By JOHN RODRIGO V. MARTINS*
Artistic groups in group theater face significant challenges when trying to reconcile ethical, aesthetic and political principles when working with public notices.
“NGOs have been acting as philosophy, invading the favela with false theory, easing the struggle and rebellion, fulfilling the role that the State wanted [...] the third sector feeds off the regime, misery is a product to be sold, the corrupt government involved you” (Ba Kimbuta).
In this text I develop some reflections based on my doctoral thesis with four artistic centers of group theater (Cia. O Grito, A Próxima Companhia, Engenho Teatral and Coletivo Estopô Balaio), currently under development, which addresses the management of group theater in the city of São Paulo, considering the ways of managing cultural policies.
By group management I mean not only administrative and financial issues, but also organization of the core, labor relations, relationship with the territory and the public. By self-management I mean a practice carried out by the workers themselves that presupposes carrying out the work independently of the insignia of both the market and the State. This nomination is claimed by the anarchist tradition,[I] but it was widely practiced by communities against the State,[ii] such as indigenous people and quilombolas.
The notion of cultural management has become a central tool of neoliberalism in the cultural sector. This idea gained strength in the 1990s (OLIVIERI, 2004), associated with tax exemption policies, in a context of reduced public investment in culture and incentives for the adoption of private models in the sector, exemplified, for example, by the Rouanet Law. At the turn of the century, with the first Lula government and the appointment of Gilberto Gil as Minister of Culture, cultural management began to recognize culture also in its symbolic and social aspects, beyond its dimension as an economic asset, through the so-called anthropological concept of culture (GIL, 2003).
This perspective was synthesized in the Cultural Points and accompanied by debates such as that on cultural citizenship (CHAUÍ, 2006), in addition to a set of actions that understood culture as a sphere of political participation and affirmation of citizenship of historically subalternized populations.
“The Secretariat of Creative Economy, at the federal level, has worked to provide cultural producers and artists with the tools to access the public notices, focusing its efforts on training these agents in resource management, reporting and project development. To this end, it has developed a set of new strategies with the aim of supporting creative professionals and entrepreneurs with the aim of promoting and strengthening the networks and productive arrangements of the Brazilian creative sectors, through training courses for business models and management, technical and legal advice, among other services” (BRASIL apud MICHETTI; BURGOS, 2016, p. 594)
In this context, we can observe the proliferation of cultural companies and associations, as well as the increase in the number of cultural workers. Taiguara Belo emphasizes: “As can be seen, in this understanding, there is no contradiction between greater state intervention and the growth of markets” (2018, p.184). This process is essential to understanding the paradoxes of the cultural policies formulated in this period and the managerial logic that guides them.
During this same period, the notion of affirmation of citizenship and political participation mediated by the “citizenship market” (ABÍLIO, 2005) emerged within the scope of social projects and policies. This model began to incorporate concerns about social issues and sought to minimize them by fostering individual solutions for specific access to public notices and projects, redefining the relationship between the State, society and the private sector, as the author points out: “Today, citizenship has a consumer audience, advertising, and a budget. Its parallel with the lexicon (and to a certain extent also with the logic) of the market allows us to think of a citizenship market that has been strongly consolidated since the 90s and in which private entities, private interests, and public partnerships intersect, all provided by the delimitation and targeting of poverty. Thus, citizenship, far from a political dimension, becomes a question of financing and visibility (not of those who are “affected” but of those who implement and execute social projects). There is a whole movement of international, transnational, and governmental funding that surrounds – and maintains – private entities that take on the role of executors of the resolution of social problems. And so, more than ever, the social issue disappears to make way for social policies and projects that demand budgets, funders, and advertising that gives them legitimacy and visibility, in addition to targeted consumers – read: target audiences […] Therefore, the citizenship market obscures the conflict, and in several ways. Firstly, by becoming a means for capital to now construct an image of social responsibility – an appearance that is detached from the real movement of exploitation in its most immediate sense. Secondly, it makes it possible for social inequality to become more bearable, both materially for those who consume citizenship as another form of survival and also for those who consume it as a way of pacifying their conscience.” (2005, p.178-179)
Thus, the so-called citizenship market associated with the notion of cultural citizenship is part of a broader process of citizenship through consumption (CANCLINI, 1996), which was conceived and implemented during the Lula governments and continued until the Dilma government, being interrupted by the legal-parliamentary coup of Michel Temer. This logic began to guide cultural production, leading individuals to conceive of it not only as a mechanism for political participation and visibility of agendas, but also as a strategy for work, income generation and social engagement.
