Cultural Policy

What Does Cultural Policy Involve?

Student:

Course Name:

Instructor:

Institution:

Department:

Date:

Cultural policy is almost invariably interconnected to all fundamental issues in today’s society, such as economic stratification, education, technology, race relationships, international relations, and community development. Indeed, cultural policy is apparent in various instances extending from an ordinary family’s dining table to the corporate boardrooms of national and global conglomerates and public organizations. For instance, cultural policy is manifested in the decision by a family to educate their children in the language, customs, and history of a certain ethnic group; in the benchmarks for quality and excellence adopted by a grant maker; in the choice to concentrate on promotion of cultural tourism or historic preservation by community development organization; or simply in the amalgamation of electronic and print media and other digital media (Atlas 2002). Essentially, cultural policy is regarded as both an outcome and a method, or background for crafting guidelines and decisions that is cognizant and guided by existing social links and values. This paper presents a theoretical understanding of cultural policy and what it entails with regard to the development of policies that are cognizant of the vital link between culture, art, heritage and ordinary individual lives.
What is cultural policy? In order to develop a clear understanding of cultural policy it is essential to tritely deconstruct the phrase 'cultural policy ' into its two consisting and distinctive concepts that are 'culture ' and 'policy '. Extensive literature reveals that the two concepts are individually abstract and disputable, therefore making the definition of the adjoined term particularly difficult. However, in the realm of cultural policy there is at least one inferred agreement; that when individuals refer to cultural policy, they are referring to policies focused on culture, not culture focused on policy.
Defining ‘culture’ 'Culture ' denotes for various things to various individuals, societies, populations and nations. Accordingly, it is common for different individuals or agencies to use varying definitions of culture as prescribed or determined by the varying contexts or settings. Relatedly, there are hundreds of explanations of culture that emphasize diverse viewpoints. For instance, Scott Lash describes culture as a collection of symbolic practices (Lash 2002), while Talcott Parsons perceives culture as a dominant normative structure of symbolic edifices containing cognitive, aesthetic, moral and religious values (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). Essentially, Parsons offers a practical concept of culture that emphasizes the sustaining and assimilative function of culture. However, Parson’s theory has a significant weakness since it portrays an idea of perpetual, linear advancement of culture, while overlooking the phenomenon of cultural conflicts (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). In the case of cultural studies there seems to be two mutual bases for defining culture rather than one, where the first is derived from Williams (1961, pp. 41-71), and the second developed from numerous structuralist and post-structuralist concerns with semiotic representative practices. Though, in practice the two definitions have become so entwined to actually meaningful distinguish between the two. A review of books on cultural studies shows a proclivity for the Williams definition as a foundation for understanding ‘culture’ (Milner & Browitt 2002, pp. 2-5) (Lewis & Miller 2003, pp. 2-3). In this definition ‘culture’ assumes distinctive forms including as a form of Spiritual ideal in regard to values; as a chronicled experience; and as ‘a way of living’ (Baetens 2005). Other literature in cultural studies offer alternative views based on the semiotic variant, in which culture is portrayed as being concerned with ‘the production and circulation of symbolic meanings’. Conversely, in political science ‘culture’ is defined in precise approaches. Simple distinctions of culture, in this sense, include ‘culture’ as a term that denotes the social settings within which politics is conducted; ‘culture’ as a sub-category of societal backgrounds comprising of assessments, awareness and outlooks about political action and organisations (Lane & Ersson 2002); and ‘culture’ as sets of official and informal rule-governed conducts (Gray 2002, pp. 6-9). In sociological studies, ‘culture’ is divided between two ideologies, that is, ‘the sociology of culture’ and ‘cultural sociology’. The first version defines ‘culture’ as a collection of meanings, symbols and structures (Alexander 2006) and comprises a specific form of sociological or semiotic analysis. The second version describes ‘culture’ to contain certain fields of action related to certain products and/or activities that are restricted to, ‘the arts, cultural industries and media sectors’ (Bennet 2007, p. 32). Consequently, it is challenging to institute a single, outright and comprehensive meaning to culture, since it is continually a matter of appropriate content and understanding in a particular chronological and social context. In this regard, culture will persist as a relational notion, which acquires varied contents based on the standpoint adopted, for example, in an anthropological, geographical, philosophical, theological, sociological, politological or economic setting.
