AESTHETICS OF COLLABORATION
Ramon Parramon

(Published in AA.VV. “D’anada i tornada. Projectes i pràctiques col·laboratives des del museu i a través de l’art”. Palma de Mallorca: Es Baluard Museu d’Art Modern i Contemporani de Palma, 2018. ISBN: 978-84-9803-856-9)

Intermediations between the collective, the participatory and the collaborative in systemic artistic practices1

Within the sphere of pedagogical-artistic processes, driven on by contemporary artistic practices, whenever one wishes to refer to a mode of action which in any phase of its process of conception, production or mediation actively involves several people, the adjectives collective, participatory or collaborative are used indistinctly. If more plural and complex forms or structures appear in any of these stages of the process, or if we operate pursuing objectives such as cooperation, implication, transformation, empowerment, the creation of community, educational action, self-management, sustainability, complicity, intermediation or other similar concepts, we are faced with a type of practice that seeks to structure itself on the basis of the collective, incentivate participation and deploy collaborative mechanisms in order to materialise. Some of these forms of collective construction of the artistic are influenced by critical pedagogy which, in the realms of art, has been driven forward by the interest of mediation and educational departments that have sought to subvert the most typified functions of artistic infrastructures; others, as a result of a systemic approach of artistic practice which is established thanks to the management of complexity, the interconnection of its elements and the expansion of the practice outside its more “institutionalised” delimitations; and still others, by carrying on in accordance with the temporary impulse of artistic fashions which, in this case, contribute with noise and contamination.

In spite of the fact that the collective, the participatory or the collaborative are generally used to complement one another, they take on differential nuances and make for forms of action which are sometimes opposing. This text deals with the common elements and points outs some of their differences, in an attempt to refer to a complex ecosystem in which art sometimes acts as a driving force and oversteps the boundary of its domains of legitimacy, and other times is a vector of a notion of transversality, where actors and resources typical of the artistic field connect up with projects and experiments that are not resolved within this ambience, but expand to other places.2 It is in this regard that we wish to refer to a type of practices which, as a result of the fact of managing the complexity both of their components and of their interactions with that which is not inherent in them, we call systemic artistic practices.3 Discerning whether collaborative practices, in relation to artistic and pedagogical practices, are a reality or a mirage is part of the discourse of this text.

From the collective to the collaborative

The collaborative is always collective, but the collective is not always collaborative. Collective artistic practice exists when two or more individuals decide to group together to execute it. In this sense, at the outset they establish an internal collaboration mechanism so as to be able to develop their own projects regardless of whether they thereby pursue collaboration with other agents external to the group itself. Whilst there is another kind of artistic practice which seeks to develop open collaborative processes linked to a certain group of people, related to a specific physical and social space, or which explicitly influence the public sphere. This is an important discussion – collaborative art refers to that which strives to be socially committed or becomes directly involved with other types of social practices. The fact that many collectives have chosen these modes of action, introducing the political will for transformation in relation to the contexts in which, or from which, they operate, contributes to this symbiosis between the collective and the collaborative.

First, we review the concept of collective art, in order to subsequently deal with the concept of collaborative art from a more complex perspective, in the understanding that one and the other may refer to different significances in order to understand both processes and results, in spite of the fact that in certain cases, they are used as synonyms or complementary terms.

Collective artistic practices often arise as a response to the approach of authorship, autonomy, individualism or practice linked to talent and genius in which the art system has constructed its little “cultural industry”. This is how it was specified by Preiswert, one of the collectives active in Madrid between 1990 and 2000, which displayed its contempt and repugnance for western cultures’ obsession with concepts of authorship, an obstinacy, they felt had culminated in the institutionalisation of intellectual property, copyright or signature. In the context of the exhibition “El mal de la actividad Preiswert”,4 the collective made its opinion on the concept of “collective artistic creation” very clear, the definition of which they felt was redundant. In their view, no artistic practice that is not collective has ever existed, as the social relationships that intervene in production processes are complex and implicate a broad set of people. And in relation to the reception of the work, they feel the community that values it to be much more important than the individual talent of the person who created it. Their political position places great emphasis on this collective nature of culture and directly attacks the way in which capitalism reduces it and turns it into merchandise. “Actually, Preiswert invites society, citizens, to recover, to take back into their hands, the aesthetic responsibilities, as well as the political and social ones, which they have historically allowed to be taken from them by what Preiswert can only describe as a gang of thieves”.5 In this case, the reflection on the collective articulation of the work of art has a consideration associated to the technical framework that has to do with its production and the importance of collective recognition it requires to attain the category of art.

