deletions | additions       diff --git a/What are the means of bringing power relations into being?.md b/What are the means of bringing power relations into being?.md  index 15cad7d..fb099a3 100644  --- a/What are the means of bringing power relations into being?.md  +++ b/What are the means of bringing power relations into being?.md 
...
_What are the means of bringing power relations into being?_  The main form of institutionalized power over cultural production is the state, with its funding system. The state itself is not a source of power, although as an output of different struggles including the struggles within the field of cultural production, trade, industry, politics and between this fields etc. it could be seen as a set of institutionalized technologies of power (Foucault 1984: 21, following Lemke 2002). Field of cultural production is the subject of power that is exercised with institutions of the state, although it has various means of sustaining its relative autonomy from the field of politics, where allegation of censorship and monopoly over deciding what is and what is not the true culture are the most important. Thus we could not say that politicians or officials govern culture producers.     The attitude of politicians toward the cultural field is similar to attitude of priests toward the field of politics, both politician talking publicly about culture and priest talking publicly about politics has to use special kind of euphemisms. The relationship between politics of local and central governments and the field of cultural production is complex.     As we demonstrated in our book (Gorgoń et. All 2013: 5) both national and local governments in Poland prefer to spend public money on festivals or other spectacular projects, than on regular, continuous work of cultural institutions. Money on event organizations is main stream of fundings for culture. This stream is shared among big number of competitors, mostly non government organizations. In previous years central, ministerial funding, could be granted for one year only, starting from 2013, it might be granted for the period up to 3 years.     Funding rules are the most important limitations for whole sector of cultural production, thus the most important source of power over this sector. Non governmental organizations working in the cultural field are very likely to focus mostly on festival organization, because it is the easiest way to achieve sufficient funding for continuous activity. Although this organizations have to adjust their work to ‘life cycle’ of the festival. Festivals are extremely work consuming, but quite short, which triggers the fact that “out of season”, these organizations do not need to hire many people. Quite small groups of organizers creates a demand for a work of big number of regular workers for a short time. Off course it fosters the usage of short time, flexible contracts. Thus festival production process might be treated as the perfect example of the cycle of production of immaterial labor described by Maurizio Lazzarato:     Small and sometimes very small ‘productive units’ (often consisting of only one individual) are organized for specific ad hoc projects, and may exist only for the duration of those particular jobs. The cycle of production comes into operation only when it is required by the capitalist; once the job has been done, the cycle dissolves back into the networks and flows that make possible the reproduction and enrichment of its productive capacities. Precariousness, hyperexploitation, mobility, and hierarchy are the most obvious characteristics of metropolitan immaterial labor. Behind the label of the independent ‘self-employed’ worker, what we actually find is an intellectual proletarian, but who is recognized as such only by the employers who exploit him or her. (1996: 137)(see also Gorgoń et. All 2013: 19)     Funding policy creates also a competitive pressure on festivals’ cost efficiency, which means a competitive pressure on price of labor. Both precarious character of ‘work’ in a cultural sector, especially in festivals production, and its continuous demand for a low paid and free labor, are rooted in the funding system.     The main  technology of power used in within  the field of festival production is framing the conditions of actions, confronting acting subject with conditions that seems seem  to him or her as 'objective'. This is why I predicate that we may talk about biopolitics of festvial production. ‘objective’.  This happens first of all with budgetary discipline imposed by funders, and followed by funding terms and conditions. Second important limitation is the  fact that an event can not cannot  be postponed, thus everyone who is engaged in its production fails under a dictatorship of deadlines. Every single activity in the production process has to be adjusted to numerus numerous  other activities and its timelines, time lines,  and every activity by creating own timeline impose time line imposes  new deadlines to the on  others. Thus everyone entering the production process is confrontated confronted  with _machine_, the machine,  that can not cannot  be stoped stopped  after its launch. This technology of power may work only when acting subject internalize internalizes  a responsibility for the success of the project. The art of govrning consist of various techniques governing consists  of resposibility's inoculation, transmission  oftransmition  this responsibility from the top of managing pyramide pyramid  to its bottom.   Not every subject bottom (see also Gorgoń et. All 2013: 17-18 and 28-30).     It  is vulnerable easier, because the whole cultural field produces subjects that want  to take  this incolutions, thus the responsibility. The  very fundamental technique for the whole process problem of power  is selection. This selection selection, which  aims to choose specyphic a specific  type of subject, which mihgt might  be called _active_. active.  Active subject believs believes  in the value of cultural production and, in the ideal case, in the value of particular event he or she helps to produce. He or she is interested in achieving a  position within the cultural field, but believs believes  that the only way to this goal leads througha  hard work (_activity_, (activity,  continues struggle to "do more") “do more”)  and can hide his or her ambitions. To be productive productive, the  subject has also to be _open_, open,  which means he or she should have the ability, which is essential for the festival production, production:  the ability of estabilishing establishing  and sustaining the interactions. This is crucial, because participation in a festival production process is a participation in social network of festival producers. A begginer beginner  should be active and open enough, to be remembered by people who occupied crucial positions in the network. Being remebered remembered  is crucial form of gaining security in the world of hyperflexibility. hyper flexibility. People who are not active and open are ignored by managers and then disappear and are forgotten, thus they are excluded from the production process.  The oposition opposition  of the active subject is a person who do not believe in the value of true culture and treat participation in festival production as a job, which means who want to accomplish actions that were commisioned commissioned  to him or her, recieve remunerarion receive remuneration  and come back to life outside the field of culture. This type of subject is a counterpoint of cultural discours dominant discourse in the field  and all its manifestations has to be excluded from the network of cultural production. Hiding material conditions of own  reproduction is one  of the most fundamental characteristics required from  human resources used to festival production is one of basic technologies and the main goal  of the  active subjects subject  training. The active subject does not behave as a worker any more. He or she behaves like an entrepreneur, treating his or her participation in production process as a competitive struggle to accumulate resources. For him or her the financial reward offered by employers is less attractive and at most additional to social awards he or she can win on his or her own.     Once selected, active subject has to be sustained.  To keep the subject active, the production process has to be atractive attractive  for him or her. Paradoxicly Paradoxically,  it might be achieved with by  increasing time preasure pressure  andbudren with work, although this  work has burden, although multiple tasks commissioned to the subject have  to be changeable and exacting. The production process should also give him or her an  opportunity to accumulate relationships and knowledge, which might be seen as type of reward, alternative to money. Thus Thus,  the problem of governing in the production process is also the problem of encuraging, encouraging and the problem of creating opportunities,  not only the problem of control.