7/31/2019 Impact 19

1/5

VA RI A N T V O LU M E 2 N UM BE R 1 9 S P R I NG 2 00 4 P AG E 1 7

IntroductionIn 1993 the independen t research organisationComedia, on behalf of the Arts Council of GreatBr ita in ,p roduced a discussion document on t hesocial impact of the arts (Landry et al., 1993). The

study was followed in 1995-1996 by an emp iricalre search project focused on the social impact ofpart icipatory arts programmes,co-ordinated byFranois Matarasso for Comedia, producing theinfluential report Use or Ornam ent? The S ocial

Im pact of Participation in the Arts (Matarasso,1997).The research programme included, amongothers , the working paper How t he Arts M easureUp (Williams,1997), an updating of a research pro-

je ct on th e socia l im pa ct of commun it y ar ts(Creating Social Capital, 1996) carried out inAustralia in 1994-1995 with support by theAustralia Council for the Arts.Williams study pio-neered th e me thodology developed by Matara ssoin his research .

While earlier publications on the social impactof the arts had attracted re lat ively little att ention,Matara ssos study has played an important role in

establishing a ne ar-consensus in Britain a mongcultural policy-make rs.The research was cited bythe then Secretary of State for Culture, Media andSport , Chris Smith,in speeches at the FabianSociety conference at the Playhouse Theatre ,London, on 19th September 1997,and at theUniversity of Hertfordshire in Hatfield on 14thJa nuary 1998 (Smith, 1998).

Matarassos research has thus become political-ly important and worthy of critical ana ly s i s .I tdevelops the complex the me of the social impactof the art s from a particular ide ological perspec-tive. This is partly due t o the au thors strong desireto be relevant and u seful to the policy process andto contribute t o decision-making, but such re le-vance seems to have been achieved to the detri-ment of the quality of the research work .

In the first pa rt of this paper I will concentra te

on analysing the quality of Matara ssos research .My critique will focus on methodological issuesand will try to show that t he re search project isflawed in its design, execution and conceptualbasis. I will then d eal with political issues such aswhether using participatory arts as a form of gov-ernance, under t he heading of promoting socialcohesion, is actually worthwhile and desirable.Finally,I will frame some suggest ions for possiblefuture research .

A short description of MatarassosstudyThe subject of Matarassos study is t he socialimpact of participatory arts programmes becauseit is to this area of the art s that social benefits aremost commonly attr ibuted in policy discussion

(Matara sso,1997, p . iii).The researcher has deliber-ately avoided studying the social impact of theprofessional arts. In fact , in the foreword to hisre search projects final report he recommendsreversing the traditional logic of funding: Britaindeserves better than the exhausted prejudices ofpost-war debates over state support for the ar ts;the new objective should be to start talkingabout what the ar ts can do for society, rather t hanwhat society can do for the arts (Matarasso, 1997,p. iv).

The objective of the research is to advocate forthe funding of participatory arts programmes onthe grounds th at th ey can produce positive socialeffects which are out of proportion to t heir cost(Matarasso, 1997, p.8 1 ) .S uch objective is ach ievedby generalising the results of the cases examined.

The stu dy covers 60 projects in different con-texts (rural, urban and metropolitan).The mainsurvey was conducted t hrough a qu estionnairemade u p of 24 questions with a set of threeresponse categories (yes/no/I dont know).1 Thequestionnaire was given out to 513 participants.

The 50 findings (i.e.t he 50 hypotheses which,according to Matarasso, have been proved right bythe research) are structured in six principalthemes ta ken from the eight are as of socialimpact identified in the discussion document byLandry et al. (1993): persona l development,socialcohesion,community empowerment and self-determination, local image and identity, imagina-tion and vision, health and well being.2

Methodological problems

My first criticism is that Mat arassos study h as nointernal validity, i.e. the data collected cannot sup-port conclusions about the hypotheses of there search project .

Many of the 50 hypotheses are expressed asrelationship between abstract concepts which arenot observable, nor measurable. For example: par-ticipation in the arts can give people influenceover how they are see n by others, or can helpvalidate the contribution of a whole community,or can help people e xtend control over th eir ownlives, or can help community groups raise theirvision beyond the immediat e. The author has notexplained what people are expected to do when,for example,t hey have gained influe nce over howthey are seen by others, or when they haveextended control over their own lives.3 Moreover,the 24 questions which make up the participants

questionnaire are not related to the hypotheses.Therefore it is impossible to guess what legiti-mates Mata rasso to say that if people answeryes to some specific questions, it means that,because of participation, they have raised theirvision beyond the immediate, rather th an havinggained influence over how they are see n by others.