Jorge Luis Marzo expressed himself in a similar way when reflecting on collective art, understood as art produced through the involvement of a group of people. He questioned the little attention collectively-created art has been given by art historiography, which is predisposed to reflecting the genius of the artist-individual and to disparaging the contexts of collective work or collective workshops where many of the works of classical art had been shaped. A treatment that is even maintained in most avant-garde and contemporary artistic literature, in which movements, collective structures, are habitually treated as an unusual grouping of people, with strong internal tensions, that lend value to more individual work. The approach of revision of the authorship-work relationships in favour of generating new challenges this author proposes is interesting: “The artwork must be separated from the concept of authorship and more emphasis be placed on the need to create working environments in which new ways of conceiving artworks become possible. Moreover, I do not believe that we need to rid ourselves of the artwork: what I am emphasizing is the urgent need to consider collectivity as a format in which to foster new modes of production, distribution and sociality. There, new works will naturally be generated”.6 It is also interesting to observe how, some years after this text reflecting on collective creation, in a recent, extensive manual on Spanish art,7 the same author explicitly tries to compensate for this historiographic void relating to collectively-produced art. Practices that are distributed in different sections under names like collaborative practice, art in the public sphere, new genre public art, activist art, disruptive practices. Also in this regard, importance is placed on the phenomenon of artistic associationism, an essential part of the collective and collaborative construction of the artistic context in Spain.

One of the texts that delve deeply into what collaborative artistic practice is, is the one Paloma Blanco published in the second issue of Desacuerdos.8 As well as constructing a theoretical context on the subject, she directs it explicitly towards the Spanish context of the ‘nineties, compiling and documenting a series of experiences, projects and programmes typical of our context. She feels that collaborative practices can be understood as an evolution of political art towards a kind of socially and politically committed practices in which diverse, and often diverging methods are used. Suzanne Lacy gathered, for the first time, a series of texts on this type of committed practice, arising in the happenings of the ‘sixties and emerging with force, encompassing the activist and protest vision along with Marxist and feminist discourses, which were aimed at the public sphere. A type of artistic practice she called “new genre public art”9 which positioned itself against art in the public space, and was more formalist, a descendant of site-specific sculpture or the sculptural and architectural ambiences. Art and public sphere were other concepts articulated in the late ‘eighties and early ‘nineties to construct this more complex option of working in the space of that which is public, common or community-based.10 Among the definitions of this type of artistic practice, we find the ability to commit to the public in a collaborative practice, capable of establishing links, work networks and complicities, and of exploring new ways of incorporating communities, collectives or real groups into artistic processes. A type of practice that is framed within a continued process of social critique and associated to a collaborative process, in local and politicized contexts.

From this perspective, collaborative practices are those which generate processes in contexts delimited by proximity, which catalyse elements that may propitiate changes in these contexts, articulated through experiences of intervention generated by critical positioning, extradisciplinary configuration, the incorporation of certain collectives or groups and whose results promote narratives that are clearly politicised.

Participation and art. From participation to collaboration

Before dealing with the relations established between art and participation, we must understand participation as a form of action that applies in community management models, and which has been progressively established as a methodology of process in the socio-urban transformations of cities seeking to boost local development and participatory democracy. The participation of citizens in decisions concerning that which is common is something that is demanded by social activism, which over time has been implemented in most local authorities. This has contributed to the generation of institutionalised protocols that are repeated when any plan of transformation is implemented.

The development of participatory processes is common in numerous activities promoted by administration technicians and by small community action groups. Any self-respecting strategic plan needs to drive forward a participatory process, otherwise it will probably lack legitimacy. Frequently, it is seen as a right of citizens to complement, through direct democracy, that which is not attended to by representative democracy. This type of process always engenders the risk of a strong component of institutional criticism and of surrender of power to citizens; as a result, both the frequency and the manner in which they are implemented depend on the political stance of governments and the understanding of governability.