Nevertheless, Rodolfo Stavenhagen expresses culture in three scopes, including ‘culture’ as capital, ‘culture’ as creation and ‘culture’ as a way of life (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). As capital, culture defines the heritage accumulated by humanity whereas, as creation, culture highlights the progression of intellectual and artistic creation while concurrently assuming a qualitative classification. As a way of existence, culture represents the embodiment of material and intellectual deeds and products (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). On his part, Simo Häyrynen articulates culture using its function in an essentialist and aspectual process. From the two dimensions, Häyrynen provides a conception of culture as an inherently valuable or contributory action. The essentialist use perspective distinguishes culture itself as a prevailing ontological entity that is unique from other reality. The aspective use dimension observes culture as a single socially organised aspect of human activity. For instance globalisation, while generating opportunities through culture commercialisation, it also precipitates threats to cultural diversity (Häyrynen 2006). Further, according to Häyrynen, the numerous definitions accorded to culture can be clustered into three main theoretical frames of reference. The first frame of reference is culture as the utmost form of human knowledge and skill which entails variables such as absoluteness of human intelligence; Art as high culture; culture-nature dichotomy; advancement of the civilisation process; folklore and traditional culture; mass culture and popular culture. The second frame of reference suggested by Häyrynen is culture as a way or ways of life that encompasses variables such as collective representations, group way of life and identity; nationality or citizenship; age; gender; sexual orientation; language; ethnicity; native area; religiousness; ideological outlook; education and wealth. The third frame of reference expresses culture as mental knowledge and value systems that included variables like the contextual aspects for a lifestyle; value, belief and intellect systems; and collective and cognitive consciousness (Häyrynen 2006). Evidently, the underlying concept about culture as expressed in the various definitions is that each of them interprets culture as a type of social adhesive that offers a collective context of understandings for society members, to organise and network around.
Defining cultural policy The ambiguity of the idea ‘culture’ and its contingency make it hard to define objective principles for cultural policy. Similar to defining ‘culture’, various approaches have been adopted by various disciplines to emphasize on a range of policy practices. Significantly, cultural studies the definition of cultural policy is divided along ideological frameworks suggested by Gramsci and Foucault. The Gramscian notion of cultural policy places emphasis on ideology and hegemony while Foucaultian elements of cultural policy emphasize the concept of governmentality. In particular, Lewis and Miller ( 2003, p. 1) define cultural policy as ‘... a place for the creation of cultural citizens, with the cultural industries offering both a variety of symbols about the individual and a chain of justifications for certain behavioural archetypes’ (Lewis & Miller 2003), while Scullion and Garcia (2005, p. 125) interpret cultural policy as relating to ‘the “policing” (in Foucault’s terms) of the state and associates an commitment in representation and formulation’ (Scullion & Garcia 2005). On the other hand, Mulcahy (2006, p. 267) defines cultural policy as the ideals adopted by a government or state that bear a significant effect on the cultural existence of its residents (Mulcahy 2006). This definition shifts the focus towards a variety of activities like media and education policies that may not generally be featured by governments themselves as components of their cultural policies. The difference in theoretical frameworks regarding cultural policy notwithstanding, a more general definition has been postulated. According to Koivunen and Marsio (2007, p.10), ‘cultural policy is characterized by the ideals, doctrines and actions that influence decisions regarding publicly supported cultural action …’ (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). This view is coined from Jarmo Malkavaara’s definition of cultural policy as ‘the embodiment of actions through which various operatives in the society pursue influence and the capacity to shape cultural activities in society’ (Koivunen & Marsio 2007, p. 10). Additionally, recent reviews of cultural policy literature identify a number of common theoretical frames of reference in cultural policies. The first frame of reference is that cultural policy involves the identification and integration of five key elements including, a domain plan of policy areas regarded as 'cultural ' (e.g. the arts, film, broadcasting, and design); policy implements (e.g. tax incentives, subsidy, and