The reader ofUse or Ornam ent? is informedfrom the very beginning that obje ctivity should beset aside, because it is an inappropriate aspira-tion in evaluation of social policy (Matarasso,1997, p . 4), while the only interesting data are thesubjective points of view of participants, whichare an appropriate response to the nat ure of thearts a nd th e complexity of its social outcomes(Matarasso, 1997, p . 4).Yet there is no systematicre cord of such subjective points of view in thefinal report ,where we can only read yes/no/I

dont know a n swers to the re search ers p redeter-mined questions.4

Moreover, to what extent is the subjective per-ception of the participants re liable or, on the con-tra ry, does it reflect only their (unsatisfied)desires? As Bourdie u (1979) argues, it is possiblethat the researcher,

because of the dissymmetry of the survey situation andhis social position,is invested with an authority whichencourages the imposition of legitimacy (...).Theimposition of legitimacy in the course of the survey is

such that, if one is not careful, one may,as many culturalsurveys have done,produce declarations of principlewhich correspond to no real practice.(...) itis no accidentthat it is the culturally most deprived, the oldest, thosefurther from Paris,in shortthose least likely really to goto the theatre, who mostoften acknowledge thatthetheatre elevates the mind(pp.318-9).

The wording of questions in Matara ssos qu estion-naire may actually have led respondents to biasedanswers. For example, the question Was beingable to express your ideas importan t to you?(Matara sso, 1977, p. 101) implicitly assumes thateverybody had a chance and was able to expresshis or her ideas. In addit ion ,from the respondentspoint of view, answering no to this questionmeans either not having been able t o express

ones ideas (this is bad in terms of personal devel-opment, thus some respondents may answer yesonly in order not t o look or feel undeveloped) ornot appreciating the fact of having been able toexpress ones ideas (t his is socially undesirab le,thus some par ticipants may answer yes even if itis not necessarily what they think). The same hap-pens with other qu estions,for example: Wasdoing something creative importan t to you ? and :Since being involved did you become more confi-dent about what you can do? (If one answersno it might seem that one was not able to graspthe opportunity of doing something creative andbecoming more confident, thus some respondentsmay answer yes just to protect their own senseof sel f-worth).

Under these circumstances, it is by no meanscertain tha t Matarasso is really measuring what

he claims to measure . There is a distinct possibili-ty that he is measuring something else, such asthe social desirability of the abstract concepts ofhappiness,empowerment a nd confi denceused in the questionnaire . Social desirability canin fact behave as a modera tor variable which mod-ifies the intensity of the depende nt variables.Itsinfluence can even m ake it th e decisive factor inthe research findings.H owever,the aut hor of there search fails to note the possibility of the exis-tence of social desirability bias and consequentlydoes not control its extent.

Evaluating the social impact of

participation in arts activitiesA critical review of Fran ois Matarassos Use or Ornament?

Paola Merli

7/31/2019 Impact 19

2/5

PA G E 1 8 VA RI A N T VO LUM E 2 N UM BE R 1 9 S P R IN G 2 00 4

In addit ion, some of the questions unintent ion-ally force answers to unfold from indifference toposit ive value s only. For example: Since beinginvolved have you felt better or healthier? (evenby answering no the respondent cannot at anyrate me an that h e is feeling worse, but only thathe has not experienced any change); and also:Since being involved have you been hap pier?(even answering no the respondent cannot inany case mean that he is more unhappy or miser-ab le ,bu t , at most,that he is just as happy asbefore attendance).The consequence is that theauthor of the research can rule out possible nega-tive impacts.

The reason why Matarasso does not evaluatethe negat ive side of activities is,he claims,t hatthe ar tistic experience is so important for the indi-vidual (according to whose criteria?),t hat it is

always worth taking the risk (however, this shouldhave been decided by the participants and n ot bythe research er).Thus he judges other peoplesquality of life according to his own standa rd. In amulti-ethnic society and in projects which involvepeople with different cultural backgrounds,t h isway of working seems rather inappropriate.

Factors which appea r to be fa irly secondary inrelation to the hypotheses are examined by atleast four of the 24 questions: Has ta king partencouraged you to try any thing else? (is thereany social value in just trying anything else? Whatabout trying a murder?); Do you feel differentabout the place where you live? (is there anysocial merit in just changing ones feeling ab outwhere he or she lives, or does this question implythat before atten dance people must have felt nec-essarily negative about their place of re sidence?);

Has the p roject changed your ideas about any-thing? (is there any social worth in ju st changingones idea s ab out, for example,lipst ick colour?).These questions do not seem t o refer to indicatorslinked to t he social issues and problems which,according to Matarasso, participatory arts shouldadd ress. This shows quite clearly that Matara ssohas not devised the que stions in relation to thehypotheses.

On the whole, Matarassos survey only allowshim to know som e of the ideas, attitudes andintentions of re spondents, not to evaluate realmodifications in their daily conditions of existencein relation t o specific social issues.There fore theauthor has only measured a change in the ideasand the values of participants, a change whichseems, at least in part, to coincide with the degreeof acculturation of participants t o his own ideas.

Strangely enough, Matarasso has devoted a wholechapter of his methodological working paper(Matarasso, 1996) to ethical issues,but has justtouched upon the possibility that a patronisingattitud e is developed on the part of the evaluator.In any case, in the empirical research he seems tohave done nothing to counter t he risk of imposi-tion of the researchers values and ideas on partic-ipants.

