Traditionally, art institutions and cultural infrastructures such as theaters, museums and libraries were built to support the values of the nation-state. Such institutions had the task, among other things, to simulate a uniform language and a monoculture for a population within a geopolitical space. From the 1970s onwards there has been strong criticism on this model to which the colonial and post-colonial criticism connects. A solution is then sought in a more multicultural approach where multiple cultures must be represented equally. However, multiculturalism is based on an identity policy that takes harmony and consensus to easily for granted. In his lecture, Gielen argues for another model that is based on so-called ‚commoning‘ politics and dissent. It does not matter to smooth out or suppress conflicts and tensions, but to make them visible and ‘liveable’. Such a ‘commonist’ policy does not start from the equality between cultures, but focuses permanently on the ‚lesser‘ in a society, on those who are not yet represented and do not have a voice independent of their cultural background, gender or social class. It does not focus on identities, but on the democratic free keeping and releasing of common necessary sources, such as education, language, culture, but also labor, health care and housing. Such resources are the subject of what Gielen calls a ‘ambiguity politics’ of continuous struggle and discussion. Cultural institutions could be the ideal platforms for such a politics of ambiguity.