ownership); institutional structures (e.g. government ministries or departments); decision-making procedures (e.g. peer reviews or bureaucratic declarations); and lastly, the rules and customs that define the interaction of the these elements (Madden 2009, pp. 3-4). Secondly, another suggested frame of reference is that cultural policy encompasses an array of policy linkages. Accordingly, cooperation and partnership usually is requisite among institutions in charge of the numerous policy spheres that are included in the government’s meaning of culture. Case in point, cultural policy often comprises both vertical and horizontal linkages among government organisations with obligations for the arts, heritage, broadcasting, and library sectors. Furthermore, cultural policy also entails peripheral or 'transversal ' linkages to government organizations in supplementary policy domains such as tourism, health, and education (Madden 2009, pp. 3-4). Lastly, the third frame of reference is that cultural policy is both mechanistically complex and conceptually complex. Indeed, the first two frames of reference point to a mechanistic complexity in cultural policy that is mirrored in the accumulative use of systems analysis entity-relationship modelling techniques and network analysis in cultural policy analysis. Conceptual complexity in cultural policy is reflected by the fact that culture is abstract, and is ambiguous in its meaning depending on individual interpretation and context. Furthermore, since policy cannot be alienated from its conceptual foundations, cultural policies are also inevitably conceptually complex or abstract (Madden 2009, pp. 3-4).
Significance of Culture and Cultural Policy in Political Discourse With increased globalization, the world is characterised by numerous crises and improved human movement enhanced by unrestricted and open market policies, global climate change as well as innovative and more rapid methods of communication. Similarly, cultural and social revolutions continue to occur at a rapid pace, which if unchecked or unmonitored may result in profound social consequences for societies as they try to conform to the emergent trends. Indeed, mounting cognizance of humankind’s susceptibility alongside improbability and anxiety regarding the future offer prolific foundations for xenophobia and intolerance, racism, human rights abuses and in some cases, absolute conflict. Consequently, in progressively changing cultural and political settings, characterised by increased cultural diversity, new forms of debate and political discourses have emerged, to challenge existing public policies. In this sense, political leaders, scholars, interest groups and individuals recognize the power of culture as a criterion for peace, a foundation for intellectual, emotional and spiritual health and as a means for socio-economic development in addition to environmental sustainability (UNESCO 2011). According to the UNESCO Division for Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue, cultural policy is challenged by a myriad of factors hence its significance in political debates. Firstly, cultural policy is challenged by the need to re-establish new identity politics (such as those concerned with linguistic, religious and indigenous characteristics) arising from globalization and changing cultural backgrounds. Secondly, cultural policy is challenged by the increased alienation of essentialist politics that incite fears, stereotypes and tensions or conflicts in and among societies (UNESCO 2011). Thirdly, the other challenge to cultural policy is the need to integrate innovation, creativity and regeneration capacities into existing policy frameworks. The fourth challenge is to encompass and comprehend the role of emergent forms of cultural expression including new technological media and the subsequent digital culture, which have widened and diversified the scope of cultural contents. Another challenge is the recognition of the need for the inclusion of the links between the conservation of both cultural and biological diversity, into the development oriented policies. Lastly, cultural policy is significant in the political debate due to the need to stimulate pioneering research and education around the relationships among cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue, development and peace (UNESCO 2011). As such, in the face of these emergent concerns and challenges, cultural policy is required to adjust accordingly in order to nurture the principles and cultural abilities essential to a positive communal future for humanity. Further, new ethics or moral values need to be articulated that connect crucial values and principles from various theoretical cosmologies and backgrounds.
Culture and Cultural Policy in the Arab Spring The Arab Spring revolutions of in the year 2011 sparked a radical debate in current political and cultural issues, regarding the issue of freedom of expression, development and conscience as a crucial theme of cultural and artistic actors in the Arab world. Notably, the Arab Spring revolutions fostered a bourgeoning discourse on the role of digital or social media and networking as an instrument for political mobilisation directed at effective governance changes and pro-democracy actions. Scholarly investigations have also attempted to define the cultural dimension in this new form of activism. Specifically, the emergent question is whether culture, as a domain of freedom par excellence, had a role in triggering Mediterranean Arab societies. Further, this discourse has also aimed decipher how can relations can be augmented among the North and South shores of the Mediterranean from a cultural perspective after the revolutions (Dalacoura 2012, p. 67).