The research design also has no control groups,nor a longitudinal dimension, which would haveallowed the researcher to control possible extrane-ous variables and to ascertain t he existence of acasual link or a correlation between the activitiesexamined and the measured effects.The indepen-dent variable (arts participation) has not beenmanipulated along time, because t he question-naire was only distribute d once. Matarasso actual-

ly worries about the fact tha t the phrasing ofquestions such as Do you feel differe ntly aboutwhere you live? did not take into considerationhow people might have felt be fore they took partin the project (Matarasso, 1977, p . 96). He noticesthat something ha s n ot gone we l l ,o n ly be causesome part icipants have answered no to suchquest ion.H owever,apart from the fact that j ustfeeling different does not mean anything pre-cise in terms of social impact, the und erlyingstructural problem is clearly the absolute lack of

before-after comparisons in the research design.5The author of the research does not evenattem pt to establish a causal link because, heasserts, the d ifficulty is so deeply rooted in socialre search methods, that it is not possible to solve it.Against possible criticism t o his me thodologicalchoices,Matarasso puts forward the rather evasiveargument that in any case the determination ofcausal links does not answer the qu estion Whythe project h as been a success or a failure,while ,he points out, it would be extremely important t obe able t o do so by analysing the causal mecha-nism tr iggered by a given p rogramme( Matarasso,1966, p.2 0 ) .H owever,h e himself does not analysesuch mechanism.

Not having tackled the problem of the causallink, or at least of a corre la t ion,Matarasso liststhe results of the re search with the sent ence: the

study shows that participation in the art s can: (alist of 50 effect follows). It is like reading the labelon a bottle of mineral water: it can be diuretic.Nobody knows if this is a threat or a wish, but inany case the advertised effect cannot be guara n-teed.

To sum up, it is quite clear that the data col-lected by Matara sso cannot support conclusionsabout his own hypotheses. In other wo rd s,h isre search has no internal va lidity.

How does the au thor deal with th is problem?He justifies himself with the argument that inter-nal validity is unattainable in t he evaluation ofartistic programmes because creative initiativecannot have intern al validity (...).But tha t is theirstrengthit is in the creative unpredictability oftheir outcomes that arts project add an essentialtool to the range of social action (Matarasso,

1996, p . 21, my italics). Leaving aside the fact thatinternal validity is not an at tribute of real life ini-t iat ives but of pieces of re search only, the aut horshould have inferre d ,f rom his own premises,t hatthe impact of arts programmes cannot be studiedby using predefined indicators. In fact ,p re deter-mined indicat ors are met hodological tools not suit-ed to the t ask of discovering the un predictab leresults of activit ies.Yet Matarasso does use prede-fined indicatorsi.e. in this case, indicators whichare constructed by the researcher and agreed withproject partners without preliminary discussionswith the people who have taken part in the activi-ties.

Let us now suppose that all the findings of there search are valid. There are still some problems.The author does not investigate whether he isdealing with lasting results or rather with only

transitory or even evanescent effects. For exam-ple, what will people do when the arts pro-grammes are over? Also,the author does notattempt to und erstand whether participants in theactivities unde r examination a re actua lly economi-cally deprived and socially excluded people,rather than affluent people who perhaps we refeeling somewhat bored before participating.

My second criticism of Matara ssos research isthat even if we assume that t he findings are validin relation to t he specific activities examined,t here search has no external validity. The results can-not legitimately be generalised because the sam-ple is not repre sentative of the wider populationand of all part icipatory arts activities. It simplyincludes all participants in initiative s ,w h i ch ,i nterms of research me thodology, are selected in anaccidental way. This would not be a problem in

itself, if the author of the report clearly statedthat h is sampling procedure only provides a veryweak basis for genera lisat ionwhich Matarassofails to do.Although he may consider his sampleto be typical of participatory arts activ it ie s,h edoes not provide any explanation of why the sam-ple itself is a typical one. Participatory arts andthe people who attend them (and thus, presum-ab ly, their impacts) are not the same in differentplaces, times and contexts.

Moreover,in 75% of the activities studied the

questionnaires were not re turned. In this situa-tion, the a lready weak ba sis for gene ralisation isfurther undermined. If it were precisely the fa iledprojects (and hence the dissatisfied individuals)not to return the questionnaire s,quant ita t ive evi-dence could be interpreted a s a 75% negativere sult. These underlying doubts are strengthenedby the a uthors stateme nt: Efforts were made toextend the net beyond the enthusiasts,and speakwith those who, so to speak, were inclined to slipaway silently. Neutral and dissenting views wereactively sought from (ex-)part icipants,members ofthe local community an d professionals with knowl-edge of the projects (Matarasso, 1997, p . 98).St ill,the negative points of view are not discussed inthe final report. They are only mentioned brieflyin Chapter 9,under the t itle Counterwe ight,where unfavourable criticism is t ellingly cate-

gorised as dissenting voices and dissatisfactionis mistaken for cynicism: programmes where ini-tial optimism had dissolved and been replaced bya furt her layer of cynicism about the p ossibility ofchange, because nothing had happened since(Matarasso, 1997, p. 75) are safely restricted by theauthor t o one or two cases.

