Cultural policy
Encyclopedia
Cultural Policy is the area of public policy
-making that governs activities related to the arts
and culture
. Generally, this involves fostering processes, legal classifications and institutions which promote cultural diversity
and accessibility
, as well as enhancing and promulgating the artistic, ethnic, sociolinguistic, literary and other expressions of all people – especially those of indigenous
or broadly-representative cultural heritage
. Applications of cultural policy-making at the nation-state level could include anything from providing community dance classes at little-to-no cost, to hosting corporate-sponsored art exhibitions, to establishing legal codes (such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
’s 501(c)(3) tax designation for not-for-profit enterprises) and political institutions (such as the various ministries of culture
and the National Endowment for the Humanities
and the National Endowment for the Arts
in the United States). Similar significant organisations in the United Kingdom include the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and Arts Council England.
Throughout much of the twentieth century, many of the activities that now compose cultural policy were governed under the title of "arts policy." However, as Kevin Mulcahy
has observed, "cultural policy encompasses a much broader array of activities than were addressed under arts policy. Whereas arts policy was effectively limited to addressing aesthetic concerns, the significance of the transformation to cultural policy can be observed in its demonstrable emphases on cultural identity
, valorization of indigineity and analyses of historical dynamics (such as hegemony
and colonialism
)."
Since culture is a “good” (i.e., public value) and something that is “good for you,” governments have pursued programs to promote greater accessibility. In this conceptualization, significant aesthetic works should be made broadly available to the public. In other words, “high culture” should not be the exclusive preserve of a particular social class or of a metropolitan location. Rather, the benefits of the highest reaches of cultural excellence should be made in an egalitarian manner; national cultural treasures should be accessible without regard to the impediments of class circumstances, educational attainment or place of habitation. A democratic state cannot be seen as simply indulging the aesthetic preferences of a few, however enlightened, or of overtly infusing art with political values. Consequently, a democratic cultural policy must articulate its purposes in ways that demonstrate how the public interest is being served. These purposes have often been expressed as involving either the creation of cultural democracy or the democratization of culture.
The objective of cultural democratization is the aesthetic enlightenment, enhanced dignity, and educational development of the general citizenry. “Dissemination was the key concept with the aim of establishing equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in publicly organized and financed cultural activities”. To further this goal, performances and exhibitions are low cost; public art education promotes equality of aesthetic opportunity; national institutions tour and perform in work places, retirement homes and housing complexes.
As indicated earlier, the “democratization of culture” is a top-down approach that promulgates certain forms of cultural programming that are deemed to be a public good. Clearly, such an objective is open to criticism for what is termed cultural elitism
; that is, the assumption that some aesthetic expressions are inherently superior - at least as determined by a cognoscenti concerned with the acquisition of cultural capital
. “The problem with this policy [is] that, fundamentally, it intend[s] to create larger audiences for performances whose content [is] based on the experience of society’s privileged groups. In sum, it has… taken for granted that the cultural needs of all society’s members [are] alike”. The objective of cultural democracy, on the other hand, is to provide for a more participatory (or populist) approach in the definition and provision of cultural opportunities.
The coupling of the concept of democratization of culture to cultural democracy has a pragmatic as well as a philosophical component. Cultural patronage in democratic governments is markedly different from patronage by individuals. Private or politically paramount patrons are responsible only to themselves and are free to indulge in their taste preferences. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are responsible to the electorate and are held accountable for their policy decisions.
The two objectives just discussed - dissemination of high culture and participation in a broader range of cultural activities - evoke a related debate about the content of public culture: “elitist” or “populist
.” Proponents of the elitist position argue that cultural policy should emphasize aesthetic quality as the determining criterion for public subvention. This view is typically supported by the major cultural organizations, creative artists in the traditionally-defined field of the fine arts, cultural critics, and the well-educated, well-to-do audiences for these art forms. Ronald Dworkin
terms this the “lofty approach,” which “insists that art and culture must reach a certain degree of sophistication, richness, and excellence in order for human nature to flourish, and that the state must provide this excellence if the people will not or cannot provide it for themselves”.
By contrast, the populist position advocates defining culture broadly and making this culture broadly available. The populist approach emphasizes a less traditional and more pluralist notion of artistic merit and consciously seeks to create a policy of cultural diversity. With a focus on personal enhancement, the populist’s position posits very limited boundaries between amateur and professional arts activities. Indeed, the goal is to provide opportunities for those outside the professional mainstream.
