The XXI century fez Latin America sail on waves. They form specific conjunctures, which affect policies and cultures. These waves seem to veer from the point of view to regional history, provoking winks in their historical process, even though, most of the time, they do not resort to the resource of explicit violence, as always occurs in the events. The current scene of political disputes, instead of open violence, faces intensive use of symbolic violence.

The first wave began in the turn of the 21st century with victory in Venezuela (1999 until 2013) and continued, through elections, with Argentina (2003 and 2007), Chile (2006), Brazil (2003, 2007, 2010 and 2014), Uruguay (2005, 2020 and 2015), Bolívia (2006 until 2019), Paraguai (2008), Equador (2007 until 2017). Ficaram travels to countries such as Colombia, Peru and Mexico. Nelas ceram new leaders from previously excluded classes and segments, for example the Lula worker, the indigenous leader Evo Morales and the presidents Michelle Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner and Dilma Rousseff. Governments will be characterized by: social policies including against inequality; more independent external policies; regional integration and cooperation policies; differentiated economic policies from previous ones, supported by developmentist views, with ambiguities in relation to neoliberalism. The alterations in the political structure will vary between broader changes and other conciliatory ones.

The initial observation of cultural policies and the reduced existing bibliography allow us, in the form of hypotheses, to note: 1. The new policies, despite the disclosure of previous ones, do not imply radical ruptures; 2. They will keep mismatches in comparison with social changes and other public policies; 3. They will prove insufficient for the political-social change project; 4. They maintain strong relationships with possible implemented projects; 5. Culture remains a secondary area; 6. The notion of culture, even though it is considered expanded, remains restricted, contemplating that always culture as heritage and arts, we do not contemplate world views, ways of life and social values; 7. The transversality of work with its relationship to related areas was fragile; 8. The expansion of cultural institutions has not been accompanied by gestures with greater stability; 9. Resources will remain sparse, even with some increases; 10. There is no powerful investment to alter undersized equipment and its fragile formation, as well as some training initiatives; 11. In the absence of data, information and persistent indicators; 12. Few political formats, programs and projects in culture shared between countries, being that the Cultura Viva Comunitária program, the greatest example of exchange, was more responsible for mobilized communities than two governments; 13. Alfandegárias barriers persist in culture; 14. The linguistic barriers, despite the proximity between Spanish and Portuguese, are rarely opposed; 15. Although both international organizations have their own limitations, it is necessary to register their role in initiatives, for example the Ibero-American Cultural Charter and cultural cooperation programs.

The conservative counteroffensive came in Chile (2010), but was reversed in 2014; It advanced as the coup in Paraguay (2012) and was accentuated with the defeat in Argentina (2015), or the coup in Brazil (2016), in victory, which showed defeat in Ecuador (2017), in the anti-democratic election in Brazil (2018), in the setback in Chile (2018), or in the coup in Bolívia (2019), and in the defeat of the elections. not Uruguay (2020). The cycle seemed ended at the beginning of the new decade of the 21st century.

The political regression assumed shared characteristics: 1. Return to the national power of the oligarchies; 2. Submissive external policies; 3. Disarticulation of integration between countries; 4. Discontinuities of policies to combat inequality; 5. Radicalized return of neoliberal policies; 6. Depress our channels of political participation; 7. Expansion of authoritarianism and violence of the national state; 8. Persecution of leaders and political parties, including through instrumental use of corruption; 9. Attacks on culture, dismantling of cultural institutions and cultural policies developed on the first wave.

As the region turns into the third decade of the 21st century, it seems to be going into turmoil. A new dinner involves the elective victories in Mexico (2018), Argentina (2019), Bolívia (2020), Peru (2021), Chile (2021) and Colombia (2022); the performance of the leftists in Ecuador, despite the setback in the presidential election (2021); The popular demonstrations in Colombia and Ecuador and the events in Chile since 2019, which culminated in the victory of the Constituinte proposal (2021), and the wear and tear of extreme powerlessness with the prospects of changes in Brazil in 2022. The defeat of the Constituinte proposal in Chile in 2022 points to the persistence of Perigos no formação process of the possible new wave two years 2020.