The notion of consultancy underpins the relationship between NGOs and their target audiences. The central premise was not to speak for the populations, but to create the means and conditions for them to speak for themselves. This represented a direct criticism of the vanguard stance of some social movements and the search for universalism, given that these entities have always operated with social fragmentation, defining specific audience segments. This model significantly altered the conceptions of political organization and its grammar, as Virginia Fontes (2006) points out.
The notion of self-management, for example, ceased to refer to a model of social, economic and political organization based on autonomy, direct participation and the absence of coercive hierarchies that assumed that workers and communities should manage their own activities, resources and institutions in a collective, horizontal way without the need for a State or centralized power structures, and began to be understood in an atomized and individualized way, centered on self-management and competition within the social or cultural market, cooling its collective and counter-hegemonic character.
Something similar occurs with the notion of autonomy, as Taiguara Belo highlights: “This changed the very concept of autonomy, which gradually stopped referring to the working class’s ability to produce a counter-hegemony outside of corporate and institutional frameworks and began to express the complete absence of ties between a wide variety of groups organized based on specific demands. This fact becomes more dramatic in the issue of financing. The prioritization of urgent and immediate demands, almost always imposed by the precariousness of the situation, resulted in the secondary role of a larger political project that aimed to provide for the existence of the organizations themselves, compromising financial independence, which is a prerequisite for political autonomy.” (2018, p. 81)
In this context, the role of activism is also redefined, becoming linked to paid professional practice within these institutions. It thus takes the form of consultancy and provision of services aimed at target audiences, instead of being structured around programs, strategies and practices aimed at social transformation, articulated by social movements, unions or political organizations.
Group theater work is characterized by its artisanal nature, based on long, horizontal, and collective research processes. Because it demands time, connections, and an accumulation of relations and performing practices, it becomes unproductive within the logic of the market. Furthermore, the themes addressed by the groups, in the vast majority of cases, are outside the interests of the cultural market and its managers. Both in its form and in its content, group theater, in general, follows a path of counter-hegemonic resistance to neoliberalism.
From a Marxist perspective, in the dimension of work, theater groups are not necessarily alienated from their means and objects of production, since they are the owners of their own techniques and, in many cases, have their own theater spaces. However, they do not exercise control over the mode of cultural production, which is regulated by the logic of management based on public notices and projects, subordinating their political autonomy to the dynamics of financing and guidelines established by external agents.
Public cultural policies, mostly implemented through public notices, offer, through competitive tenders, the financial resources necessary to pay for a work process, creation, acquisition of materials, among others. However, these processes do not seek to extract more economic value, that is, they do not have profit as their objective.[iii] However, many artistic groups do not see public policies as a means to make their work viable, but rather as an end in themselves. In some collectives, the group production method is (re)structured only when there is access to public notices, evidencing a dependence on the logic of financing, both in terms of group structuring and production.
Access to these notices requires a set of procedures, standards and requirements for the management dynamics of the groups, affecting everything from relationships and work organization to administrative and financial activities, including the relationship with the public/territory and the work itself. This access occurs through cultural projects developed by the groups, which generally follow a structure consisting of: summary, objectives, target audience, budget, schedule, dissemination plan, social counterparts, evaluation and indicators.
In the context of a process of research and artistic creation, these predictions are often unrealistic, given that the nature of artistic work is framed by an administrative and legal device in the form of a public notice, which makes it difficult to carry out radically counter-hegemonic political or aesthetic practices, as Taiguara Belo argues: “Although there is always room for exceptions, the very notion of a project thus presupposes a set of constraining expedients for cultural work: the advance description of the results that the actions aim to provide, which limits them in several aspects; schematization of the conditions of the creative act; anticipation of concepts, readings, given the need to justify the proposals; adaptation of ideas and experiences that are by their nature invaluable, purposefully imprecise, in accordance with the offer of resources and the objectives of the public notice; prior delimitation of places, sensations and languages that can be explored, etc. It is therefore to be assumed that the spirit of contestation that may be contained in a cultural intention remains adjusted to what is given, to a legal-formal principle that does not admit improvisation” (2018. p. 134).
This project-based work model is not exclusive to culture, nor is it new. Concepts such as platform capitalism, gig economy and uberization emerge as attempts to explain the transformations and the new morphology of work. Ricardo Antunes (2018, 2020) argues that neoliberalism drives platform capitalism, as it weakens the strength of unions, the role of the State and, consequently, social protections. In this new configuration of work, workers have no employment relationship or rights, and are informal, service providers, hired for “odd jobs” or intermittently.
