Everyday participation and cultural value
Everyday participation and cultural value
复制标题
日常参与和文化价值
DOI：
10.1080/09548963.2016.1204043
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Lisanne Gibson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andrew Miles;Lisanne Gibson
在这个特刊的文章提出了一些理解日常参与的早期发现-阐明文化价值观（UEP），一个为期五年的大型赠款项目，开始于2012年，是艺术和人文研究理事会的连接社区计划的一部分，从创意苏格兰获得补充资金。该项目的出发点是，文化政策和国家资助的文化方案以文化参与和文化价值为导向，需要彻底改革。我们认为，有一个正统的方法，以文化参与的基础上，一个狭隘的定义（和理解）的参与，集中在一个有限的一套文化形式，活动和相关的文化机构，但在这个过程中，掩盖了其他形式的文化参与，这是位于当地的日常领域的意义。UEP的研究汇集了一个大型跨学科的研究人员团队，该团队融合了人文科学，社会科学和政策部门的利益，UEP的研究旨在确定和理解日常文化参与以及人们对此的价值观，特别是在社会领域。我们这样做的目的是重新定位的学术和政策工作的重点"文化价值"，从而投下新的光的性质和意义的文化偏好和活动在英国在21世纪。我们已经可以在项目的一部分指出，我们研究中使用的各种方法的结果是一致的，这些结果表明：（1）文化参与活动种类繁多，其中绝大多数超出了国家文化支持的范围，（2）这些日常参与形式对发展社会资本和维持社交网络的重要性，以及界定"社区"的参数。正如Elias（1998）所反映的那样，与日常概念一起工作意味着动员其对立面，在这种情况下，这是英国文化参与和价值的“官方”框架（Griffiths，Miles和Savage，2008）。这可以定义为政府通过文化、媒体和体育部资助的基本上正式和传统的做法、场所和机构。在布迪厄（1984）之后，这一框架可以被视为反映了一系列历史和文化假设，即某些品味和活动形式被国家奉为比其他活动更有价值的东西，可以作为社会区别的有力象征。Miles和Sullivan（2010，2012）认为，在1997 - 2010年的新工党政府下，国家对这一框架的运作涉及文化价值的去语境化，伴随着反映中产阶级规范和对什么是“合法”文化的理解的“参与赤字模式”的动员。在这里，以减少社会排斥为名优先考虑文化的政策同时也是歧视过程的一部分，将那些不与既定文化联系在一起的人和地方标记为被动、孤立和需要（补救）关注的人和地方，并将其边缘化（吉布森，出版中;迈尔斯，2013年）。在文化政策和跨文化实践中的"社会包容"叙事的逻辑最近通过"访问"和"参与"的话语扩展到合作，共同制作和共同策展，尽管可以说在共同制作实践的重点文化活动中没有真实的扩展（吉布森和爱德华兹，2016）。
The articles in this special issue present some of the early findings of Understanding Everyday Participation – Articulating Cultural Values (UEP), a five-year large grant project, which began in 2012 and is part of the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Connected Communities programme, receiving supplementary funding from Creative Scotland. The project starts from the proposition that the orientation of cultural policy and state-funded cultural programming towards cultural participation and value is in need of a radical overhaul. We argue that there is an orthodoxy of approach to cultural engagement which is based on a narrow definition (and understanding) of participation, one that focuses on a limited set of cultural forms, activities and associated cultural institutions but which, in the process, obscures the significance of other forms of cultural participation which are situated locally in the everyday realm. Drawing together a large interdisciplinary team of researchers, which meshes interests across the humanities, social sciences and the policy sector, UEP’s research seeks to identify and apprehend everyday cultural participation and the values people attach to this, especially in relation to the social sphere. Our aim in doing this is to reorientate the focus of both academic and policy work on “cultural value” and thereby to cast fresh light on the nature and significance of cultural preferences and activities in the UK in the twenty-first century. We can already, part way through the project, point to the consistency of findings across the methods used in our research, which reveal (1) the rich variety of cultural participation activities, the vast majority of which lies beyond the orbit of State cultural support, and (2) the importance of these everyday forms of participation for developing social capital and sustaining social networks, and for defining the parameters of “community”. As Elias (1998) reflected, working with the concept of the everyday implies the mobilisation of its opposite, which in this case is the “official” framework of cultural participation and value in the UK (Griffiths, Miles, & Savage, 2008). This can be defined as the largely formal and traditional practices, venues and institutions funded by government through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Following Bourdieu (1984), this framework can be seen to reflect a series of historical and cultural assumptions about certain tastes and forms of activity being canonised by the State as more valuable than others, and which can act as powerful symbols of social distinction. As Miles and Sullivan (2010, 2012) argue, the operationalisation of this framework by the State under the New Labour governments of 1997–2010 involved a decontextualisation of cultural value that was accompanied by the mobilisation of a “deficit model of participation” reflecting middle-class norms and understandings of what was to count as “legitimate” culture. Here, policies that prioritised access to culture in the name of reducing social exclusion were at same time part of a process of discrimination, marking out and marginalising those people and places that did not associate themselves with established culture as passive, isolated and in need of (remedial) attention (Gibson, in press; Miles, 2013). The logics of the “social inclusion” narrative within cultural policy and across cultural practice have recently been extended through discourses of “access” and “participation” into collaboration, co-production and co-curation, although arguably there has not been a real expansion in the cultural activities which are the focus of co-production practices (Gibson & Edwards, 2016).
理解文化和体育中的品味和价值之间的关系
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Miles A G
通讯作者：
Miles A G
了解文化和体育的参与：混合方法，重新排列知识
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Miles A
通讯作者：
Miles A