\
The Arab Spring: A Cultural Revolution? Even as the Arab Revolutions took the world by surprise, cultural agents and artists were unmoved since a revolution had long been experienced in the cultural sector especially in literature, the arts and cinema. Particularly, in recent years the Arab world had experienced an upsurge of transformation on the cultural front as an aftermath of the spread of cultural productions all over the Arab world. Similarly, the movement of Arab authors, artistes and scholars has supported to the establishment of a unified Arab cultural domain as well as the aspects of demanding accountability and responsibility from the authorities and censorship. In the artistic domain, the Arab world has experienced daring initiatives such as the Dream City in Tunis or Studio Emad Eddin in Cairo that aim to make a statement against the highly restrictive system of governance, especially in terms of freedom (Tanzarella 2012). Accordingly, these cultural and artistic movements created breaches and facilitated the development of the 2011 revolts. In essence, art and culture predicted and inferred the ferment of society especially in its younger generations. Indeed, the Arab had a strong cultural and artistic element that is reflected by the involvement of a large number of intellectuals, writers and artists in the movements, as well as a significant portion of educated urban youth, as the leaders of the revolt. For instance, in Tunisia the revolution manifested through freedom of expression in public spaces through graffiti, cartoon and caricature and cyber dissidence; in Egypt, revolutionaries used humour and derision to express their grievances; in Libya the protestors used rap and traditional Malouf music to express their need for liberation; and in Syria revolutionaries used their creativity to express their discontent through dying water red in Damascus fountains , ping pong balls with anti-government slogans on Damascus avenues and the 15-episode marionette troupe ridicule of president Al Assad, Masasit Mati (Tanzarella 2012). Evidently, these unique forms of political expression are indicative of the part played by culture as an instrument of opposition against despotism, as well as the hints of a significant transformation in the subject of political engagement. Pointedly, the Arab Spring in its diversity has initiated a new way of “doing politics,” one that is unrestricted, more democratic, less philosophical, more comprehensive, more diverse and non-violent (Tanzarella 2012).
Arab Spring: The Role of Art in Shaping a New Cultural Policy The greatest lesson learned from the Arab Revolution in 2011 is the role of art in political dissent. Indeed, art has come across as a unifying factor that has strengthened the general society and equally, the democratic practice. Markedly, along with shaping new political dimensions, the revolt inspired a cultural awakening among citizens of the Middle East region. As it is today, artists are producing art that participates in critical dialogues regarding politics, religion, culture, nationalism, and identity, which as per earlier definitions denote the key elements of cultural policy. Through art, individuals are able to question the link between the state and cultural production as well as envisioning new approaches for culture to transform society (Schmidt, Martin, & Martin 2006). Extensive literature in cultural studies has demonstrated the role of artists as civil society actors. Since early times, artists have employed the visual arts, literature, and music to open discourse on why and how to transform society (Oakley 2009). Indeed, in the Arab world, the government has significantly impacted on the civil society and cultural values. Even though these countries had centralized culture ministries, they served to promote state philosophy and a cultural agenda about a specific national heritage and identity. Consequently, artists felt that the ministries were ordinary corrupt government institutions that required reforms through a new cultural policy that is independent of market or to state corruption, propaganda and inertia (Khalil 2012). In essence, the revolutions in the Arab world have motivated artists to use public space to assemble and support transformations in governance systems through cultural activism (Roy 2012). This new role for art in cultural policy is supported by emergent initiatives that showcase the cultural expression incipient in the Arab Spring such as the International Arab Spring Festival by UNESCO and the Hariri Foundation. To this end, the Director-General Irina Bokova of UNESCO states that “at a time of uncertainty, we must strengthen the contribution of culture to promoting respect for human rights, freedom of expression, democracy and pluralism” (Khalil 2012).