The idea conveyed is that these workers are their own bosses, but they are, in practice, always subordinate to the platforms' algorithms, which demand a flexible, versatile worker, capable of self-management, self-responsible and disciplined, inserted in a context of insecurity, precariousness and instability.
This characteristic is very similar to the work carried out by group theater groups around public notices and projects. However, I believe that there is an even more pronounced characteristic in this context, especially since it involves public funds: audits. Auditing is a model and practice of social management that is based on metrics, evaluations and constant inspections of labor relations and institutional processes (POWER, 1999). In the neoliberal context, this logic directly affects workers and tends to frame activities in measurable data and performance indicators.
A clear example of this is what happens in the platformization of work, in companies like Uber, 99 Táxi, among others, where drivers and delivery people are continually evaluated by algorithms and customers, and monitored by the platform itself, creating an environment of constant control.
Audits are carried out in the name of ensuring efficiency, productivity and transparency in processes and are promoted as technical, neutral and objective procedures. The impact of this logic, in terms of subjectivity and the concrete dynamics of work relations, is manifested in self-surveillance, self-accountability, internalization of control and self-censorship, with the aim of rigorously meeting established goals. This process creates a structure in which workers become, to a large extent, their own watchdogs, constantly adjusting their behavior and performance to meet external demands, often in an automatic and internalized manner.
Paradoxically, this new spirit of capitalism (BOLTANSKI; CHIAPELLO, 2009) is the result of the appropriation of a set of criticisms of the impersonality, bureaucratization and disciplinarization of Fordist work: “The demand for autonomy, integrated into the new business devices, made it possible to involve workers again in the production processes and reduce control costs, replacing it with self-control, combining autonomy and a sense of responsibility in the face of customer demands or short deadlines. The demand for creativity, made above all by employees with higher education degrees, engineers or executives, had an unexpected recognition thirty years earlier, when it became clear that an ever-increasing share of profits came from the exploitation of the resources of inventiveness, imagination and innovation, developed in new technologies and above all in the rapidly expanding sectors of services and cultural production, which caused, among other effects, the weakening of the opposition between intellectuals and businessmen, between artists and the bourgeoisie […] The demand for authenticity, whose focus was the critique of the industrial world, mass production, the uniformization of ways of life and standardization […] Finally, the demand for liberation (which, especially in the field of customs, had constituted the opposition to bourgeois morality and could present itself as an ally of the critique of capitalism by referring to an already outdated state of the spirit of capitalism, centered on savings, family virtues and puritanism) was emptied of its contesting charge when the suspension of the old prohibitions proved capable of opening new markets” (p. 346-347).
These criticisms and appeals had as a corollary new subjectivities necessary to keep up with the new morphology of work: “Thus, for example, the qualities that, in this new spirit, are guarantees of success – autonomy, spontaneity, mobility, rhizomatic capacity, versatility (as opposed to the strict specialization of the old division of labor), communicability, openness to others and to new things, availability, creativity, visionary intuition, sensitivity to differences, ability to pay attention to the experiences of others, acceptance of multiple experiences, attraction to the informal and search for interpersonal contacts – are directly extracted from the repertoire of May 68”. (Idem, p. 130)
When we draw a parallel between this logic and public cultural policies, the cultural project format places excessive emphasis on feasibility and impacts achieved, within a legal-administrative framework that calculates financial aspects, timelines and target audience reach. Furthermore, in the Theater Promotion Law, for example, there are accountability reports for monitoring the project, where the release of funds is conditional upon approval of this provision, dividing the project financing into three installments of 40%, 40% and 20%.
This creates a situation of paralysis in cultural projects, where collectives need to develop strategies to ensure that the project is not interrupted midway, which would generate losses in both accountability and aesthetic results. This is even more complex when we consider the unpredictable nature of any creative and research project, which, to a certain extent, depends on its flexibility and capacity for constant adaptation.
What we can see is that artistic activities and works are designed based on a complex calculation between the desires of the groups, the possibilities of approval and the legal and administrative requirements of the notices. When presenting a project, the groups need to consider these aspects, and when writing it, aesthetic and political desires are often minimized in relation to material needs, compliance with the metrics and goals established in the notice and the operationalization of execution and accountability.