On balance, it is fairly obvious that th eresults of the research on the specific activit iesexamined cannot be generalised.

At the same time,Matarasso does not examinecritically the projects which possibly failed toach ieve their obje ctives, but ascribes failure to thecircumstances that the employment conditions ofartists who work with people are lamentable,materials and equipment are limited, and onceor twice problems seemed to arise from inexperi-ence of the artist(s) concerned (Matarasso, 1997,

p. 74). The scarce research material concerningthe d ifficulties and negative effects of participa-tion is placed by Matarasso in a section of the textunder t he (again very telling) title The cost ofchange,where the au thor simply reassures thereader t hat costs of participation in the arts, as inli f e ,m ay be indicators of r ichness and engage-ment( Matarasso, 1997, p . 76).

Comedias discussion document (Landry et al.,1993) drew attention t o the concept of opportuni-ty cost used in cost-benefit analysis.The opportu-nity cost is the value of the bene fits which wouldhave been offered by foregone alternative projectswith the same costs. In a study on the socialimpact of the art s, the ap plication of cost-benefit sanalysis might show, for instance, that t he value ofthe bene fits produced by participatory arts activi-ties is higher than t he value of the ben efits pro-

duced by other types of intervention with thesame costs. On the other hand, it might show thatpart icipatory arts programmes have lower costs ifcompared with other t ypes of intervent ion,whichproduce the same benefits. But Mata rasso cannotdevelop this issue, because he ha s not proved tha tsuch benefits exist .St ill, he asserts that arts pro-

je ct can pr ovide c ost -effect ive s olu tions (...). Theyre present an insignificant financial risk to publicserv ices, but can produce impacts (social andeco-nomic) out of proportion to their cost (Matarasso,1997, p . 81). He just considers this assertion to beself-evident.Neve rtheless, for impacts to be out ofproportion to their cost when such impacts are notproved to exist , the cost of participatory arts pro-grammes should be j ust zero.This is not a verygood result for Matarassos advocacy.

The theory of social change implicitin Matarassos researchMy last point of criticism is that the research isflawed in conceptual ter ms. In brief, I will try toshow that t he t heory of social change implicit inMatarassos research is questionable.

The interest in p articipatory arts whichMatarasso shares with some policy-make rs seemsto be the expression of a particular philosophicalattitude towards society. Many intellectuals have

7/31/2019 Impact 19

3/5

VA RI A N T V O LU M E 2 N UM BE R 1 9 S P R I NG 2 00 4 P AG E 1 9

started looking at society as a me re fact: they donot venture questions, hard criticism and str uggleany more; they increasingly behave like new mis-sionaries, who play guitar with marginalised

youth, the disabled and the unemployed ,a imingat mitigating the perception which they have oftheir own exclusion.H owever,t his benevolent atti-tude does not seem to be capable of solving prob-lems.Indeed, it does not seem that feelingdifferently (Matara sso, 1997, p. 101) about theplace where one lives will transform slums intowonderful places, nor that just helping transformthe image of public bodies (Matarasso, 1997, p . x)will transform the reality of public bodies, northat having a positive impact on how peoplefeel( Matarasso, 1997, p. x) will change peoplesdaily conditions of existen ceit will only helppeople to accept them.6 However, making depriva-tion more acceptable is a tool to end lessly repro-duce it. Social deprivation and exclusion arguab lycan be removed only by fighting the structura lconditions which cause them. Such conditions will

not be removed by be nevolent a rts programmes.The new missionaries also think that social

problems can b e t ackled through t op-down socialcohesion and integration stra tegies. In a publica-tion by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusionat t he London School of Economics, MarkKleinman (1998) criticises the fashionable recom-mendat ion of fighting exclusion by simply promot-ing inclusion:

the current vogue is that (...) socially excluded areasdontjust need jobs and better homesapparently theyneed community centres,self-help groups,voluntaryorganisations and community businesses. I dontqu itefollow the logic here, as these seem to be things whichbetter off areas don th ave,or at le astd on th ave thatmuch (...).The danger is that the emerging ideology ofsocial inclusion will lead to the imposition of modes of

behaviour on the poor, which the rest of society hasrejected (Kleinman 1998,pp.10-12).7

More over,for Kleinman a social cohesion strategyas a tool for preventing potential social conflicts isonly a chimera .To prove this, he reports theresults of a study carried out by th e American

sociologist Mary Baumgartner on the calm sub-urbs around New York (The Moral Order of th eSuburb, 1988),wh ich concludes that the sense ofsocial cohesion is actually opposed to social ord erand lack of crime:

the order (...) does not arise from intimacy andconnectedness,but rather from some of the very thingsmore often presumed to bring about conflict andviolencetransiency,fragmentation,isolation,atomisation,and indifference among people (...). Ifpeople in such places cannot be bothered to take actionagainst those who offend them or to engage inconflicts,neither can they be bothered to help those inneed (Baumgartner,quoted in Kleinman,1998,p.11).

