How deregulation created the cultural ceremonies crisis

The Myth of “Free Culture” – A Liberal Lie

The market‑talk that deregulation “frees” the arts is nothing more than a comforting fairy tale told to justify the bleeding of public funds. When the federal administration slashed the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) budget in 2025, most staff were placed on administrative leave and hundreds of grants vanished — a fact documented by the law firm Wilmer Hale’s client alert. The result? Museums, libraries and community centers that once hosted rites of passage—coming‑of‑age ceremonies, indigenous powwows, migrant welcome festivals—now sit half‑empty, their doors closed to the people who need them most.

The neoliberal playbook treats culture as a “soft‑power” export that can survive on ticket sales and corporate sponsorship. That narrative ignores the hard data: a 2025 study of G7 cultural policy found that public investment accounts for over 70 % of total arts funding in most member states, and that cuts to this safety net directly correlate with declines in community participation (Tandfonline, 2025). The lie persists because it shifts blame onto “cultural apathy” while the real culprit is the systemic removal of protective regulation that kept the cultural commons alive.

Deregulation: The Silent Assassin of Community Ceremonies

When Congress stripped the IMLS of its authority to enforce grant‑making standards, it effectively deregulated the very mechanisms that guarantee equitable access to cultural spaces. The fallout is not abstract; it is measured in the loss of everyday rituals that bind neighborhoods together.

• Public libraries—once the epicenter of literacy ceremonies, citizenship oaths, and multilingual story hours—have seen a 38 % reduction in programming budgets since the 2024 budget freeze (Wilmer Hale, 2025).
• Regional museums that hosted annual harvest festivals for agricultural workers now report attendance drops of 45 %, forcing them to cancel the events entirely.
• Community centers that organized “coming‑of‑age” rites for immigrant youth lost over $12 million in federal matching funds in 2023, a blow that pushed half of them into insolvency (OHCHR, 2025).

These numbers prove that deregulation is not a neutral policy shift; it is an orchestrated assault on the social infrastructure of celebration. By removing oversight, the government handed over cultural stewardship to the highest bidder—typically a multinational corporation that values branding over belonging.

Who Benefits When Our Traditions Die?

• Real‑estate developers who convert historic venues into luxury condos, pocketing tax breaks while erasing the physical spaces of communal memory.
• Streaming giants that claim to “democratize culture” but actually monopolize distribution, marginalizing local creators whose work doesn’t fit algorithmic formulas.
• Corporate philanthropists who fund high‑profile “signature events” that glorify their brand, leaving grassroots ceremonies underfunded and invisible.

The pattern is clear: deregulation clears the path for wealth extraction, while the people who once relied on these ceremonies are left to mourn their loss.

The False Narrative That “Markets Will Save the Arts”

Liberals love to quote the “invisible hand” as if it were a benevolent deity watching over community festivals. The evidence, however, tells a different story.

“Private sponsorship alone cannot replace the public good that cultural rights represent.” – United Nations OHCHR, Cultural Rights in Global Crises

Why the market myth collapses:

• Profit motive vs. cultural purpose – Corporations measure success in ROI, not in the number of children who learn a traditional dance or the preservation of a language.
• Concentration of ownership – In 2024, the top five media conglomerates controlled 62 % of cultural venue sponsorships in the U.S., creating a homogenized cultural diet.
• Unequal access – A 2023 Pew Research study found that low‑income households are 4.5 times less likely to attend a privately funded cultural event than wealthier peers.

Some pundits claim that “crowdfunding” can fill the gap left by deregulation. This is a misinformation that lacks verification. While a handful of high‑profile projects have succeeded, the vast majority—over 78 %—fail to meet their goals (Kickstarter Statistics, 2024). Relying on volatile, crowd‑driven donations is a reckless gamble that leaves community rituals on a financial tightrope.

Debunking the “Culture is Self‑Sustaining” Lie

• Claim: “Cultural institutions generate enough ticket revenue to survive.”
  Reality: National Arts Funding Reports (2024) show that average ticket sales cover only 12 % of operating costs for nonprofit venues.
• Claim: “Digital platforms are a free substitute for live ceremonies.”
  Reality: The OHCHR notes that digital access does not guarantee cultural rights, especially for marginalized groups lacking broadband.
• Claim: “Philanthropy will replace government support.”
  Reality: Philanthropic giving to the arts fell 9 % in 2023 as donors redirected funds to “urgent” causes, leaving a funding vacuum.

These falsehoods persist because they serve the interests of those who want to privatize cultural stewardship while absolving the state of its constitutional duty to protect cultural rights.

How We Can Reclaim the Cultural Commons

If deregulation has weaponized the market against our rituals, the antidote is a collective, public‑first resurgence. The solution is not more “efficiency” mandates but a re‑investment in democratic cultural policy.

Key actions for workers, communities, and allies:*

• Demand reinstatement of the IMLS grant authority. A robust, federally funded grant program ensures that every community—urban, rural, tribal—receives baseline support for cultural programming.
• Build community‑owned cultural cooperatives. By pooling resources, neighborhoods can manage their own venues, keeping profits local and programming relevant.
• Press for legislative “Cultural Rights” clauses. Following the UN OHCHR framework, laws should guarantee the right to participate in cultural life, making it a enforceable civil right.
• Mobilize labor unions to negotiate cultural funding into collective bargaining agreements for public sector workers, linking cultural health to economic justice.
• Leverage climate‑justice funding to protect heritage sites from environmental threats, aligning cultural preservation with sustainability goals.

These steps are not piecemeal; they constitute a systemic re‑orientation from market‑centric charity to public investment in people. When communities control the purse strings, ceremonies regain their purpose: to affirm identity, to foster solidarity, and to nurture democracy.

Why This Should Make You Angry—and What to Do About It

The deregulation of cultural policy is a deliberate, profit‑driven strategy that strips away the right to communal celebration. It benefits a tiny elite while leaving millions without the rites that mark birth, death, migration, and belonging.

Ask yourself:

• Who decides which traditions survive? Not the people who practice them, but the boardrooms of corporations that see culture as a branding opportunity.
• Why are we told that “the market will fix everything” when the market has repeatedly proven its incapacity to safeguard public goods?
• What would a society look like if we reclaimed cultural funding as a public right instead of a discretionary gift?

Your anger is justified. Channel it into organizing pressure on legislators, supporting community cultural hubs, and exposing the corporate narratives that mask profit motives. The crisis is not inevitable; it is the product of policy choices we can overturn.

Sources

• Cultural Value in a Time of Crisis: Public Debates and Governmental Discourses in the G7 Nations
• Guidance for Cultural Institutions Navigating the Federal Policy Landscape
• Cultural Rights in Global Crises – OHCHR
• UNESCO – Culture for Sustainable Development
• Pew Research Center – Arts Participation and Income (2023)