The legal relationship with the public notice becomes a constant concern for groups, to the point of drastically influencing artistic processes, impacting the search for alternative forms of artistic creation and group management. In this sense, I bring three ethnographic examples. At Engenho Teatral, during the show A Party with theatrical seasonings, the group offers drinks to the public, including beer. This action is part of the group's understanding of the “public absent in the center”, that is, it tries to attract audiences who are not familiar or used to attending the theater scene, which is predominantly attended by an intellectualized middle class, such as university students or other people linked to the artistic category itself.
In this quest, the group, through the party, seeks to foster a series of debates about the conditions of the working class in the current phase of capitalism. And, if we are talking about a party, it is necessary to have food, drinks and beer. However, this became an obstacle for the group when they were awarded the Fomento grant, because, despite having stated in the project that they would buy beers for the show, with a clear aesthetic proposal in relation to the public and the work of the group, there is still the fear of reprisals or difficulties in approving the accounting, when the invoices for the beers are presented. This reveals how administrative and legal requirements can impact and, in certain cases, even limit the creative and aesthetic choices of an artistic group.
Another case is that of Cia. O Grito, which, after concluding the presentations and circulation of the new show Alúvio City, had to organize itself to provide financial support to Fomento for the first time, since this was the first time that the group had accessed this public policy. The financial support process took a long time to be evaluated and, between comings and goings, the cast and guests went months without receiving their last payment, even after the project was completed. This experience left a deep impression on the group, which, at the end of the call for proposals, felt exhausted due to the intense legal and administrative workload. The excessive bureaucracy made it difficult to concentrate on the artistic processes and sapped the group's enthusiasm and energy, making the final phase of the call for proposals exhausting, with a desire to end the project quickly.
Another clear case is that of A Próxima Companhia, in which producer Catarina highlights: “The budget, the time, the authorizations define the paths, right?” (Interview on January 29, 2025). She emphasizes the challenges of reconciling budgetary issues with the aesthetic desires of the group when mentioning the last payment of the Fomento installment, corresponding to 20% of the entire project:
If I have this savings at the end, that's really thinking about money, right? I have savings to make at the end that I'll only receive when I deliver the project. So, the delivery of the project depends on things happening on time. Things happening on time depends on a lot of things, right? On people's dynamics and so on. (Interview with researcher, January 29, 2025)
Group theater artistic groups face significant challenges when trying to reconcile ethical, aesthetic, and political principles when working with public notices. As stated by Rafaela Carneiro, an actress from the Madeirite Rosa group, “public notices enable, but they also limit” (Caderno de Campo, January 17, 2024). Throughout the execution of a public notice, groups deal with dilemmas that emerge from these dimensions, especially in light of the bureaucratic, legal, and administrative complexity of this funding model. The public notice format, by holding the proponent and their legal representation accountable and potentially penalizing them for any problems, tends to favor a pragmatic stance. As a result, political and aesthetic positions, which require time for collective maturation, often end up being put on the back burner in the face of the daily challenges of cultural policies.
This pragmatic stance is aligned with the logic of management, which is based on technicality, objectivity and supposed neutrality. The format of the notice itself requires this pragmatics, as it operates as a degovernmentalization device (FOUCAULT, 2006). In this way, the counter-hegemonic efforts and directions of the groups end up being weakened and, often, absorbed within this mechanism.
The propositions of a cultural project, just like an academic research project, change throughout its development, and may even contradict or reconfigure what was originally proposed. This is the nature of a research process – whether artistic or academic – to question its own assumptions and hypotheses in light of reality. When a project remains unchanged from start to finish, it ceases to be an investigative process and becomes a mere formal execution. The calls for proposals, with their legal and administrative rigidity, have precisely encouraged this logic, limiting radical and dissident experiments, both in terms of form and content. In the much-touted idea of “hacking the system”, the one being hacked is often the transformative and dissident power of group theater itself.
*João Rodrigo V. Martins PhD candidate in Social Anthropology at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC).
References
ABÍLIO, LC From the features of inequality to the design of management: life trajectories and social programs in the outskirts of São Paulo. Dissertation (Master's degree) – Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2005.
ALBUQUERQUE JR., Durval Muniz de. Public management or gestation of culture: some reflections on the role of the State in contemporary cultural production. In: RUBIM, Albino; BARBALHO, Alexandre (Org.) Public cultural policies in Brazil. Salvador: EDUFBA, 2007. p. 61-86
ANTUNES, Ricardo. Intermittent work and uberization of work on the threshold of Industry 4.0. In: ANTUNES, R. (org.) Uberization, digital work and industry 4.0 . Sao Paulo: Boitempo, 2020.