On the other hand,the new missionaries have anotion of their work as an instrument to transformthe culture of the studied communities and make

it more similar to their own culture an d values.They know what is good for people, what theirdeep sources of enjoyment (Matara sso, 1997, p.68) should be, and how such sources should beprovided. They know what levels of personaldeve lopment a nd confid ence (Matarasso, 1997,p. 14) people should possess and what should bedone in order to raise them. They even claim thatpeople should widen their horizons (Matarasso,1997, p. 16) and explain how this should be accom-plished.8 Such a commitment t o changing peoplesideas and behaviour does not solve problemsbecause it leaves the structural conditions ofdeprivation untouched.Andrew Sayer (1992) right-ly questions research approaches where the criti-cal attitude is aimed at influ encing and changingthe people whom it studies, because this is not, initself a sufficient condition for social change and

disillusionment might lead to unexpecte d nega-

tive effects:

in primarily leading a life of reflection,it is easy for theresearchers to forge tt h at changing peoples thinking

may leave the world of practice largely unchanged,although a relation of dissonance may be inducedbetween the two (Sayer,1992,p.254).

Research aimed at the ema ncipation of there search ed,cont inues Sayer,would involve anelimination of the division between the re search erand the research e d .H owever, such division isdeeply rooted in our society and thus the intere stsof the researcher are far from compatible with theinterests of the re searched; on the contrary,

in these circumstances the developmentof certain typesof knowledge may (and often does) have the effectofreinforcing domination and subordination and henceopposing a general emancipation (Sayer,1992,pp.254-255).

Social stability as newobjective

At a first reading,Matara ssos final re port awak-ens the enth usiasm, typical of the seventies, ab outthe idea of active par ticipation of people in cultur-al activit ie s.Neve r theless,from a deepe r investi-gation a fundamenta l difference emerges betweenMatarassos conception of par ticipatory attitude sand th e original phenomenon of community arts.

Matarasso claims that the real purpose of thearts is to contribute to a stabl e ,con fident andcre ative society (Matara sso, 1997, p . v).This pointis crucial, because it reveals the new trend in therev ival.While the original phenomenon was aspontaneous movement, its revival is a deviceoffere d by the government. While the formerwas directed to th e expression of conflicts,Matarassos vision is directed to social stab ilityobtained by means of peaceful popular consen-sus, the un derlying inspiration seemingly being

that wherea s the rich are doing the right things,

7/31/2019 Impact 19

4/5

PAG E 2 0 V A RI A N T V O LU M E 2 N UM BE R 1 9 S P R IN G 2 00 4

the p oor should be soothed through therapeuticartistic activit ies.While in the seventies the aimwas emancipation and liberation from any form ofsocial control, also (and above all) by means of

artistic creativity, in the revival of interest in par -ticipatory arts advocated by Matarasso the aim isthe restoration of social control using the sametools, although otherwise directed.

Hence, the issue of what the arts can do forsociety, proposed by Matarasso as an innova t ion ,i ssimply a new way of a chieving the old civilisingobjective of cultura l policy.9 This is quite evidentin some of his hypotheses,such as: participation inthe art s can promote tolerance and contribute t oconflict resolution, or can provide a route tore habilitation an d integration for offenders ,o rcan help people feel a sen se of belonging andinvolve ment, or can be an effective means ofhealth education or can extend involvement insocial activit y .H owever, the old civilisingobjective is used for new aims: to develop a soci-ety of responsible risk take rs (Hab ermas,1999, p.

53) who are willing to accept, in a constructiveand self-reliant way, the process of dismantling thewelfa re state. This is clear in some of Matara ssoshypotheses,such as: participation in the art s canprovide a forum to explore personal rights andre sponsibilit ies( whereas the welfa re stateaccording to its criticshad a ccustomed people tofocus on rights only), or can encourage people toaccept r isk positively (while the welfa re statehad ten ded to minimise risks for people).

Conclusions and suggestions forpossible future researchI have tried to show why and how Matarassosstudy does not produce a well-founded under-standing of the social impact of the art s.There search design is flawed, re search methods arenot applied in a rigorous way and the conceptualbases are questionable.

