There is a question that cultural organisations avoid asking aloud, perhaps because the answer is uncomfortable: to what extent is what we can say and do conditioned by those who pay us? I pose this from within, not as an accusation. I direct a foundation with a tight budget, dependent on grants and support, and I know that this issue is not theoretical.
Classical organisational theory states it bluntly: those who rely on an environment for resources are, to that same extent, exposed to the control of that environment. No explicit order is required. The mere existence of dependency and the necessity for resources to be secured for the following year suffice. Applied to culture, this signifies that the funding structure determines not only the scale of operations but something more subtle: which subjects appear fundable, which language is deemed secure, which conflicts are best avoided, which metrics are prioritised, and which audiences are acknowledged and which are not.
Research into the sector qualifies and refines this. Different types of funding push in different directions: earned income tends to be associated with greater autonomy and artistic risk; public and private funding often orient towards the community, accountability, and the expectations of the funder. None is innocent; none is free in the profound sense. And managing several simultaneously—each with its own deadline, form, and shifting priority—generates a specific type of precariousness: that of an organisation dedicating a growing portion of its energy to sustaining its own scaffolding of funding.
The most delicate aspect is self-censorship, for it remains invisible. It is not that a funder prohibits a statement; rather, the organisation, cognisant of its dependencies, learns of its own accord to refrain from making it. This is little studied in culture, though more so in the third sector generally, where evidence suggests that certain funding structures are associated with a greater tendency to moderate criticism of the administrations upon which they depend. Within the European museum sector, recent surveys identify precisely these as common pressures: reliance on public funds, interference in programming, pressure to align with specific agendas, and its most silent manifestation, self-censorship.
I acknowledge the discomfort of writing this while presiding over a foundation that requires funding. Yet, it is precisely for this reason that it must be stated: the solution lies in identifying this dependency and addressing it. An organisation that recognises how its funding conditions its actions is better positioned to resist that conditioning than one that maintains the illusion of its own freedom. Clarity regarding one's own constraints is the initial step towards loosening them.
Viewed with the vocabulary I use in other texts, funding functions as an infrastructure for what can be affirmed. It neither creates nor destroys the existence of a cultural practice, but it decides to a large extent which becomes visible, defensible, sustainable, and speakable in the public space. It is an infrastructure, and like all infrastructure, it is not neutral: it favours some things and hinders others, quietly, without the need for explicit censorship.
Autonomy does not consist of independence—that is a fantasy—but rather of not relying upon a single source. Diversifying revenue streams ensures that no single entity may dictate terms; generating independent income expands one's margin; and, above all, articulating what funding conditions is essential, for what is named may be negotiated, while what remains unspoken cannot. A foundation that acknowledges these constraints is, paradoxically, freer than one that claims to have none. Freedom, in this context as in most others, begins with a clear perception of that from which one is not entirely free.
On the open conversation
This text is part of my sub-series Art and Society, which examines with honesty, and from within, the real conditions of cultural work; here, how vocation is used to cheapen the work of those who possess it, and whom it leaves out. If anyone wishes to intervene from the sociology of work, the economics of culture, or the labour organisation of the sector, the notebook remains open.
Sources
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, 1978.
Sherer, Peter D., Roy Suddaby and Mary Rozsa de Coquet. “Does Resource Diversity Confer Organizational Autonomy in Arts Organizations? Extending Resource Dependence Theory”. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 49, no. 4 (2019): 224-241.
Ashton, Daniel. “Funding arts and culture: Everyday experiences and organisational portfolio precarity”. European Journal of Cultural Studies 26, no. 3 (2023): 388-407.
NEMO (Network of European Museum Organisations). Barometer on political influence in museums in Europe. 2025.
Arvidson, Malin, Håkan Johansson and Roberto Scaramuzzino. “Advocacy Compromised: How Financial, Organizational and Institutional Factors Shape Advocacy Strategies of Civil Society Organizations”. Voluntas 29, no. 4 (2018): 844-856.