“Proponents of populism are frequently advocates of minority arts, folk arts, ethnic arts, or counter-cultural activities”. Cultural “elitists,” on the other hand, argue in support of excellence over amateurism and favor an emphasis on aesthetic discipline over “culture as everything.” There are “two key tensions for national cultural policy between the goals of excellence versus access, and between government roles as facilitator versus architect”.
In effect, elitism is cultural democracy as populism is to the democratization of culture. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to see these positions as mutually exclusive, rather than complementary. “Elitists” are denounced as “high brow snobs” advocating an esoteric culture; populists are dismissed as “pandering philistines” promoting a trivialized and commercialized culture. However, these mutual stereotypes belie complementariness between two bookends of an artistically autonomous and politically accountable cultural policy. There is a synthesis that can be termed a “latitudinarian approach” to public culture; that is, one that is aesthetically inclusive and broadly accessible.
Such a public-cultural policy would remain faithful to the highest standards of excellence from a broad range of aesthetic expressions while providing the widest possible access to people from different geographic locales, socio-economic strata, and educational background. In conceiving of public policy as an opportunity to provide alternatives not readily available in the marketplace, public cultural agencies would be better positioned to complement the efforts of the private sector rather than duplicate their activities. Similarly, cultural agencies can promote community development by supporting artistic heritages that are at a competitive disadvantage in a cultural world that is increasingly profit-driven. In sum, excellence should be viewed as the achievements of greatness from a horizontal, rather than a vertical, perspective and a cultural policy as supporting the totality of these varieties of excellence.
These attitudes about a public cultural responsibility stand in marked contrast to much of the rest of the world, where culture is a question of historic patrimony, or the national identities of peoples, whether in independent states or regions within more powerful states. Inevitably, sensitive issues are involved in any discussion of culture as a public policy. However, given the demands in a democratic system that public policies show a return to the taxpayer, cultural policy has frequently argued for support on the basis of utility. It can be argued that there is a parity between the state’s responsibility for its citizens’ social-economic-physical needs and their access to culture and opportunities for artistic self-expression. However, the aesthetic dimension of public policy has never been widely perceived as intuitively obvious or politically imperative. Accordingly, the cultural sector has often argued its case from the secondary, ancillary benefits that result from public support for programs that are seemingly only aesthetic in nature. Cultural policy is not typically justified solely on the grounds that it is a good-in-itself, but rather that it yields other good results.
The future of cultural policy would seem to predict an increasingly inexorable demand that the arts “carry their own weight” rather than rely on a public subsidy to pursue “art for art’s sake”. This “cultural Darwinism
” is most pronounced in the United States where public subsidy is limited and publicly-supported aesthetic activities are expected to demonstrate a direct public benefit. Non-American cultural institutions are less constrained by the need to maintain diversified revenue streams that demand high levels of earned income and individual and corporate donations to compensate for limited government appropriations.
On the other hand, cultural institutions everywhere are increasingly market-driven in their need for supplementary funds and as a justification for continued public support. The American model of an essentially privatized
culture is increasingly attractive to governments seeking to curtail their cultural subsidies. In a system of mixed funding, public culture can nurture the arts groups and cultural activities that contribute to individual self-worth and community definition even if counting for less in the economic bottom-line. At root, a cultural policy is about creating public spheres that are not dependent upon profit motives nor validated by commercial values. As political democracy is dependent upon the existence of civil society and socio-economic pluralism, cultural policy stands as an essential public commitment in realizing these fundamental preconditions.
is in charge of cultural policy.
Contact information for ministries of culture and national arts councils in 160 countries is available from the website of the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (IFACCA): www.ifacca.org
On a local scale, United Cities and Local Governments offers cities and local authorities the opportunity to develop arts and culture with the Agenda 21 for Culture.
Public policy
Public policy as government action is generally the principled guide to action taken by the administrative or executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the foundation is the pertinent national and...
-making that governs activities related to the arts
The arts
The arts are a vast subdivision of culture, composed of many creative endeavors and disciplines. It is a broader term than "art", which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts. The arts encompass visual arts, literary arts and the performing arts – music, theatre, dance and...
and culture
Culture
Culture is a term that has many different inter-related meanings. For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions...