Research on the social impact of par ticipatoryarts should thus aim to develop new approaches.Publications on social impact assessment can beespecially interesting even though they d o notconcentrate on par ticipatory arts programmes,bu t ,m o re generally, on the social consequences ofpolicy formulation and implementation. For exam-ple, Finsterbusch (1980) provides a conceptualfr amework for social impact assessment, devotingas many as 25 pages to definitions of the conceptsof community cohesion and neighbourhood,to a historical analysis of the functions of neigh-bourhoods and their transformations in the twen-tieth century, and to methods of measuremen t ofcommunity cohesion and n eighbourhood attach-ment. Finsterbusch ,Llewe llyn an d Wolf (1983)have edited a collection of essays on social impactassessment methods, including a stimulating dis-cussion on causes a nd corre ctives for errors of

ju dge me nt in socia l im pa ct research . Finally, thechapter Towards a methodological framewo rk i nComedias discussion document (Landry et al.,1993) offers methodological guidelines and caveatswhich can be very useful in designing an empiri-cal research project about the social impact of artsactivities.10 The document lists five differentmethodological approaches, explaining the con-texts in which each of the m would be more appr o-priate, and stresses the need to give re lat iveweights to each variable tha t is going to be evalu-ated,a rguing, for example, that in order to legiti-mately declare tha t an ar tistic programme ha simproved the quality of life of participants it isnecessaryfirst of allto know what are , in theopinions of participants, the main constituents ofquality of life and the re lat ive weights att rib-uted to them.

However,one of the maj or problems ofre search into the social impact of part icipation inarts activities is that it has no strong theoreticalgrounding.The argument that the arts do havesocial effects (which therefore just need be mea-sured) is far from being substantiat ed.Furthermore, it is not tenable that any kind ofpart icipatory arts activity in any kind of communi-

ty and culture would have identical social impacts.Differences are expected to exist and it is neces-sary to know more about this. Without knowingwhat the rea l,specific effects of t he arts are ,a n d

in which circumstances they occur, the re search ersare only going to measure what they would like tobe there, for exampleas in Matarassoa reduc-tion of crime and vandalism: the communitypolice officer argued that active participation ofresidents in the life of their community was essen-tial to maintaining order on the estate(Matarasso, 1997, p . 35). We should therefore capi-talise onand develop furtherthrough an inte r-disciplinary approach , the contributions of otherimportant fie lds of research .Moreover,we shouldproceed along clear lines and make e xplicit thetheories underpinning our research .

Relevant contributions include, for example,psychological and sociological theories of creativi-ty and art pe rception and empirical studies in thefield of cognitive psychology on th e effect of thearts on individuals.

The psychologist Lev Vygotskij researched intothe phe nomenon of creativity as a social process.He was interested in und erstanding how individ-ual creativity affected innovation at a wider socialleve l. In his fundamental work on imagination andcreativity in childhood (1930), he rej ected th eromantic conception of creativity as th e product ofa sudden inspirat ion. He also refuted the idealisa-tion of childrens cr eativity, based on a typicallyromantic negative attitud e towards education. Onthe contrary, for Vygotskij the products of authen -tic creative imagination, in any field, were exactlythe results of education and mature imagination.He showed that children h ave less creativity thanadults, but they believe more in the products oftheir imagination because they have less controland critical judgeme nt over such productsthis iswhy children do not feel frustrate d with their cre-

ative achieve ments.H owever, as rational thoughtgains control over imagination in the process ofgrowing up, children who do not have a chance tolearn the cultural and technical factors whichmake mature creativity possible, graduallybecome frustrated about their creative accom-plishments and stop engaging with imaginativeactivit ies.Creativityin the art s, science and tech-nologyis, for Vygotskij, an historical and conse-quential pro c ess.I nventors, even geniuses, arealways creatures of their times and of their env i-ronments.Their creative capacities are p romptedby the nee ds for innovation which had beenformed in earlier times and by the opportunitiesoffered by the context in which they work . All thisaccounts for the disproportion in the numbe r ofinnovators in different social classes. The privi-leged classes, according to Vygotskij , produce amuch higher percent age of innovators becausetheir mem bers enj oy all the n ecessary conditionsof creation.

Vygotskijs notion of creativity can raise signifi-cant research questions.For example, what is therole of participatory arts programmes in encourag-ing this type of creativity, compared with otherforms of education? In this framewo rk ,a re thesocial effects of participatory ar ts activitiesattended by children different from the e ffects ofthe same a ctivities attend ed by adults? In whatways? Also, are the impa cts of creative activit iesimplemented in exceptionally disadvantagedareas different from the impacts of the same activ-ities implemented in othe r areas? In what ways?

John Sloboda has conducted import antre search in the field of the cognit ive psychology ofmu sic. His book The Musical Mind(1985) is anenquiry into music as a cognit ive skill.Sloboda isinterested in understanding how music is able toaffect people. He argues that music has to dowith emotional factors , its social functions andmotivations being only secondary to t he e motionalfactors; but, he writes: the cognit ive stage is anecessary precursor of the a ffective stage:

a listener cannot find a joke funny unless he understandit. However,the affective stage does not necessarilyfollow the cognitive state.A person may understand a

joke perfectly well withoutbeing moved to laughter by

it. So it is with music. A person may understand themusic he hears without being moved by it. If he ismoved by it then he must have passed through thecognitive stage, which involves forming an abstract or

symbolic internal representation of the music (...).Composition and improvisation require the generationof such representations,and perception involves thelistener constructing them (Sloboda,1985,p.3).