ANTUNES, Ricardo. The privilege of servitude: the new service proletariat in the digital age. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2018.
BARBALHO, Alexandre. Cultural Policies in Brazil: identity and diversity without difference, p. 37- 60. In: RUBIM, Antonio Albino Canelas; BARBALHO, Alexandre (orgs.). Cultural Policies in Brazil. Salvador: EDUFBA, 2007, 182 p.
BISHOP, Antonio dos Santos. The land gives, the land wants/Antonio Bispo dos Santos; New York: Ubu Editora/PISEAGRAMA, 2023
BOLTANSKI, Luc; CHIAPELLO, Eve. The New Spirit of Capitalism. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2009.
BOTELHO, Isaura. “Dimensions of culture and public policies.” In: São Paulo in perspective, 15.2 (2001): 73-83.
BOURDIEU, P. Outline of a theory of practice. In: ORTIZ, Renato. (Org.). Pierre Bourdieu: Sociology. São Paulo: Ática, 1983, p.46-81.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. The right hand and the left hand of the State; Neoliberalism: Utopia (in the process of being realized) of unlimited exploitation. In: Counterfires: Tactics to confront the neoliberal invasion. Rio de Janeiro: George Zahar, 1998. P. 7-19; 138- 152.
BROWN, Wendy. In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. São Paulo: Politeia, 2019.
BROWN, Wendy. Undoin the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books, 2015
CAHILL, Damien. Ideas-centered explanations of the rise of neoliberalism: A critique. Australian Journal of Political Science 48(1): 71–84, 2013.
CALABRE, Lia. Cultural policies in Brazil: assessment and perspectives. In: RUBIM, Albino; BARBALHO, Alexandre (Org.) Public cultural policies in Brazil. Salvador: EDUFBA, 2007. p. 87-107.
CANCLINI, Nestor Garcia. Definitions in transition. In: MATO, D. (org.). Latin American studies on culture and social transformations in times of globalization. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2001.
CARREIRA, André Luiz Antunes Netto. Group Theater: A Multifaceted Territory. In: ARAÚJO, A; AZEVEDO, J; TENDLAU, M (Orgs.). Next Act: Group Theater. São Paulo-SP: Itaú Cultural, p. 42-47, 2011.
CARREIRA, André; OLIVEIRA, Valéria Maria De. Group theater-model of organization and generation of poetics. Journal “O Teatro Transcende”. Department of Arts –CCEAL of FURB – vl. 12, n. 11, Blumenau, p. 95–98, 2004.
CHAUÍ, Marilena. Cultural citizenship – The right to culture. São Paulo: Ed. Perseu Abramo Foundation, 1st ed., 2006.
CHAUÍ, Marilena. Culture and democracy: competent discourse and other speeches. São Paulo, Cortez, 2008
CHAUÍ, Marilena, Cândido, A., Abramo, L., & Mostaco, E. Cultural policy. Porto Alegre-RS: Mercado aberta., 1984. Accessed on: February 11, 2025
CORREA, Felipe. Black Flag: re-discussing anarchism. Curitiba: Prisms, 2015.
DARDOT, P.; LAVAL, C. The new reason of the world: essay on neoliberal society. São Paulo: Editora Boitempo, 2016.
DUMÉNIL, G. & LÉVY, D. Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
FERGUSON, James. The Anti-Politics Machine. In: SHARMA, Aradhana; GUPTA, Akhil (edited). The Anthropology of the State: a reader. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006
FISCHER, Stela. Collaborative Process and Experiences of Brazilian Theater Companies. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2010.
FONTES, Virgínia. Brazil and capital-imperialism: theory and history. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: EPSJV/Editora UFRJ, 2010, 388p.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Governmentality. In: Microphysics of Power. Rio de Janeiro: Graal Editions, 1979.
______________. Sayings & Writings – Power-knowledge strategies (vol. IV). 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2006.
______________. Birth of biopolitics. Translation: Eduardo Brandão. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008b.
______________. Security, territory and population. Course given at the Collège de France (1977-1978). São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008a.
FRIEDMAN, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1984.
HAYEK, Friedrich. The constitution of liberty: the definitive edition. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 2011 [1960]. 596p
GAGO, Verónica. Neoliberal Reason: Baroque Economies and Popular Pragmatics. São Paulo: Editora Elefante, 2018.