The international context of the new wave, still in dispute, has complex configurations. The world parou, quase literally, like a pandemic. It affects economic, social, environmental, political and cultural conditions. It favors the expansion of privileges and inequalities, already amplified by neoliberalism. Authoritative movements and governments proliferate in the world scenario. Thus two indigenous peoples, two Afro-descendants, two women, two LGBTQIA+ communities will expand. Sociotechnological advances will reinforce the globalization of the world, real-time planetary sociability, the expansion of networks, digital cultures and artificial intelligence, and will allow the creation of new wars. The international dinner became more complex.

The resumption and updating of cultural policies requires: 1. Learned from first-wave experiences; 2. Greater transversality with related public policies; 3. Better knowledge, cooperation and cultural exchange; 4. Sovereign foreign policies, with more cultural diplomacy; 5. Aperfeiçoamento two channels of political-cultural participation; 6. Innovative economic policies, which dialogue with the solidarity economy, or the environment, or the digital world and culture; 7. Reinvention of radically democratic political culture; 8. Conceive cultural policies as crucial for democracy, or development and civility in human relations, giving relevance to political-cultural-ideological disputes in the process of social transformation. A dispute of narratives perpasses the most different attacks leaf. It is worth a critical revisitation in search of its updating in dialogue as learned in new circumstances.

The work group deals, among others, with the following questões: 1. Foram developed political policies new or not? Positive case: 2. To what extent are previous policies different? 3. Are there common traits between them? 4. Was an alternative model of cultural policies configured? 5. What are the main actors of cultural policies? 6. What place does the policies of two governments occupy? 7. What are the impacts of the policies of two governments on the cultural policies carried out? 8. Are there relevant exchanges in the area of ​​cultural policies? 9. How will they deal with issues such as ethnicity, race, gender and others? 10. What innovations in cultural policies have emerged, including in relation to socio-technological changes? In case of negative response: 11. What prevented the elaboration of new cultural policies? 12. Are previous cultural policies still in force? 13. What explains the maintenance of these previous cultural policies?

He purposely places alternative interpretations at dinner. The very name of two countries implies debates, such as not even some of them on these waves. Aware of two problems, it is important that these questões be critically deepened.

At the outset, there are two necessary explanations. The notion of culture, assumed in an expanded dimension, involves: conceptions of the world, ways of life, worldviews, values, etc. The proposal of the expanded notion in the World Conference on Cultural Policies, which took place 40 years ago in the city of Mexico, is currently in force in the studies and practices of cultural policies (Calabre; Rocha e Rubim, 2022).

A further explicitação refers to the term cultural policies. Noção recente in international terms, it still lacks greater rigor, but it does not have good advantages, even in the Latin American sphere. It is worth highlighting two of them. The environment of theoretical-conceital plurality of GT does not make sense to narrow horizons, but to dialogue with critical theories that help reveal reality.

Néstor García Canclini's concept of cultural policies had a powerful impact (Rubim, 2019). In 1987, he wrote: "We will understand cultural policies as the set of interventions carried out by the State, civil institutions, and organized community groups in order to guide symbolic development, satisfy the cultural needs of the population, and obtain consensus for a type of social order or transformation" (García Canclini, 1990, p. 26). Years later, he added: "But this way of characterizing the scope of cultural policies needs to be expanded, taking into account the transnational nature of symbolic and material processes today" (García Canclini, 2005, p. 65).

Eduardo Nivón Bolán highlights three innovative ideas: the conception of cultural policies as a conscious set of interventions; The expansion of two possible subjects and the demarcation of two objectives as cultural (Nivón, 2012). As cultural policies assume a deliberate character (Brunner, 1988, and Margulis, 2014). A noção destitui o state of sole legitimate subject of cultural policies and introduces new agents in a perceptive way (Ochoa Gautier, 2003 and Vich, 2014). Here, it is quase consensual. Greater decentration occurs, as emergent actors are infra and supranational, such as multilateral or regional organizations, and multiple social entities. The presence of social objectives surpasses the administrative viés of previously valid rules. Highlight for the third objective, which places emphasis on the neutrality of cultural policies to make their character of dispute explicit.