When a participatory process is set in motion it seems that the presence of citizens is called for as though this were a duty. Not participating may also be an active way of participating, shouting silently that the thing one is called upon to take part in is of no interest, perhaps because the caller does not transmit sufficient confidence to us or because there is not a given connection for that which we are called upon to do. Other elements such as noise, distractions, commodity and indifference work against taking a side for something, and it would appear that our way of being in the world tends towards the fact of being rather passive spectators. At times, participation is a form of entertainment used to decide banal, partial issues. When this occurs, citizens cannot feel motivated because they notice the scant value of their decisions and, if they decide to participate, they are not always aware of or do not have the negotiating tools the process requires, or a common language is not shared.

Programmed participation is a well-intentioned form of stimulation that tries to alter the right to idleness with the right to take active part in a context of social cooperation. A tutored methodology to reactivate passivity in favour of the right to take part in the collective construction of something. Participation entails a critical and self-critical component, and this is something that is not accepted easily. It calls for negotiation and communication skills and the ability to inspire trust to carry it out. Participation is a double-edged sword – it can be a powerful tool for multiplying public activation, social networks, creativity or democracy. But it can also be a perverse tool, which social democracy has set in motion with the aim of promoting a peaceful and unbroken society. The interaction between participation and conflict is not easily resolved, as one of the objectives of participation is the integration of the other in the processes of making decisions, of surrendering power through negotiation practices which must tend towards the dissolution of conflict.

Participation in the processes of transformation of the city is a right, as David Harvey has pointed out: “the right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to it after our heart’s desire”.11 But he also reminds us that this is a territory of confusion, of conflicts and violence, as history has revealed to us. Calm and public spirit have been the exception. The city and neighbourhoods have been the setting of creative destruction, but they have also survived, and based on new creative actions have been rebuilt, reinvented and have even proposed innovations. All participatory processes involve this practice which is at once creative and destructive. It is because of all this that it is alarming, and political managers tend to exercise it under control. More than an instrument for strengthening collaboration, it is often exercised as an institutionalised, domesticated discipline and one of deactivation of the critical stance.

Contemporary art is also interested in participation. Numerous artists and collectives try to include participatory strategies as part of their practice with the aim of influencing the social space. As in other fields, sometimes this is a reality and other times it is a desire or fiction. There have been repeated attempts to break the one-way communication with the public and search for an alternative to the widespread conception that the social function of art is to not have any function at all. Thus, in the ‘seventies some of the practices that were later explored began, the essence of which consisted of the active participation of the public in the artwork. In this way, certain forms appeared in which the temporary event, the performance or the dissolution of art with life are configured as an expanded path of interaction. The long tradition of critical art is somehow present in the approaches that include strategies linked to participation, it “intends to raise consciousness of the mechanisms of domination in order to turn the spectator into a conscious agent in the transformation of the world”.12 According to Rancière, the art critic has moved in the tension of two opposing policies in relation to aesthetics. Due to political aesthetics pushing art towards life, and political aesthetics by which art is made without the pretension or interest of engaging in politics. Aesthetics conscious of exercising a type of practice that tends towards its own dissolution as an autonomous entity, seeking to trace out social links, and that which seeks to legitimise itself on the basis of autonomy and depoliticization. Both are forms that co-exist as policies of the aesthetic.

Turning the passive spectator into an active agent is still insufficient if what we seek is to dissolve artistic practice in multiple participating agents and take advantage of people’s creativity in order to promote collective action with political influence, in the sense of transforming specific elements of the social space. We can all develop our creativity, as long as we find the right environment to be able to devote time, create the necessary networks and channel our energy into something potentially transforming. But as yet there are no institutional structures that allow for its replication. The artistic interventions that act in this direction are usually no more than mere intents, pilot tests, simple rough estimates, which in many cases respond to the political need to relate art with its social usage, connecting up “the need for art of the disinherited with artists’ need for work”.13 Perhaps this is the reason why many of these tests and experiments take place over the years, in an attempt to create new structures that institute them.