Conclusion

In summary, the paper has discussed in detail the concept of cultural policy as postulated by various theorists in cultural studies, economics and sociological perspectives. Indeed, when broken down to its underlying components of culture and policy, a variety of definitions arise as to the true description of the term cultural policy. However, a working definition of cultural policy may be adopted from the explanation provided by Koivunen and Marsio, that ‘cultural policy is characterized by the ideals, doctrines and actions that influence decisions and options regarding publicly supported cultural action …’ (Koivunen & Marsio 2007). Further examination reveals three major theoretical frames of reference regarding cultural policy namely, integration and adoption five major elements of culture, establishment of horizontal and vertical linkages and complexity in systems. To demonstrate the role of culture in shaping cultural policy and instituting changes in the society, the discussion has highlighted the role of art in the Arab Spring of 2011. It is clear that art played a critical role in triggering the revolt in the Arab world by opening up avenues for political discourse and social engagement. Through artistic expressions such as graffiti, music article imaginations and theatrical creativity, artists were able to incite non-violent change in regimes in the Arab countries. Accordingly, this example provides an understanding of how cultural policy shapes key political and social settings.

Bibliography

Atlas, C 2002, Cultural Policy: What Is It, Who Makes It,Why Does It Matter? New York Foundation for the Arts, New York.
Baetens, J 2005, ‘Cultural Studies After the Cultural Studies Paradigm’, Cultural Studies, Vol. 19, pp.1-13.
Bennet, T 2007, ‘The Work of Culture’,Cultural Sociology, Vol. 1, pp.31-47.
Dalacoura, K 2012, ‘The 2011 uprisings in the Arab Middle East: political change and geopolitical implications’, International Affairs 88(1).
Gray, C 2002, ‘Politics and Culture: Reformulating the Problem’ Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, Political Studies Association, Aberdeen, pp. 6-9.
Häyrynen, S 2006, ‘Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan kulttuuripolitiikka’, SoPhi, Jyväskylä.
Khalil, N 2012, Art and the Arab Awakening, Viewed Nov 20, 2012,
Koivunen, H & Marsio, L. 2007, Fair Culture? Ethical dimension of cultural policy and cultural rights, Ministry of Education, Helsinki Finland.
Lane, J.-E & Ersson, S 2002, Culture and Politics: A Comparative Approach, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Lash, S 2002, Recognition and Difference Politics, Identity, Multiculture, Sage, London.
Lewis, J & Miller, T 2003, “Introduction”. in J Lewis & T Miller (ed.) , Critical Cultural Studies: A Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-9.
Madden, C. 2009, “Monolithic Cultural Policy”, in K Oakely & L Anderson (ed.), Making Meaning, Making Money. Directions for the Arts and Cultural Industries in the Creative Age, Cambridge Scholars Press, UK.
Milner, A & Browitt, J 2002, Contemporary Cultural Theory, Routledge, London.
Mulcahy, K 2006, “Cultural Policy”, in B Peters & J Pierre (ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Sage, London,pp. 265-279.
Oakley, K 2009, Art Works—Cultural Labour Markets: A Review, Creativity, Culture and Education, London.
Roy, O 2012, ‘The Transformation of the Arab World’, Journal of Democracy Volume 23, Number 3, pp.5-18.
Schmidt, C, Martin, M & Martin , R 2006, Artistic Citizenship: A Public Voice for the Arts, Routledge, New York.
Scullion, A & Garcia, B 2005, ‘What is Cultural Policy Research?’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 11, pp.113-27.
Tanzarella, G 2012, ‘Culture in the Mediterranean and the Arab Spring’Culture and Society:Cultural Dialogue, pp. 289-293.
UNESCO 2011, A new cultural policy agenda for development and mutual understanding: Key arguments for a strong commitment to cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue, United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris.

Bibliography: Khalil, N 2012, Art and the Arab Awakening, Viewed Nov 20, 2012, Koivunen, H & Marsio, L Madden, C. 2009, “Monolithic Cultural Policy”, in K Oakely & L Anderson (ed.), Making Meaning, Making Money. Directions for the Arts and Cultural Industries in the Creative Age, Cambridge Scholars Press, UK.