Towards cultural democracy: promoting cultural capabilities for everyone
Towards cultural democracy: promoting cultural capabilities for everyone
复制标题
迈向文化民主：提升每个人的文化能力
DOI：
10.1080/09548963.2018.1415417
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
S. Hadley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Hadley
《走向文化民主：促进每个人的文化能力》由伦敦国王学院文化研究所委托编写，是国王第四次文化调查的最终报告。基于为期 15 个月的研究项目，作者的目标是“及时、独特地提出如何为英国建设一种对每个人都有价值、由所有人共同创造的文化生活的愿景”（KCL，2017 年，第 1 页）。该报告是与“创意”活动 1 的研究合作的成果，是该项目面向公众的重要成果，是对“创意”活动和其他寻求以新方式创造文化机会的国家举措的工作的回应。该研究利用了一系列数据源，包括对 Get Creative 指导小组和 Get Creative Champions 的采访，以及一系列焦点小组的下一步是什么？英国各地都有分会。 2 四个文化组织/网络的人种学研究以及 BBC 关于 Get Creative 活动的主要数据（包括观看数据、人口统计数据和社交媒体分析）对此进行了补充。该报告针对学术界以外的广泛利益相关者，包括国家政府部门和机构、私人信托和基金会、地方文化政策制定者、艺术和文化组织以及文化创意倡议，该报告详尽地阐述了其影响力，因此在某些领域缺乏深度和细微差别。 《走向文化民主》是在沃里克文化价值委员会（Neelands et al., 2015）和 AHRC 文化价值项目（Crossick & Kaszynska, 2016）的背景下撰写的，直接（且正确地）呼吁对文化政策进行渐进的重新思考。该报告提供了作者所说的“激进但务实”（第 3 页）的方法来理解和发展所有人的文化机会。在 14 项建议中，9 项侧重于促进每个人的文化能力（文化民主）的政策目标。其余五个目标旨在支持制定综合战略以实现这一目标。该报告认为其最重要的长期建议是“一种超越赤字模式的文化政策方法（将伟大的艺术带给每个人，即‘文化民主化’），并寻求实现文化民主”（原文第7页强调）。正是在此基础上，报告提出了其独特的文化民主愿景：一个可以实现的未来，所有人都享有共同创造文化的实质性自由。文化能力的概念被引入作为理解文化民主的一种方式——具体来说，是将文化民主理解为所有人的文化能力条件的概念条件。作者所说的文化能力是指人们拥有创造文化的实质性自由的条件。这些想法源自 Nussbaum (2011) 关于能力的工作（本身基于 Sen (2001) 的工作）。这些学者针对发展经济学领域的工作，重点关注为人们（每个人）提供现实世界选择的必要性，这些选择的执行将为他们的生活带来有意义的价值。缺乏对 Nussbaum 思想的批判性参与（参见 Robeyns，2005、2006）。鉴于努斯鲍姆（Nussbaum，2011）认为公共政策最终应该是让人们过上与人类尊严相称的生活，这将有助于解释为什么她本人不认为文化能力是这种生活的必要要素。由于报告中这一内容的推测性质以及
Towards cultural democracy: Promoting cultural capabilities for everyone was commissioned by the Cultural Institute at King’s College London and is the final report of King’s fourth Cultural Enquiry. Based on a 15-month research project, its authors aim to offer “a timely and distinctive vision of how to build a cultural life for the UK that is valuable for everyone and made by all”(KCL, 2017, p. 1). Resulting from research collaboration with the Get Creative campaign, 1 the report is the key public-facing output from the project, responding to the work of Get Creative and other national initiatives seeking to enable cultural opportunities in new ways. The research draws on a range of data sources, including interviews with the Get Creative Steering Group and Get Creative Champions and a series of focus groups with What Next? Chapters across the UK. 2 This is complemented by ethnographic research with four cultural organisations/networks and top-line data from the BBC about the Get Creative campaign (including viewing figures, demographic data and social media analysis). Targeted at a broad set of stakeholders beyond academia, including national government departments and agencies, private trusts and foundations, local cultural policymakers, arts and cultural organisations, and cultural creativity initiatives the report is exhaustive in its desire for impact and as a result lacks depth and nuance in certain areas. Written in the context of both the Warwick Commission on Cultural Value (Neelands et al., 2015) and the AHRC Cultural Value Project (Crossick & Kaszynska, 2016), Towards cultural democracy directly (and rightly) calls for a progressive re-thinking of cultural policy. The report offers what the authors refer to as a “radical but pragmatic”(p. 3) approach to understanding and developing cultural opportunities for all. Of 14 recommendations, 9 focus on the policy objective of promoting cultural capabilities for everyone (cultural democracy). The remaining five aims to support the development of integrated strategies to achieve this. What the report identifies as its most important long-term recommendation is “an approach to cultural policy that moves beyond the deficit model (taking great art to everyone,‘the democratisation of culture’) and instead seeks to achieve cultural democracy”(p. 7 emphasis in original). It is on this basis that the report offers its distinctive vision of cultural democracy: an achievable future in which the substantive freedom to co-create versions of culture is enjoyed by all.The idea of cultural capability is introduced as a way to understand cultural democracy–specifically, the conceptual conditions for understanding cultural democracy as the condition of cultural capability for all. By cultural capability, the authors mean the conditions in which people have the substantive freedom to make culture. These ideas derive from Nussbaum’s (2011) work on capabilities (itself based on the work of Sen (2001)). The work of these scholars, addressed to the field of development economics, focusses on the need to give people (everyone) real-world choices, the execution of which would deliver meaningful value to their lives. There is a lack of critical engagement with Nussbaum’s ideas (see Robeyns, 2005, 2006). Given Nussbaum (2011) argues that public policy should ultimately be about enabling people to live life commensurate with the dignity of what it means to be human, it would be helpful to address why she herself did not consider cultural capability to be a necessary element of such a life. Due to the speculative nature of this element of the report and the