Another element to bear in mind in this regard is activism as a form of artistic practice. The difference between artistic activism in relation to critical art, according to Boris Groys, is that art does not only seek to criticise the institutional space from the inside in order to establish a new institutionality. What it seeks is to change “the general conditions under which the system operates”.14 And it wants to effectuate this change from inside or from outside of art institutions. The most common criticism made of artistic activism comes from two sides – from the art system itself, which points towards criteria of quality, and from social activism, which points towards the spectacularization and aestheticization of artistic actions. The relationship between the utility and uselessness of art has a prominent part to play in this discussion. Habitually, art that tries to be activist is involved in subjects towards which it wishes to draw attention and which are usually linked to issues of social, territorial or environmental injustice. And the way to do this is normally by using its own networks and financing them on the basis of precarious contributions from more progressive cultural institutions.

In an attempt to define participatory art, or participation in artistic practices, Claire Bishop edited a volume with numerous texts from different sources and times.15 She feels that participatory art originates from one of the first avant-gardes, Dadaism, and is reactivated forcefully with the artistic practices actuated in the ‘sixties. From the ‘nineties on, it is multiplied with different interests and intentions: on the one hand, relational aesthetics, and on the other, the experiments that are activated in community contexts. Participation is a way of speaking of shared responsibility, of activation of people, of empowerment, of crisis of authorship, of incorporation of the audience into the work, of production of new social relationships, of construction in common and of the common, of the proactivity of the emancipated spectator, of the limitations of art and its needs to extra-discipline itself, or of the aestheticization and staging of social relationships. In this amalgam of compiled texts, participation is analysed from different degrees where on some of them, the collaborative and participatory tend to merge. In any case, the artistic practices that advocate this type of work display a way of doing things that has strengthened dematerialization, projects based on processes and their documentation as an expositive format. “Traditional art produces art objects; contemporary art produces information on art events”.16

Hal Foster speaks of a “promiscuity of collaboration” in a text in which he problematizes the concepts of participation and collaboration in contemporary art which, in his view, leads to the generation of a “promiscuity of installations”17, i.e. those that can be seen in numerous biennials. Installations which, in his opinion, gather together a large quantity of texts, videos, objects, causing an effect that is more chaotic than communicative. In many cases the art generated in these circumstances poses problems of visualisation in traditional representation spaces. In this type of work, elements such as discussions, meetings, experiences, agreements etc. – all of them an indispensable part of the process of creative socialisation – become important. In many cases, they comprise the work itself.

These processes are not easily translatable within the limits of the exhibition space, which is still essential in the world of art. Projects based on collaborative and participatory processes cannot be analysed on the basis of the logic of the customary staging. They form part of a territory of transversality that activates new cultural practices, which may actively influence the social context.

If the goal is to multiply critical capacity, enable complicities, generate processes of exchange of experiences and promote some change that affects context, then we are reinforcing social creativity in order to apply it to collective actions. It matters not that it be activated by artistic practices, practices of socio-cultural invigoration or by public institutions, as the objective is to influence the political from different intertwined fronts.18 Actually, participation is part of political action because it gives rise to potential and a will for transformation. For some it is the neighbourhood, for others the city and for others, the continuous coming and going between different places.

Is there such a thing as collaboration beyond the aesthetics of collaboration?

The strong upsurge of the demand for the collaborative is standing in for what was once called the participatory and the collective, and which, with regard to contemporary artistic practices, is related to the need to construct a new paradigm to express them in. Some contemporary artistic practices have shown an interest in more participatory strategies and methodologies, just as they now advocate collaborative strategies and structures. This is partly due to yet another attempt to extirpate art from its typical places in order to relocate it in other settings of the possible, to break out of the typical boundaries that prevent it from expanding. It is also the fruit of an urgent need to give things new names, even though they have often not been sufficiently researched, tested or interpreted. In this way, participation and collaboration pass the baton to one another, although one cannot do without the other. In reference to a brief text by Marina Garcés in which she states, “expropriating culture means uprooting it from the places where it is inherent, which are those that limit, codify or neutralise it”,19 we might say that art, in the contemporary context of “capitalist realism”,20 is permanently dislocating and relocating itself, in an attempt to find spaces of significance, production or construction of meaning, in order to justify its existence in interaction with other social realities. And the experience of the social cannot be understood without collaboration, nor collaboration without active participation.