Thus given t he conceptually-mediated nature ofexper ience( Sayer, 1992, p . 54), does the culturalbackground of participants influence t he socialimpact of th e a ctivities? Bourdieus Outline of aSociological Theory of Art Perception , first publishedin 1968, argues that the a rts exist only for thosewho are able to decipher them:

the recapturing of the works objective meaning (...) iscompletely adequate and immediately effected in thecaseand only in the casewhere the culture that theoriginator puts into the work is identical with theculture or, more accurately, the artistic competencewhich the beholder brings to the deciphering of the

work (...).Whenever these specific conditions are notfulfilled, misunderstanding is inevitable: the illusion ofimmediate comprehension leads to an illusorycomprehension based on a mistaken code (Bourdieu,1968;1993,p.216).

The first consequence of Bourdieus theorymight be that a real, deep impact of the arts canexist only for a very small lite of educated peoplewho are able to decipher their codes, while for allthose who do not have artistic competence, themain function of the ar ts is to legitimate socialdifferences: art a nd cultural consumption arepredisposed,consciously and deliberately or not,to fulfil a social function of legitimating social dif-ferences( Bourdieu, 1979; 1984,p. 7).This mightbe taken as a grounding theory for an inte rest ingre search on the social impact of the art s. Forexample, do participatory arts overcome suchdrawback?

From Bourdieus the ory we can also de riveideas which have implications on th e choice ofre search methods. As the work of art only existsfor those who can decipher it,

the satisfactions attached to this perception (...) are onlyaccessible to those who are disposed to appropriatethem because they attribute a value to them,i tbe in gunderstood that they can do this only if they have themeans to appropriate them. Consequently, the need toappropriate (...) cultural goods (...) can appear only in

7/31/2019 Impact 19

5/5

V A RI A N T VO LU M E 2 N U M BE R 1 9 S P R IN G 2 00 4 P AG E 2 1

those who can satisfy it, and can be satisfied as soon asitap pe ars.It follows on the one hand that,unlike

primaryneeds, the cultural need as a cultivated needincreases in proportion as it is satisfied, because eachnew appropriation tends to strengthen the mastery ofthe instruments of appropriation and (...) consequently,the satisfaction attached to a new appropriation; on theother hand, it also follows that the awareness ofdeprivation decreases in proportion as the deprivationincreases (Bourdieu,1968;1993,p.227).

Also involvement in part icipatory arts is a culti-vated cultural need and not a primary need, thusasking people whether they are satisfied with par-t icipatory arts programmes is arguab ly not fa irunless those who are being surveyed are fullyaware of their cultural depr ivation.Yet because ofthe particular characteristics of awareness ofdeprivation iden tified by Bourdieu, it is probab lynot correct to u se questionnaire surveys to assess

whether socially deprived people a re satisfiedwith part icipatory arts programmes.In-depthinterviews might prove to be a be tter tool becausethey offer chances to compensate , though only inpart, for distortions in communicat ion,a llowingthe interviewee to ask questions and obtain infor-mation from the re search er,and enabling there searcher to understand and not simply to mea-surethe ideas and th e feelings of the interv ie-wee. In-depth interviews also allow the re searcherto control the effects of the re search re lat ionship,to perceive and monitor on th e spot, as the inter-view is actually taking place, the effects of thesocial structure within which it is occurring(Bourdieu, 1993; 1999, p. 608). Finally, suchmethodological tool can make int erviewees feelfree to express and explain ideas and opinionswhich are not being asked to them, thus revealing

aspects unforeseen by the researcher.

AcknowledgementsI would like to than k Franco Bianch in i,Stuar t

Pr i ce ,Mike Walford and two anonymous refereesfor their help.

Notes

1 Matarasso asserts that besides the questionnairescompleted by part icipants,he has also made u seof other tools (questionnaires completed b yobservers,fie ld visits ,part icipant observation, for-mal interviews,discussion groups, observer groupsand evaluation through indicators agreed withproject partner s).H owever, these tools have beenused only in some projects and the results are notmentioned in the research report .

2 After complet ing the research under considerat ionin this art icle, Matarasso has continued to workextensively on the social impact of p art icipatoryarts programmes,drawing on the same method-ological framework, with only minor changes.Thehypotheses and findings in his more recent worksare very similar to the ones in Use or Ornam ent?

Some of the results are pu blished in the reportsPoverty and Oysters (Matarasso,1998a) and VitalSigns (Matarasso,1998b).

3 In Vital Signs Matarasso (1998b) includes a notherindicator which is not observable,nor measurable:the cre ation of new posit ive symbols (p. 34).Who decides,and according to what cri teria, thatthe symbols created are posit ive?