As social struggles demand to include new objectives: cultural citizenship and cultural rights. The concept of cultural citizenship (Rosaldo, 1994 and 2000; Kymlicka, 1996; Unesco, 1999; García Canclini, 1999, Chaui, 2006, among others) has its origin in a new way of seeing cultural policies. As a matter of fact, citizenship is forged in struggles for the affirmation of rights: individuals, politicians, society, environment and culture. Eduardo Nivón Bolán and Delia Sánchez Bonilla note: "In terms of culture, public policies translate into the satisfaction of cultural needs or, put another way, into the fulfillment of cultural rights?" (Nivón e Bonilla, 2016, p.53). Hugo Achugar asserts that the problem of two cultures proves, among others, that he pays less attention to the relationship between human rights, scarce presence in political programs and conflict between universalism and cultural relativism (Achugar, 2013). The cultural direitos affirm us directly to the culture of the city.

In addition to making resources explicit, cultural policies dialogue with the dynamics of culture (Rubim, 2007 and Orozco, 2007). It covers the following dimensions: creation-invenção-innovação; transmission-difusão-divulgação; training; circulation-distribution; conservation-preservation; analysis-criticism-study-research; cooperation-exchange; fruition-consumption; legitimacy and organization. All of them require specialized people, except for fruit-consumption, common to all, despite the inequalities of capitalism. As cultural policies are connected to the organizational dimension, at the macro or micro level, it is not reduced to it, but one of its most creative challenges is to translate policies into programs and projects.

Now, the updated concept can be stated: Cultural policy is an articulated, conscious, continuous, deliberate, systematic and planned set of interventions, formulations and/or activities, of diverse cultural entities with the objective of: addressing demands and cultural needs of the population; stimulate or symbolic development; build hegemonies to preserve or transform society and culture; and guarantee citizenship and cultural rights. It combines institutional, infrastructure, regulatory, financial and personal resources. It pays special attention to the organizational dimensions of cultural dynamics. For it to exist, cultural policy requires reviewing the instrumentalization of culture for politics and the inauguration of a new relationship, in which politics is an instrument for cultural purposes.

Another theoretical alternative deserves to be considered. Arturo Escobar, in 1999, proposed understanding cultural politics as the process that unfolds when social actors, shaped or characterized by different cultural meanings and practices, come into conflict (Escobar apud Nivón Bolán, 2006, p. 58). He incorporates subaltern sectors as agents of cultural politics in their political struggles against the prevailing order. This notion is explicitly contrasted with the current use of the concept of cultural politics, viewed as an autonomous field separate from politics (Alvarez; Dagnino; Escobar, 2000, p. 22). They note the link between culture and politics: "The constitutive link means that culture, understood as a worldview and meanings that integrate social practices, cannot be adequately understood without considering the power relations intertwined with these practices." (Alvarez; Dagnino; Escobar, 1999, p. 135).

They affirm: "With the expression cultural policies we mean, then, why the cultural becomes political facts?" (Alvarez; Dagnino; Escobar, 1999, p. 135). Adiante, he reaffirms that: ?the collective identities and strategies of all social movements are inevitably linked to the field of culture? (Alvarez; Dagnino; Escobar, 1999, p. 141). In a text published in 2000, it is emphasized that social movements, when they present alternative conceptions of women, nature, race, economy, democracy or citizenship, that destabilize the dominant cultural meanings, the movements in a cultural policy? (Alvarez; Dagnino; Escobar, 2000, p. 25). Such a perspective broadens the notion of cultural policies, because it considers that political struggles, which trace cultural concepts in opposition to dominant ones and insurgem against their validity, are increvem no concept of cultural policies.

The developed foundation aims to increase the theoretical-social relevance of the topic proposed in the program of studies and interventions. The historical marginality of cultural policies is being reversed, giving rise to the interest not only of academics, intellectuals and artists, but also of political actors and organized civil society (Dominzain et al 2022). The impact of culture on the formation of democratic society, which demands inclusion, equity, pluralism and diversity, must be increasingly considered. The cultural arena is beginning to become visible as a space of power. This is a field of dispute in the world and, especially, in Latin America, where political-cultural struggles and cultural policy experiments are developed and need to be more studied.