Previously, we specified that both collaboration and participation require the involvement of different people, beyond the spheres that form part of the “typical home” of art. Both have a collective and cooperative dimension of the social experience. They are based on generating spaces of shared creation, settings for discussion and negotiation, a deployment of processes that affect democratic values, co-responsibility, surrender of power, interaction and exchange of knowledge and experiences, generation of networks. Both in one case and the other one may glean a clear political and educational dimension from all of this. If the objective is to produce something specific, material or immaterial, it is very important to take care of the returns and distribution of capitals. “In collaborative practices the series of networks that are generated, of political processes that are invisible at first glance, the long-term transformations and the distribution of capitals (social, cultural, economic, symbolic and community) are key to understanding the impact and political possibility of change, not only amongst communities, but above all amongst contexts and institutions that are extremely different from one another”.21 But this distribution of capitals is what is often not coherent, because collaborating means maintaining the essence of each integrating part, it does not consist of a complete fusion, it is a combination of entities summoned to partake in a shared experience, where yields and responsibilities of the common work must be distributed. And this distribution of symbolic capital frequently gives rise to tensions and sophisticated strategies to justify and legitimise processes in which real collaboration is dubious.

Collaborating means creating something new in common, to share the processes and/or capitalize on the efforts; participation acquires very diverse nuances in relation to involvement and entails taking part in something that was previously defined by someone. Power relationships are more clearly defined in a participatory process than in a collaborative one. Any collaborative process involves a participatory process, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps this would be the differential nuance, in the understanding that one and the other, in relation to artistic practices, involves activating the different agents who share a common experience, from the perspective of transversality and expansion towards other extra-disciplinary places.

To collaborate is a very simple and yet a very complex thing. One of the keys to being able to work together, if we are to believe Richard Sennett,22 consists of knowing how to listen, to pay careful attention to what others say and to interpret it before answering. Collaborating is an exercise in experimentation and communication that entails accomplishing something new within a communicative code, which enables us to incorporate the wealth of the diverse by dissension and negotiation, and within the framework of the ethics of mutual respect. Not all artistic practices have to be collaborative, but those that incorporate collaboration decisively must assume the political approach that this entails. No political action takes place without regard for collaboration. No collaborative artistic practice must be engaged in with the aim of displaying aesthetics of collaboration, but rather to strengthen the political capacity of the aesthetics that are within collaborative processes.

Collaboration, like participation and collective work, is something that has always existed. It reappears as a current of critical, alternative or reparative thought in the context of neoliberal societies in which individualism, competition, inequality, privatisation or deregulation of things public have been held up as goals or results of the prevailing policies. The context of art, as an active part of critical thought, cannot elude the responsibility of taking part in all this and offering an alternative vision. Artistic practices constructed on the base of mediation and education have, by their very nature, contributed to testing and positioning on a type of practice based on collaboration. A space where reality and mirage combine equally in an attempt to shape collaborative practice as something that increases the potential of what can be built up with this type of process. The risk is in the homologation of thought, that is, in turning it into a tendency, repeating and reproducing, or talking and talking so as not to have to listen, transforming collaborative processes into a stage in order to continue occupying spaces of power.


1This text has been published in AA.VV. D’anada i tornada. Projectes i pràctiques col·laboratives des del museu i a través de l’art. Palma: Es Baluard Museu d’Art Modern i Contemporani de Palma, 2018

2On the notion of transversality and the proposal for a third phase of institutional critique, in which an attempt is made to break out of the loop on which previous institutional critique is based, which closes in on itself and plumps for an institutionalisation of institutional critique, see Holmes, Brian. “Investigaciones extradisciplinares. Hacia una nueva crítica de las instituciones” (English title: “Extradisciplinary Investigations. Towards a new critique of institutions”). In: VV. AA. Producción cultural y prácticas instituyentes. Líneas de ruptura en la crítica institucional. Madrid: Traficantes de sueños, 2008.

3As early as in 1968 the sculptor and art critic Jack Burnham suggested that art can be conceived and analysed as a system. The complexity of components that shape a system in art, from the point of view of the artist as a creator and producer, may contain people, ideas, messages, atmospheric conditions, sources of energy, educational actions, mediations, etc. The coherence of the system can be altered in time or in space, and its behaviour determined by external conditions or control mechanisms. See: Burnham, J. “Systems Esthetics”, Artforum 7, 1968.

