Abstract:The discussion of the so called "instrumentalisation" of cultural institutions and programmes has been a key focus for the cultural policy, museum and heritage studies literatures over the part few years. This article will challenge the historical accuracy of claims that "instrumentality" is a recent "threat" to the management and funding of culture. Rather I will argue that historically, instrumental cultural policies have been policies of production. Further, through an analysis of the terms of the "instrumentalisation debate" in relation to museums I will show that there is no consensus in the understanding of what constitutes instrumental or intrinsic functions. The "instrumental /intrinsic" dichotomy is too simplistic to allow grounded critical engagement with the real complexities of cultural institutions and programmes. Finally, Iargue that in order to work critically with institutions, policies and programmes it is necessary to engage with the practicalities of their arrangements. To do so is to recognise the complexity of institutions which are often internally divided. While commentators continue to simply deconstruct the "instrumentalist" cultural policy agenda the reality is that some cultural institutions continue to pay, at best, lip service to the political imperative to become more inclusive. In this social and political context critical engagement which is grounded in the practicalities of culture"s administration is crucial if we are to develop analyses which seek to understand and contribute to the development of programmes which break with the elitisms which have characterised cultural programmes in the past.