. Generally, this involves fostering processes, legal classifications and institutions which promote cultural diversity
Cultural diversity
Cultural diversity is having different cultures respect each other's differences. It could also mean the variety of human societies or cultures in a specific region, or in the world as a whole...
and accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility is a general term used to describe the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is available to as many people as possible. Accessibility can be viewed as the "ability to access" and benefit from some system or entity...
, as well as enhancing and promulgating the artistic, ethnic, sociolinguistic, literary and other expressions of all people – especially those of indigenous
Indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups that are defined as indigenous according to one of the various definitions of the term, there is no universally accepted definition but most of which carry connotations of being the "original inhabitants" of a territory....
or broadly-representative cultural heritage
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations...
. Applications of cultural policy-making at the nation-state level could include anything from providing community dance classes at little-to-no cost, to hosting corporate-sponsored art exhibitions, to establishing legal codes (such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service is the revenue service of the United States federal government. The agency is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, and is under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue...
’s 501(c)(3) tax designation for not-for-profit enterprises) and political institutions (such as the various ministries of culture
Minister of culture
A culture minister is a Cabinet position in some governments responsible for protecting the national heritage of a country and promoting cultural expression....
and the National Endowment for the Humanities
National Endowment for the Humanities
The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent federal agency of the United States established by the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 dedicated to supporting research, education, preservation, and public programs in the humanities. The NEH is located at...
and the National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Arts
The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence. It was created by an act of the U.S. Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government. Its current...
in the United States). Similar significant organisations in the United Kingdom include the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and Arts Council England.
Throughout much of the twentieth century, many of the activities that now compose cultural policy were governed under the title of "arts policy." However, as Kevin Mulcahy
Kevin V. Mulcahy
Kevin Vincent Mulcahy is the Sheldon Beychok Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Public Administration at Louisiana State University, where he has taught since 1980.- Background :...
has observed, "cultural policy encompasses a much broader array of activities than were addressed under arts policy. Whereas arts policy was effectively limited to addressing aesthetic concerns, the significance of the transformation to cultural policy can be observed in its demonstrable emphases on cultural identity
Cultural identity
Cultural identity is the identity of a group or culture, or of an individual as far as one is influenced by one's belonging to a group or culture. Cultural identity is similar to and has overlaps with, but is not synonymous with, identity politics....
, valorization of indigineity and analyses of historical dynamics (such as hegemony
Hegemony
Hegemony is an indirect form of imperial dominance in which the hegemon rules sub-ordinate states by the implied means of power rather than direct military force. In Ancient Greece , hegemony denoted the politico–military dominance of a city-state over other city-states...
and colonialism
Colonialism
Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by...
)."
Theoretical Approaches
Cultural policy, while a small part of the budgets of even the most generous of public patrons, governs a sector of immense complexity. It entails “a large, heterogeneous set of individuals and organizations engaged in the creation, production, presentation, distribution, and preservation of and education about aesthetic heritage, and entertainment activities, products and artifacts”. A cultural policy necessarily encompasses a broad array of activities and typically involves public support for:- Heritage, battlefield and historic preservation sites
- Zoos, botanical gardens, arboretums, aquariums, parks
- Libraries and Museums (fine arts, scientific, historical)
- Visual artsVisual artsThe visual arts are art forms that create works which are primarily visual in nature, such as ceramics, drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, and often modern visual arts and architecture...
(film, painting, sculpture, pottery, architecture) - Performing artsPerforming artsThe performing arts are those forms art which differ from the plastic arts insofar as the former uses the artist's own body, face, and presence as a medium, and the latter uses materials such as clay, metal or paint which can be molded or transformed to create some physical art object...
(symphonic, chamber and choral music; jazz, hip-hop and folk music; ballet, ballroom and modern dance; opera and musical theatre; circus performances, rodeos and marching bands) - Public humanitiesPublic humanitiesPublic humanities is a term used to describe the work of federal, state, nonprofit and community-based cultural organizations that engage the public in conversations, facilitate and present lectures, exhibitions, performances and other programs for the general public on topics such as history,...
programs (public broadcastingPublic broadcastingPublic broadcasting includes radio, television and other electronic media outlets whose primary mission is public service. Public broadcasters receive funding from diverse sources including license fees, individual contributions, public financing and commercial financing.Public broadcasting may be...