4Exhibition organised by the collective El Perro: “El mal de la actividad”, (1996). Neomudéjar facility of Atocha-Renfe, Madrid. Online: http://catalogo.artium.org/book/export/html/335.

5Preiswert Arbeitskollegen (Sociedad de Trabajo No Alienado). In: Díez, J. (dir.). Colectivos y Asociados. Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud, 2002.

6Marzo, Jorge Luis. “Mitos y realidades de las experiencias creativas colectivas”.In: Fundación Rodríguez (ed.). Estructures, xarxes, col·lectius. Un segment connector. Vic: H. Associació per a les Arts Contemporànies, 2007.

7Marzo, Jorge Luis; Mayayo, Patricia. Arte en España (1939-2015). Ideas, prácticas y políticas. Madrid: Manuales Arte Cátedra, 2015.

8Blanco, Paloma. “Prácticas artísticas colaborativas en la España de los años noventa”. In: Carrillo, J.; Estella, I.; García Meras, L. (ed.) Desacuerdos 2. Sobre arte, políticas y esfera pública en el Estado español. Arteleku – Diputación Foral de Guipuzkoa / Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona / UNIA arteypensamiento, 2005.

9Lacy, Suzanne (ed.). Mapping the terrain: New Genre of Public Art. Seattle: Bay Press, 1995.

10See Mitchell, W. J. T. (ed.). Art and the Public Sphere. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.

11Harvey, D. Ciudades rebeldes. Del derecho de la ciudad a la revolución urbana. (English title: “Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution”). Madrid: Akal, 2013, pp. 20.

12Rancière, J. Sobre políticas estéticas. (English title: “The Politics of Aesthetics”). Barcelona: Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona / Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005, pp. 38.

13Ibid., pp. 61.

14Groys, Boris. Arte en flujo. Ensayos sobre la evanescencia del presente. Buenos Aires: Caja Negra, 2016, pp. 55.

15 Bishop, C. (ed.). Participation. London: Whitechapel Gallery / Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2006.

16Ibid., Groys, Boris, op. cit.

17Foster, H. “Chat Rooms//2004”. In: Bishop, Claire (ed.). Op. cit., pp. 190-195.

18The subject of participation in relation to art, architecture, social work and politics was dealt with in a seminar organised by Idensitat, entitled “iD Barrio. Creatividad social, acción colectiva y prácticas artísticas” (‘iD Neighbourhood. Social creativity, collective action and artistic practices’). It took place in November 2009 and was divided into two parts, one in Calaf, in which small and medium-sized towns were taken as elements of analysis; and another in Barcelona (La Capella), in which projects and interventions in the urban context were analysed, and related to the transformation of the city and social movements. The debates generated were intense and forceful when recognising that we are faced with a changing scene as regards collective action, which calls for a need to expand creativity processes beyond the disciplines traditionally recognised as capitalizing on it. Approaching certain practices from the perspective of the disciplines is becoming obsolete and lacks efficiency if what we want is to expand the capacity for action that can be provided to us by creativity as a tool and a political weapon. Every citizen has this tool from the moment they circulate and relate to the others. Expanding creative capacity in order to devote the necessary effort and time to something that can be expressed collectively, being capable of infusing the necessary trust to be able to share projects, acquiring the skill to communicate so that others understand the need to become involved in a project. For more information, see http://idensitat.net.

19Garcés, M. Un mundo común. Barcelona: Edicions Bellaterra, 2013, pp. 83.

20Capitalist realism refers to the concept expressed by Mark Fisher in a book of the same title in which he deals with some cul-de-sacs left to us by neoliberalism, such as the employment situation after Fordism, the replacement of discipline with control, the facility with which capitalism itself incorporates “anti-capitalism”, compulsive consumerism and the bipolar disorder as the mental illness of the interior of capitalism. In: Fisher, M. Realismo capitalista. ¿No hay alternativa?. Buenos Aires: Caja Negra, 2016.

21Sinapsis; Rodrigo, Javier; Fendler, Rachel. Art en context sanitari. Itineraris i eines per desenvolupar projectes col·laboratius. Transart Laboratori. Barcelona, 2009. Online: http://goo.gl/VxWNk.

22See Sennett, Richard. Juntos. Rituales, placeres y política de cooperación. (English title: “Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation”). Barcelona: Anagrama, 2012.