GIL, G. “Presentation”. In: UNESCO Brazil. Cultural policies for development: a database for culture. UNESCO Brazil, 2003.
GUPTA, Akhil. Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence and Poverty in India. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2012.
MARX, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2008 (1859).
MARX, Karl and ENGELS, Friedrich. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Petropolis: Vozes, 1990.
MARX, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: Routledge, 18.
MATE, Alexandre; LONDERO, Elen; CABRAL, Ivam; AQUILES, Marcio (org.). Group theater in times of resignification: collective creations, meanings and scenic manifestations in the state of São Paulo. São Paulo: Association of Artists Friends of the Square, Lúcias Seal. 2023.
MATE, Alexandre. Fundamental notes on the praxis of the historical subject of group theater and epic theater: intense processes of narrative dispute. In: LONDERO, Elen; CABRAL, Ivam; AQUILES, Marcio (org.). Group theater in times of resignification: collective creations, meanings and scenic manifestations in the state of São Paulo. 2023. 875 p.
MATE, Alexandre. Group theater in the city of São Paulo and greater São Paulo: collective creations, meanings and manifestations in the process of struggles and crossings / organized by Alexandre Mate LONDERO, Elen; CABRAL, Ivam; AQUILES, Marcio; GAMA, Joaquim. 1st ed. São Paulo : Lucias, 2020.
MICHETTI, Miqueli; BURGOS, Fernando. Cultural makers or cultural entrepreneurs: precariousness and inequality in public actions to stimulate culture. Cultural policies in review, Salvador, v. 9, nº 2, Jun-Dec 2016.
MITCHELL, Timothy (1999). “Society, Economy and the State Effect”. In: STEINMETZ, G. (ed.). State/Culture. State-formation after the cultural turn. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. pp. 76-97.
OLIVEIRA, Taiguara Belo de. The new cultural engagement: activism and work with public policies in São Paulo. 2018. Thesis (Doctorate) – University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2018. Available at: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/27/27154/tde-20072018-112445/.
OLIVIERI, Cristiane Garcia. Cultural sponsorship in the city of São Paulo: uses of the Mendonça Law. Monograph for the conclusion of a lato sensu postgraduate course. School of Communication and Arts. USP, 1996.
OLIVIERI, Cristiane Garcia. Neoliberal culture: incentive laws as public cultural policy. São Paulo: Escrituras, 2004. 206p
NGO, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. In: Boundary crossings Journal compilation. Royal Geographical Society, 2007. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4639996.
ORTNER, Sherry B. “Theory in anthropology since the 60s.” Mana 17, 2011, 419-466
ORTNER, Sherry B. Sherpas through their rituals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Power, Michael. The Audit Society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
ROMEO, Simone do Prado. Theater and public policies: mapping the São Paulo scene through the Development Law, 2002 - 2012. 2022. Thesis (Doctorate in Theater Theory and Practice) - School of Communications and Arts, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2022. doi:10.11606/T.27.2022.tde-02102023-145709.
RUBIM, Antonio Albino Canelas. Cultural Policies in Brazil: sad traditions, enormous challenges. P. 11 – 36. In: RUBIM, Antonio Albino Canelas; BARBALHO, Alexandre (orgs.). Cultural Policies in Brazil. Salvador: EDUFBA, 2007, 182 p.
SAAD Filho, A. & MORAIS, L. Brazil: Neoliberalism versus Democracy. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2018.
SAHLINS, M. Culture and practical reason. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003 [1976].
SAHLINS, Marshall. Islands of History. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor. 1990 [1985].
SAHLINS, Marshall. Historical metaphors and mythical realities. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor. 2004 [1981].
SCHULTZ, T. W. Human Capital: Investments in Education and Research. Translated by Marco Aurélio de Moura Matos. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1973.
SCOTT, James C. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
WACQUANT, Löic. Three steps towards a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Caderno CRH, Salvador, v. 25, n. 66, p. 505-18, Sep/Dec. 2012. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/j/ccrh/a/ZkxxQjDk5XZHxxtVdHWvtym/abstract/?lang=pt
ZHANG, Li; NGO,Aihwa (editors) Privatizing China: Socialism from Afar. 1st ed., Cornell University Press, 2008.
Notes
[I] For more information, see Felipe Côrrea (2015).
[ii] For more information, see Pierre Clastres (2003) and Antônio Bispo dos Santos (2023).
[iii] The extraction of symbolic added value from public notices can be discussed, but this subject will not be addressed in this text.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