, creative writing, poetry)
Since culture is a “good” (i.e., public value) and something that is “good for you,” governments have pursued programs to promote greater accessibility. In this conceptualization, significant aesthetic works should be made broadly available to the public. In other words, “high culture” should not be the exclusive preserve of a particular social class or of a metropolitan location. Rather, the benefits of the highest reaches of cultural excellence should be made in an egalitarian manner; national cultural treasures should be accessible without regard to the impediments of class circumstances, educational attainment or place of habitation. A democratic state cannot be seen as simply indulging the aesthetic preferences of a few, however enlightened, or of overtly infusing art with political values. Consequently, a democratic cultural policy must articulate its purposes in ways that demonstrate how the public interest is being served. These purposes have often been expressed as involving either the creation of cultural democracy or the democratization of culture.
The objective of cultural democratization is the aesthetic enlightenment, enhanced dignity, and educational development of the general citizenry. “Dissemination was the key concept with the aim of establishing equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in publicly organized and financed cultural activities”. To further this goal, performances and exhibitions are low cost; public art education promotes equality of aesthetic opportunity; national institutions tour and perform in work places, retirement homes and housing complexes.
As indicated earlier, the “democratization of culture” is a top-down approach that promulgates certain forms of cultural programming that are deemed to be a public good. Clearly, such an objective is open to criticism for what is termed cultural elitism
Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most...
; that is, the assumption that some aesthetic expressions are inherently superior - at least as determined by a cognoscenti concerned with the acquisition of cultural capital
Cultural capital
The term cultural capital refers to non-financial social assets; they may be educational or intellectual, which might promote social mobility beyond economic means....
. “The problem with this policy [is] that, fundamentally, it intend[s] to create larger audiences for performances whose content [is] based on the experience of society’s privileged groups. In sum, it has… taken for granted that the cultural needs of all society’s members [are] alike”. The objective of cultural democracy, on the other hand, is to provide for a more participatory (or populist) approach in the definition and provision of cultural opportunities.
The coupling of the concept of democratization of culture to cultural democracy has a pragmatic as well as a philosophical component. Cultural patronage in democratic governments is markedly different from patronage by individuals. Private or politically paramount patrons are responsible only to themselves and are free to indulge in their taste preferences. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are responsible to the electorate and are held accountable for their policy decisions.
The two objectives just discussed - dissemination of high culture and participation in a broader range of cultural activities - evoke a related debate about the content of public culture: “elitist” or “populist
Populism
Populism can be defined as an ideology, political philosophy, or type of discourse. Generally, a common theme compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social...
.” Proponents of the elitist position argue that cultural policy should emphasize aesthetic quality as the determining criterion for public subvention. This view is typically supported by the major cultural organizations, creative artists in the traditionally-defined field of the fine arts, cultural critics, and the well-educated, well-to-do audiences for these art forms. Ronald Dworkin
Ronald Dworkin
Ronald Myles Dworkin, QC, FBA is an American philosopher and scholar of constitutional law. He is Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University and Emeritus Professor of Jurisprudence at University College London, and has taught previously at Yale Law School and the...
terms this the “lofty approach,” which “insists that art and culture must reach a certain degree of sophistication, richness, and excellence in order for human nature to flourish, and that the state must provide this excellence if the people will not or cannot provide it for themselves”.
By contrast, the populist position advocates defining culture broadly and making this culture broadly available. The populist approach emphasizes a less traditional and more pluralist notion of artistic merit and consciously seeks to create a policy of cultural diversity. With a focus on personal enhancement, the populist’s position posits very limited boundaries between amateur and professional arts activities. Indeed, the goal is to provide opportunities for those outside the professional mainstream.
“Proponents of populism are frequently advocates of minority arts, folk arts, ethnic arts, or counter-cultural activities”. Cultural “elitists,” on the other hand, argue in support of excellence over amateurism and favor an emphasis on aesthetic discipline over “culture as everything.” There are “two key tensions for national cultural policy between the goals of excellence versus access, and between government roles as facilitator versus architect”.
In effect, elitism is cultural democracy as populism is to the democratization of culture. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to see these positions as mutually exclusive, rather than complementary. “Elitists” are denounced as “high brow snobs” advocating an esoteric culture; populists are dismissed as “pandering philistines” promoting a trivialized and commercialized culture. However, these mutual stereotypes belie complementariness between two bookends of an artistically autonomous and politically accountable cultural policy. There is a synthesis that can be termed a “latitudinarian approach” to public culture; that is, one that is aesthetically inclusive and broadly accessible.
