文化治理
| 治理 |
|---|
| 治理模式 |
| 治理层级 |
| 治理领域 |
| 治理措施 |
| 相关条目 |
文化治理是以文化進行政治與社會、經濟的調節[1]，涉及了文化於各領域的治理作用，而不限於文化事務的行政管理。它包括政府制定的文化政策，但也包括受非国家行为者所倡議而影響的文化和間接影響文化的政策。 [2]
定義
文化治理大多由政府進行主導，但這並非官方的專利，也包含了公民、文化界、學界等私部門對於歷史及文化遺產保存的推動與對文化的影響。「治理」的廣義解釋還可以包括文化政策範圍之外，但影響文化的政府政策 [3]；而「文化多樣性」則是文化治理中廣泛被提及的，涵蓋了從有形到無形的各種文化。
文化治理的確切含義，有相當大的程度取決於對「文化」的定義，狹義而言可以指包含GLAM（博物館、圖書館、檔案館、美術館）、劇場、音樂廳等文化機構與藝術文化的連結，廣義而言則包含向是社會的生活方式或其知識系統與符號意涵。 [4]從更廣泛的角度來看，文化治理從整體上處理社會中意義的產生，包括文化產業、品味的形成和語言的使用。 [5]
而在文化治理興起的趨勢下，某些起初並非以文化保存為首要目標的社會運動，也開始挪用「文化策略」的闡述，將不被普遍認同其文化價值的對象加以「文化化」，宣稱其保存價值，藉以迎合官方對於文化治理的意圖，甚至發展出講求以「文化」為主軸的新運動。[6]
世界
全球文化治理的主要機構是聯合國教科文組織，這是一個總部位於法國巴黎，成立於 1946 年的聯合國專門機構。 [7]教科文組織訂定的文件指引經常被地方政府用作為指導方針，甚至成為政府的法律條文。他還促進了全球文化多樣性聯盟等網絡的發展，以促進文化領域的公共/社會/私人伙伴關係。近年來[何时？]教科文組織更強調了城市（地方非營利組織參與地方治理）作為文化參與者的重要性，並以其所屬的国际反对种族主义城市联盟和全球創意城市網絡來進行推動。 [7]
聯合國教科文組織本身在評選、發展和推廣世界文化遺產方面依賴與公民部門的伙伴關係。 [7]評選世界遺產的會議吸引了數百名與會者，包括感興趣的團體代表。「世界遺產」議題透過在大眾媒体中的宣傳以及諸如《國家地理》雜誌和其他相關出版物的宣傳而更廣為人知。這個過程的所有步驟都促進了「元文化」的發展，能夠從普遍性的角度來討論全球文化問題，並產出文化經典。 [5] [8]
21世紀文化議程由國際組織城市和地方政府聯合組織運作代表了其成員在地方層級進行全球治理的平台。[7]這個概念認同了「文化是永續發展的第四大支柱」，為《21世紀議程》所訂立的「永續發展三大支柱：經濟、社會和環境」做了擴充。 [7]
區域和地方
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | 此章节需要扩充。 |
歐盟
歐盟的文化治理包括一系列旨在促進歐洲文化的文化政策。
歐盟執委會在2007 年的「在全球化世界中的歐洲文化議程」中描述了與文化的互動，通過各種管道包括支持與諮詢文化機構、鼓励藝動力（Artist mobility）和跨文化交流、在國際關係中使用歐洲文化、歐盟版權法的推動與執行，以及歐洲文化產品和服務的推廣。 [10] [11]由於自由市場中文化成果的不足，歐洲各國政府認為有必要積極促進和引導文化發展。此外，跨文化交流和融合被認為與經濟一體化相提並論。 [11]
參考文獻
- ^ 王志弘. 文化如何治理？一個分析架構的概念性探討. 世新人文社會學報. 2010, (11): 1-38 [2021-10-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-10-03）.
- ^ Schmitt, Thomas M. Global Cultural Governance. Decision-Making Concerning World Heritage between Politics and Science. Erdkunde. 2009, 63 (2): 103–121 [2021-10-03]. ISSN 0014-0015. （原始内容存档于2021-10-03）.
- ^ Schmitt (2011), pp. 48–49. “In order to be able to understand the governance of a cultural object, this must not just be considered alone, but also in the light of the often conflicting overlaps and interferences between different fields of governance that have an interest in the “cultural object”. Such considerations lead to the concept of cultural governance in the broad sense. For example, the members of a theater ensemble may be bound by labour regulations, or the treatment of a historic building may be determined by fire prevention regulations or the specific interest of the users.”
- ^ Schmitt (2011), pp. 11–18. Concepts or ideas thus have a twofold dialectical relationship with human agency on the one hand, and institutions on the other hand: concepts or ideas have a discursive influence on human agency, shaping actions, whether consciously, practically or unconsciously (see also Giddens 1984, Werlen 1997: 153). However, when actors take up ideas and appropriate them for themselves, they can change them, or they can create new ideas; they do not always have to act as passive recipients and actualizers of discourses. There is also a dialectical relationship between ideas and concepts on the one hand, and institutions on the other hand; but strictly speaking this relationship is always mediated by human agency. Political institutions (such as UNESCO) can take up and spread ideas, and can also reshape them. Ideas and institutions mutually “frame” each other (for a neo-Gramscian view, see Bøås/ McNeill 2004). / Ideas, symbols, concepts constitute one pole of the cultural sphere, while the other pole is made up of actions and practices (especially rituals and performances) and the material (or digital) artefacts in which concepts, ideas, senses and meanings are manifested.”
- ^ 5.0 5.1 Thomas M. Schmitt, “Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning World Heritage Between Politics and Science （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）”; Erdkunde 63(2), 2009. 引证错误：带有name属性“Schmitt2009”的
<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次 - ^ 王, 志弘. 文化治理與空間政治. 台灣台北市: 群學. 2011. ISBN 9789866525476.
- ^ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Nancy Duxbury & Sharon Jeannotte, "Global Cultural Governance Policy （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）"; Chapter 21 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture; London: Ashgate, 2013. "While global entities such as the World Bank or the World Trade Organization have played roles in global cultural governance, the primary actor in this policy area over the past 40 or 50 years has been the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)." 引证错误：带有name属性“DuxburyJeannotte2013”的
<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次 - ^ Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）”; Museum International, June 2004; doi:10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00458.x.
- ^ Cristina Sánchez-Carretero, "Heritage Regimes and the Camino de Santiago: Gaps and Logics"; in Regina F. Bendix, Aditya Eggert, & Arnika Peselmann, eds., Heritage Regimes and the State, Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property, Volume 6; Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2012; ISBN 978-3-86395-075-0.
- ^ Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）; Brussels, 10 May 2007.
- ^ 11.0 11.1 Rachael Craufurd Smith, “The Cultural Logic of Economic Integration”; in Psychogiopoulou (2015).
參考書目
- Macdonald, Susan & Caroline Cheong (2014). The Role of Public-Private Partnerships and the Third Sector in Conseving Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Historic Urban Areas （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. ISBN 978-1-937433-19-2.
- Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia (2015). Cultural Governance and the European Union: Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity in Europe. Palgrave- Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-45375-4.
- Schmitt, Thomas (2011). Cultural Governance as a conceptual framework. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity. MMG Working Paper 11-02. ISSN 2192-2357.
- Shepherd, Robert J. & Larry Yu (2013). Heritage Management, Tourism, and Governance in China: Managing the Past to Serve the Present. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4614-5918-7.