4 Apart from sporadic, isolated quotations from par-t icipants comments, such as: It made me re alisethat Im capable of doing anything I put my mindto, whereas before I never thought that I could doanything(Mat arasso, 1997, p.15),or We used tobe worstnow we are the best (Matarasso,1997,p .50) .

5 In the research repor t Vital Signs, Matarasso(1998b) introduces a longitudinal dimen sion inthe an alysis of data on cultural infrastructure s,but not in the part icipants questionnaires.

6 Towards the end of the final repor t Matarasso sur-prisingly claims that the art s can redu ce publicexpenditure by alleviating social p roblems whichthe state would otherwise be obliged to put right(Matarasso,1997, p. 93,my i tal ics).A sl ip of thepen?

7 In Poverty & Oysters, Matarasso (1998a) actuallyidentifies social inclusion as one of the m ainhypotheses of impact.

8 In Vital Signs (Matarasso,1998b) the objective ofchanging peoples ideas becomes explici t . One ofthe key indicators identified by Matar asso of suchchange is, revealingly, the increased appreciat ionof public authori t ies(p.34).

9 For an account of the d ebate s on cultures civil is-ing effect , see Bennett (1998).

10 It is quite strange that Mata rasso seems to havealmost completely ignored the suggestions given

there.Works Cited

Bennett , T. (1998) Culture: A Reform ers Science (Sage,London).

Bourdieu, P.(1968) Outline of a sociological theoryof art perception, in Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Fieldof Cultural Production.Essays on Art and Literature

edited by R. Johnson (Poli ty Press, Cambridge).

Bourdieu, P. (1979) La dist in cti on. Crit iqu e socia le d uju dgem ent (Les dit ions de Minuit , Paris), (Englishtranslat ion:Dist in cti on. A S ocial Crit iqu e of t heJudgem ent of Tast e, Routledge and Kegan,London,1984).

Bourdieu, P. (1993) Comprendre , in Bourdieu, P. etal. ,La m isre d u m ond e (dit ions du Seuil , Paris),(English translat ion: Understanding, inBourdieu, P. et al., The Weight of the W orld. SocialSuffering in Cont emporary Society , Poli ty Press,Cambridge,1999).

Finsterbusch,K.(1980) Understanding Social Impacts.Assessin g t he Eff ects of Pu bli c Proj ects (Sage,Beverly Hills).

Finsterbusch,K . ,Llewellyn,L.G.and Wolf,C.P. (1983)Social Im pact Assessment M ethods (Sage, BeverlyHills).

Haber mas, J. (1999) The European nation-state andthe pressures of globalization in New Lef t Rev ie w ,235,May-June 1999,pp. 46-59.

Kleinman,M.(1998) In clu de M e Ou t? London Schoolof Economics, Centre for Analysis of SocialExclusion, Casepaper 11.

Landry,C. ,Bianchin i , F. , Maguire, M.and Worpole, K.(1993) The Social Impa ct of th e Arts: A DiscussionDocum ent (Comedia,Bournes Green,Stroud).

Matarasso,F. (1996) Defi ni ng Val ues: E va lu at in g Ar tsProgrammes, Working Paper(Comedia,BournesGreen ,S t roud) .

Matarasso, F. (1997) Use or Ornam ent? The S ocialIm pact of Pa rt icip at ion in th e Ar ts (Comedia,Bournes Green, Stroud).

Matarasso,F. (1998a) Poverty & Oysters. The SocialIm pact of L ocal Art s Dev elopm ent s in Port sm out h

(Comedia, Bournes Green, Stroud).

Matarasso ,F .wi th Chell , J . (1998b) Vital Signs.Ma ppi ng Com m un it y Art s in Belf ast (Comedia,Bournes Green,Stroud).

Sayer,A.(1992) Met hod in Socia l S cien ce. A R eali stApp roach , 2nd ed . (Rout ledge,London) .

Sloboda, J.A.(1985) The Musical Mind. The CognitivePsychology of M usic (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Smith,C. (1998) Creative Britain (Faber and Faber,London).

Vygotskij,S.L.(1930) Voobraenie i t vorstvo vkonom v ozraste (Gosudartsvennoe Izdatelstvo,Moska-Leningrad), (Ital ian tran slat ion:Im m agin azi one e crea ti v it n ellet in fan ti le ,Editori Riunit i , Roma,1972).

Will iams,D. (1996) Creatin g Social Capital(Community Arts Network of South Austral ia,Adelaide).

Will iams, D.(1997)How th e A rt s Measu re Up , WorkingPaper (Comedia, Bournes Green , S t roud) .

This article originally appeared in the InternationalJournal of Cultural Policy, 2002 Vol.8 (1),pp.107-118.Reprinted with the kind permission of Taylor & FrancisLtd.

For a response by Franois Matarasso to this article seeInternational Journal of Cultural Policy, 2003 Vol.9 (3),pp.337-346.

Paola Merli,De Montfort University, Faculty ofHumanities,School of Media and Cultural Production,Clephan Building,The Gateway,Leicester LE1 9BHemail: PMerli@dmu.ac.uk