Such a public-cultural policy would remain faithful to the highest standards of excellence from a broad range of aesthetic expressions while providing the widest possible access to people from different geographic locales, socio-economic strata, and educational background. In conceiving of public policy as an opportunity to provide alternatives not readily available in the marketplace, public cultural agencies would be better positioned to complement the efforts of the private sector rather than duplicate their activities. Similarly, cultural agencies can promote community development by supporting artistic heritages that are at a competitive disadvantage in a cultural world that is increasingly profit-driven. In sum, excellence should be viewed as the achievements of greatness from a horizontal, rather than a vertical, perspective and a cultural policy as supporting the totality of these varieties of excellence.
These attitudes about a public cultural responsibility stand in marked contrast to much of the rest of the world, where culture is a question of historic patrimony, or the national identities of peoples, whether in independent states or regions within more powerful states. Inevitably, sensitive issues are involved in any discussion of culture as a public policy. However, given the demands in a democratic system that public policies show a return to the taxpayer, cultural policy has frequently argued for support on the basis of utility. It can be argued that there is a parity between the state’s responsibility for its citizens’ social-economic-physical needs and their access to culture and opportunities for artistic self-expression. However, the aesthetic dimension of public policy has never been widely perceived as intuitively obvious or politically imperative. Accordingly, the cultural sector has often argued its case from the secondary, ancillary benefits that result from public support for programs that are seemingly only aesthetic in nature. Cultural policy is not typically justified solely on the grounds that it is a good-in-itself, but rather that it yields other good results.
The future of cultural policy would seem to predict an increasingly inexorable demand that the arts “carry their own weight” rather than rely on a public subsidy to pursue “art for art’s sake”. This “cultural Darwinism
Darwinism
Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or of evolution, including some ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin....
” is most pronounced in the United States where public subsidy is limited and publicly-supported aesthetic activities are expected to demonstrate a direct public benefit. Non-American cultural institutions are less constrained by the need to maintain diversified revenue streams that demand high levels of earned income and individual and corporate donations to compensate for limited government appropriations.
On the other hand, cultural institutions everywhere are increasingly market-driven in their need for supplementary funds and as a justification for continued public support. The American model of an essentially privatized
Privatization
Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector to the private sector or to private non-profit organizations...
culture is increasingly attractive to governments seeking to curtail their cultural subsidies. In a system of mixed funding, public culture can nurture the arts groups and cultural activities that contribute to individual self-worth and community definition even if counting for less in the economic bottom-line. At root, a cultural policy is about creating public spheres that are not dependent upon profit motives nor validated by commercial values. As political democracy is dependent upon the existence of civil society and socio-economic pluralism, cultural policy stands as an essential public commitment in realizing these fundamental preconditions.
Scope of Cultural Policy
At the international level UNESCOUNESCO
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations...
is in charge of cultural policy.
Contact information for ministries of culture and national arts councils in 160 countries is available from the website of the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (IFACCA): www.ifacca.org
On a local scale, United Cities and Local Governments offers cities and local authorities the opportunity to develop arts and culture with the Agenda 21 for Culture.
See also
- Cultural Institutions StudiesCultural Institutions StudiesCultural institutions studies is an academic approach "which investigates activities in the cultural sector, conceived as historically evolved societal forms of organising the conception, production, distribution, propagation, interpretation, reception, conservation and maintenance of specific...
- Cultural planning
- Cultural engineering
- Cultural management
- Cultural subsidyCultural subsidyA cultural subsidy is a payment to cultural industries to ensure that some public policy purpose in culture is preserved or perhaps overtly promoted as superior.They are considered a form of industrial subsidy usually by their opponents, and a form of public...
- Cultural diplomacyCultural diplomacyCultural diplomacy has existed as a practice for centuries. Explorers, travelers, teachers and artists can be all considered examples of informal ambassadors or early cultural diplomats...
- Arts councilArts councilAn arts council is a government or private, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the arts mainly by funding local artists, awarding prizes, and organizing events at home and abroad...
External links
- International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies
- Connect CP - International Who's Who of Cultural Policy, Planning and Research
- World Summit on Arts and Culture
- Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society
- International Journal of Cultural Policy
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
- The Danish Ministry of Culture
- The Agency for Cultural Affairs(Japan)
- Department for Culture Media and Sport(UK)
- National Endowment for the Arts (USA)
- Ministère de la culture et de la communication (France)
- Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe (Council of Europe/ERICarts)