|When it is said today - in general and
in the concept of the discussion under the title hybrid?resistance
in Linz - that "unproductive dichotomies" between
culture and politics, art and resistance, artistic practice
and political activism have been overcome, then the question
arises as to the scope of theses like this. In the context
of visual and conceptual art, their limitations become
clear relatively quickly.
In the past decade, contradictory developments in this
area have been evident, for which a common denominator
may still be found if they are considered in a more
abstract way, specifically the dedifferentiation between
artistic and other social fields. This dedifferentiation
- a term that the cultural theorist Scott Lash 
developed contrary to the view, widespread particularly
among sociological authors, that presumes an increasing
differentiation of society into autonomous social subsystems
- has not only been propelled by actors in the field
of art. It is also the result of processes of the colonization
of artistic fields from the outside. In this context,
the economization of the social and the cultural could
be called to mind, for instance, the logic of which
has been discussed by theorists of governmentality studies
 following the
later writings of Foucault. A partial aspect of this
economization is the invasion of corporative power into
the European fields of art (following the US American
model), which has resulted in a new type of "business
artists". What distinguishes this type of artist
is that he relatively willingly places his cultural
and symbolic capital at the disposal of actors in the
economic field for their image politics, among other
things, for the symbolic affirmation of internal hierarchies,
for motivating employees, or for developing "innovative"
In extreme cases, the power of actors from the field
of economics is meanwhile even sufficient to launch
entire art movements and to inscribe them in the history
of art, as was evident in Britain with Charles Saatchi
and the "Young British Artists" (YBA). Angela
McRobbie has described the aversion to theory and the
anti-intellectualism of this younger generation of artists,
who were trained, in fact, at a center of cultural studies
and feminist theory (Goldsmiths College, London), how
they crossed the borders of "art and life"
in the form of a post-ironic plundering of popular and
youth culture, and also their "culturepreneur"
strategies that made them appear as "Thatcher's
children" in the field of art. Although the cynicism
of these artists sponsored and pushed by Charles Saatchi
may appear apolitical at first glance, their integration
in the hegemonial entrepreneur culture and in the "Cool
Britannia" discourse of identity politics does
have political connotations that are not to be overlooked.
Although processes of the dedifferentiation of art,
business, and politics could be observed in Britain
in the past decade, this is far from having overcome
"unproductive dichotomies" in the sense of
the thesis outlined in this context at the start. On
the contrary, according to McRobbie, political and activist
art that was still present in the 80s was marginalized
through the YBAs. 
During the 90s, the "privatization of culture"
following the Anglo-Saxon model 
was also promoted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
Unlike in Britain, however, trends of oppositional "political
art" also developed in these countries at the same
time. Holger Kube Ventura, who has developed a survey
of this critical art, sees the main reason for the politicization
of art in the slump in the art market in the early 90s.
 This reductionist
explanation, however, appears to be anything but convincing.
The slump in the art market affected the fields of art
in all the western countries. A comparable politicization
of art and art discourse was not to be found, though,
in Britain, France, Italy, or Spain.
To grasp the politicization of art in these countries
as the "hybridization" of art and politics
or to speak of a "hybrid resistance", however,
is not unproblematic. For before the concept of "hybridity"
rose via the reception of Bachtin to become one of the
key concepts of cultural theory in recent years, there
was a long history of the racist use of this concept,
of the race theories of the 19th century all the way
to the anti-Semitic and National-Socialist writings
of the 20th century. The appropriation and redefinition
of the hybridity concept on the part of cultural theory
authors such as Stuart Hall or Homi K. Bhabha was not
only linked with a rejection of the essentialist or
coerced assimilation ideas originally connected to this
concept, but also to the idea of mutual penetration
- in the interaction of center and periphery, for instance,
of the oppressed and the oppressor, of hegemonial and
subversive forces. 
Especially this aspect of the redefined concept of hybridity
seems to me to be heuristically and theoretically interesting,
because it draws attention to the important question
of the extent, to which "resistance" still
adheres to the logic of the system that it opposes.
The term "hybrid resistance" used in this
sense would thus refer to a form of oppositional practice
that is linked to the side effect of reproducing basic
This kind of "hybridity" of oppositional
art may be recognized, in my opinion, primarily in two
respects. A large part of artistic production that has
emerged in conjunction with the protests against the
Austrian government, but also within the framework of
the anti-globalization movement, follows an "actor-oriented"
perspective in a fairly obvious way. 
It prefers to devote itself to the representation of
collective political rituals, those of founding solidarity
as well as those of applying violence, and it draws
attentions to "good" or "bad" actors,
whether these are individuals, groups or organizations.
By fixing on concrete entities (such as individuals
and groups) and their intentions, by concentrating on
discontinuous acts and events - especially direct violence
- and by privileging symbolic political events, which
essentially take place on the front stage of politics,
this type of artistic production is in danger of repeating
the structural blindness of the hegemonial media discourse
and its basic idea that the world is essentially to
be understood through recourse to actors.
The structural features of hierarchical social systems
include the tendency to reproduce themselves through
hindering horizontal interaction at the basis and through
processes of the separation and cooptation of anti-systemic
opposition movements. Considerable resources and energy
are required, in any case, to resist this fragmentation
and incorporation pressure. If Kube Ventura's diagnosis
of a "desolidarization" in the field of political
art is right, then fragmentation and cooptation once
again threaten to become the fate of oppositional art.
This is the second aspect of its hybridity, of which
it may not be sufficiently aware, in order to develop
adequate counterstrategies in time.
Translated by Aileen Derieg
 Scott Lash (1992):
Sociology of Postmodernism. London.
 Cf. Nikolas Rose,
Peter Miller 1992): Political power beyond the State:
problematics of government. In: British Journal of Sociology,
vol 43, pp. 173-205; Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann,
Thomas Lemke (Ed.) (2000): Gouvernementalität. Studien
zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt/Main.
 Angela McRobbie
(1999): In the Culture Society. Art, Fashion and Popular
Music. London, p. 6ff. On the role of Saatchi in British
art of the 90s, see especially: Rita Hatton / John A.
Walker (2000): Supercollector. A Critique of Charles Saatchi.
 Chin-tao Wu (2002):
Privatising Culture. Corporate Art Intervention since
the 80ies. London.
 Holger Kube Ventura
(2002): Politische Kunst Begriffe in den 1990er Jahren
im deutschsprachigen Raum. Wien, p. 88ff.
 cf. Bhabha, Homi
K. (1993): The Location of Culture. London-New York; and
for a critical discussion of the hybridity concept: Robert
Young (1995): Colonial Desire. Hybridity in Theory, Culture,
and Race. London.
 On the distinction
between an actor-oriented and structure-oriented perspective
of the world, cf. Johan Galtung (1994): Human Rights in
another Key. Cambridge-Oxford, pp. 27ff.