa (2013-2018), is a ten year status report on the previous policy document, but it holds a small but significant difference in that it highlights the role of the arts as the Fourth

7 Caroline Agnew

Pillar of Sustainability. There is also a larger focus on cultural identity and participation than in any of the previous documents.

The first exhibition that I attended was entitled Nuances, which features art projects of children and teens. While at first it seemed slightly unfair to try and critique the work of children, I found that some interesting points were raised by the work. First, this art show comes after the publication of the most recent cultural policy document, in which identity and pride of place are featured quite prominently. There was one group of collages that seemed to be part of an assignment, as they were all similarly constructed. These collages were self portraits of girls around the ages of eleven to thirteen. One thing that struck me was the use of colour, as these pictures contained a lot of pink, and were made up of pictures cut out of magazines. On the surface, this assignment seems fairly standard, but raises questions about how the girls learned to identify with the colours they were using. Could it be that looking at the magazines themselves was in fact teaching these girls how to see themselves?

Another group of works were obviously inspired by cubist still lives. These works begged the question of whether or not the children were asking the types of conceptual questions that were asked by Picasso and Braque. While there is certainly merit to being inspired by past masters and learning from their work, it is also important to understand the context in which they were working. Were the children asked to think about how a painting relates to other media such as photography, and what it means to create a painting in a time when photography is so predominant? These were the types of questions that the cubists were asking themselves, but I did not get the impression that the concepts of the cubists were included as part of the assignment. This raises an important issue in regards to art education: is it enough to teach only technical skills, or should critical thinking be part of childrens art classes?

Conclusion

Although the preliminary findings have raised more questions than they have answered, they do highlight the fact that instrumentalizing art is not a straightforward task. The arts have been put forward almost as a panacea to any number of social problems, but often without any recognition of its history or function as a critical mirror of society. By raising these concerns, it becomes apparent that attempting to find concrete and measurable indicators, such as taste or audience participation, can in fact serve to obscure rather than clarify a policy problem.

Works Cited Agnew, C. (2010). The Arts and Local Development in Ottawa. In R. Gomez (d.), The Local

Economic Infrastructure of Business Improvement Areas(BIAs) in the City of Toronto

(Vol. 1-Book, 1-Section). Toronto: Infrastructure Canada.

8 Caroline Agnew

Belfiore, E. (2004). Auditing Culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2), 183202.

Belfiore, E. (2009). On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: notes from the British

case. International journal of cultural policy, 15(3), 343359.

Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2007). Rethinking the social impacts of the arts. International

journal of cultural policy, 13(2), 135151.

Beninger, A. L. (2005). The Politics of Culture in Ottawa: The Origins and Development of a

Municipal Cultural Policy 1939-1988 (Vol. Maser of Arts).

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2009). Enhancing Social Capital in Schoolchildren via School Based

Community Cultural Development Projects: A Case Study. International Journal of

Education and the Arts, 10(3).

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la

dmocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.

Caust, J. (2003). Putting the Art Back into Arts Policy Making: How Arts Policy Has Been

Captured by the Economists and the Marketers. International Journal of Cultural Policy,

9(1), 5163.

Dror, Y. (1970). Prolegomena to Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1), 135150.

Dryzek, J. S., & Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Concensus

Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review,

68, 864876.

Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision-Making. Public

Administration Review, 27(5), 385392.

9 Caroline Agnew

Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Postpostitivist Perspective. Policy

Studies Journal, 26(1), 129.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public

administration review, 2331.

Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury Press.

Gibson, L. (2008). In Defense of Instrumentality. Cultural Trends, 17(4), 247257.

Gordon, C. (2010). Great expectationsthe European Union and cultural policy: fact or fiction?

International journal of cultural policy, 16(2), 101120.

Hawkesworth, M. (2010). Policy discourse as sanctioned ignorance: theorizing the erasure of

feminist knowledge. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4), 268289.

Heysse, T. (2006). Consensus and power in deliberative democracy. Inquiry, 49(3), 265289.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative Policymaking: Governance Through

Dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (d.), (p. 3359). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Jeannotte, M. S. (2003). Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social cohesion

and sustainable communities. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 3549.

Juillet, L. (2007). Framing Environmental Policy: Aboriginal Rights and the Conservation of

Migratory Birds. In M. Orsini & M. Smith (d.), (p. 257275). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1955). Current Studies of the Decisions Process: Automation Versus Creativity.

Western Political Quarterly, 8(3), 381399.

10 Caroline Agnew

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through . Public Administration Review,

19(2), 7988.

Mintrom, M. (2007). The Policy Analysis Movement. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D.

Laycock (d.), (p. 145162). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ostrower, F. (2005). Motivations Matter: Findings and Practical Implications of a National

Survey of Cultural Participation. Urban Institute,

www.urban.org/publications/311238.html.

Ricoeur, P. (1991). A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in

Administrative Organization (Vol. 3rd). New York: Free Press.

Syrett, K. (2003). A technocratic fix to the legitimacy problem ? The Blair government and

health care rationing in the United Kingdom. Journal of health politics, policy and law,

28(4), 715746.

Vining, A. R., & Boardman, A. E. (2007). The Choice of Formal Policy Analysis Methods in

Canada. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D. Laycock (d.), (p. 4885). Toronto: The

Institute of Public Administration in Canada.

What People Want from the Arts. (2008),

www.artscouncil.org.uk/downloads/whatpeoplewant.pdf, March.

Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean: Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions.

Washington: Georgetown University Press.