Based on an extensive body of research The Campaign s a project that constructs a counter-narrative of how the Neoliberal ideological, economic, and political paradigm shift took place in Sweden starting in the 1970s. It reveals how a large network of strategically designed think-tanks became conflated with the democratic institutions, all funded by The Swedish Employers’ Confederation, and how they constructed and distributed a new grand narrative concerning the Swedish economy and the Swedish welfare model; a crisis-narrative depicting the Swedish welfare model as a deep failure. But official economic statistics and scientific facts, all accessible to the public, reveals and proofs that there was no crisis caused by the Swedish welfare model. The crisis-narrative was completely fabricated and based on disinformation, false facts and statistics, but it had a great impact on political and economic reforms. In only six years they succeeded with what was thought impossible: breaking the 40-year Social Democratic domination of central government and initiating the dismantling of the Swedish welfare model. The stated aim of their campaign was to make the democratic influence on politics irrelevant, that regardless of which political party wins the elections the same Neoliberal economic policy would be pursued. The goal was also to make citizens stop having any expectations on politics.
The project makes visible the strategies and power interests behind this unique and successful disinformation campaign and how it operates and manipulates the democratic system. The project connects to the discourse of crisis in democracies such as distrust of the media, fake news, fact resistance, science denialism, post-truth, political contempt, media independence, and populism. The artificiality of politicians and all the populist ploys we see today, is intrinsically connected to the manual of strategies invented by Neoliberal think-tanks with their specific agenda to manipulate public opinion. The consequence is that the gap between politics and the citizens are increasing, where voters have difficulties articulating their own troubles and priorities.
Their ‘ideological and political narrative’ has had a great impact on every part of Swedish society, and has become the official historical record, and is redistributed by every institution (from academia and media to economic institutions such as the National Bank, politicians, etc). The official historical record concerning the Swedish welfare model and why it was dismantled, is still today being distorted by the disinformation campaign, even though official facts and statistics proofs differently. When this ideological narrative based on disinformation becomes conflated with the official historical record, it succeeds to diminish other political visions and alternatives, and the importance of scientific facts. This point of conflict is crucial since the Neoliberal narrative can never be challenged if we ignore its impact on our view of history.
The artistic methodology within this project is to create a counter-narrative and make visible how a grand narrative is implemented within the democratic system, and how a hegemonic transformation is pursued. Political theorist Chantal Mouffe also suggests this line of thinking to challenge the neoliberal hegemony:
The ‘populist moment’ that we are witnessing throughout Western Europe offers the opportunity to bring about an alternative to the neoliberal hegemonic formation which is now in crisis. The crucial question is how to operate this transition. Are there examples from which we could learn to imagine which steps to follow? Perhaps scrutinizing the conditions of which the neoliberal model became hegemonic in Western Europe could provide us with some clues about how a hegemonic transformation can take place.
I also want to emphasize that all the information and facts that is presented in The Campaign has for a long period of time been accessible to the public. The information in this project is not in any way distorted, nor fiction. The project produces and reconstructs documents which explore how a massive campaign was designed to implement a new grand narrative, successfully realized without resistance or violence, even though the paradigm shift had such negative consequences for civil society. The Campaign is a unique example of how the Swedish enterprise could establish a parallel structure that became extremely influential, and how think-tanks and their strategic work becomes conflated with all institutions within the democratic systems. A paradigm shift that would have been impossible to pursue without disinformation and from within the political system.
The exhibition also became a space to negotiate and discuss the counter-narrative that was presented. The exhibition reached a wide audience and attracted several political organizations and well-known academic researchers. Critical thinking emerged and heated debates was started. Art critics suddenly became political experts and debated in articles that the project only displayed a conspiracy theory. Instead of writing a review of an art exhibition, the art critic took another position and became a political ‘expert’ that took part of the Neoliberal narrative production.
In think-tanks, documentary film, opinion formation, media and politics, different types of ‘experts’ play an important role. In this project, the artist takes on the role of ‘expert’ to create a voice with a specific linguistic and aesthetics, and with this new position claims to be part of the public conversation with the same relevance as other experts. The artistic practice becomes a platform for the development of strategies, research, knowledge production, analysis and writing of history.
With many of my projects I want to stage an environment where a political conflict can take place. This connects to the notion of agonistics by Chantal Mouffe, to conceiving a space that emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of political conflicts. Mouffe declares that political conflicts in our society are inevitable and not necessarily negative. She suggests that agonistics is a model for another type of practice of democracy than the liberal democracy of today which is built on consensus. The ‘agonistic pluralist’ model Mouffe proposes enables the possibility for citizens to choose between different ideological alternatives:
“… pluralist democracy is characterized by the introduction of a distinction between the
categories of enemy and adversary. This means that within the ‘we’ that constitutes the
political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an
adversary whose existence is legitimate. His ideas will be fought with vigor but his right
to defend them will never be questioned […] With the distinction between antagonism
(friend/enemy relation) and agonism (relation between adversaries) in place, we are
better able to understand why the agonistic confrontation, far from representing a
danger for democracy, is in reality the very condition of its existence. Of course,
democracy cannot survive without certain forms of consensus […] But it must also
enable the expression of conflict, which requires that citizens genuinely have the
possibility of choosing between real alternatives.”
To conceive a (democratic) space where a friendly conflict can take place without diminishing the enemy, is something I often come back to in all of my works. Mouffe argues that “What characterizes democratic politics is the confrontation between conflicting hegemonic projects, a confrontation with no possibility of final reconciliation.” The Campaign for example does not offer a solution but rather a radical space for political conflicts to take place. The political strategy of ‘engagement with institutions’ rather than ‘withdrawal from institutions’ is a cornerstone of my artistic practice, as a way to challenge the hegemonic order. Mouffe exemplifies with the various forms of ‘Occupy’ protest movements which used the anti-institutional strategy with the arguments that “a ‘real’ democracy could exist without the need for the state or other forms of political institutions.” She argues that this position and strategy will never challenge or be able to bring about any significant changes in the structures of power. Kybernein Institute is a part of my artistic strategy to engage with the institutions that are a part of the hegemonic structure.
댓글