The Key Debates Surrounding Cultural Policy in Relation to the Cultural Value - Literature review Example

Discussion Board: Cultural Policy Name Institution Date Discussion Board The key debates surrounding cultural policy lie within the cultural as well as economic world of people. This poses a great challenge when it comes to the government making decisions in relation to which cultural forms should be encouraged, developed, protected or even be restrained. Cultural policy is a subject of debate since supporting one industry or class of people by the government may lead to dissatisfaction of the other (Hesmondhalgh 2013, 123). The subject of cultural policy is important and seen as organized in different forms in history. It is a subject that has been viewed differently by policymakers. This discussion board aims at critically analysing the key debates surrounding cultural policy in relation to cultural value, social exclusion and academic approaches to cultural policy. Cultural Value In relation to cultural value, cultural policy can be analysed with regard to the policymaker’s dilemma. One of the situations that pose a dilemma is when the government provides funding so as to please most of the people. This is a favouring action that serves to fulfil the needs of the minority interest. I agree with this notion as supported by Lyas (1992, p.352), before the government gives any support to a particular industry or a group of people, it is important to make a consideration or establish whether a particular work is better or more important than another work. The question here is, which project should receive money and why? Which type of issues or problems might arise as a result of making one decision over the other? Without establishing such principles, it is not conclusive to support a certain human activity as more deserving than another. Among the solutions to policy maker’s dilemma is the philosophical aesthetics that was introduced by David Hume and Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century. The idea of philosophical aesthetics supports the subjectivity and universality of aesthetic judgements (Eagleton 1990). According to Hume and Kant’s view, aesthetic judgements usually have standards of taste in the sense that they are universal. They arise from nature which is shared by human beings, people’s common sense, specific forms are usually calculated to please and others for displeasing. Therefore, on the basis of this argument, the policymaker’s dilemma is resolved. However, I tend to disagree with this argument of Hume and Kant since the shared nature of human being has an ideological form. In the argument of Marx, it is not right to pass or represent the interests of one group or class as universal and serving the common interests of every member within the society. According to Marx & Engels (1977, p.64), the ideas of such a group are compelled to be expressed in an ideal form by giving them a universal form and representing them as the only ideas that are valid or rational. I support the interests of Marx that the policymaker’s dilemma still exists because human nature cannot be expressed as universal but ideological. Additionally, the concept of art is usually constructed socially as well as historically, hence, what constitutes value is socially and historically constructed (Wolff 1983). To disagree further with the view of Hume and Kant, I support the view of Pierre Bourdieu who refuted the same claims of universality of human nature by arguing that, there exist a difference between the elite taste and the popular taste. Bourdieu (1984, p.5) describes how what one group believes in, is not what the other group believes in. In addition, Smith also disagrees with the universality form of human nature by using the artwork of Jack Vettriano denoting that, there exist two art worlds, one which is popular and the other is academic. The argument here was, should people be given what they want or what the directors want? Considering this question, the two art worlds exist whereby one can be understood by many and the other controlled by few people. However, based on Bourdieu view of human nature as ideological, the claims of pure aesthetic on one art world controlled by a few as explained by Smith are vulgar (Smith 2004). Bourdieu used Carl Andre, Equivalent VIII explanation to disagree with Smiths argument and described as rubbish since it places people in different classes, one of aggression that induces panic to the other class of ordinary people (Bourdieu, 1984. p. 33). The policymaker’s view also disagrees with the view that human nature is universal. John Holden distinguished three types of values including; intrinsic, instrumental and institutional (Holden 2006, p.14-17). Intrinsic values are related to experience of culture which is subjective in terms of intellectual, emotional as well as spiritual (p.14). Instrumental values are related to cultural effects that are ancillary whereby culture is usually used for the purpose of achieving social or economic goal (p.16). Institutional value is one which is related to the processes as well as techniques that are adopted by organisations in relation to working conditions for the purpose of creating value for the public (p.17). Therefore, as described by Holden, human nature is not universal and is defined by values that are different for every person. In order to deal with the problem of universality of cultural value in cultural policy, I propose three different responses that can be used such as; restating traditional values, relativism and redefining our values. In restating traditional values, the good can be differentiated from bad across cultural endeavours. Relativism supports a legitimate position that has the power to make funding decisions. Redefining our values involves adjudicating external values that favour the environment. However, the big question is that, which of these responses can help us in addressing the policymaker’s dilemma? By considering the restating of traditional values, it implies an affirmation of superiority for those who will be satisfied with the pleasures (Bourdieu 1984, p.7). To consider relativism, there must be a legitimate position for making funding decisions. Redefining our values has also a problem since adjudication is based on external values instead of intrinsic values. Social Exclusion With the above argument on cultural policy, this debate takes us to the second debate in relation to cultural policy referred to as social exclusion. Levitas et al (2007) argue that it is a process which is multidimensional as well as complex, involving the denial of human basic rights in all arenas within the society. It affects people’s quality of life, equity as well as cohesion in the entire society. Policy is needed in the field of art and culture to resolve the problem that arises as a result of social exclusion. This view supports Bourdieu’s idea that art and culture are usually predisposed to fulfil a social function that legitimates social differences (Bourdieu 1984, p.7). In relation to social exclusion, cultural policy can be used to address the problems identified by Bourdieu in three forms including; Democratisation of culture, cultural democracy as well as cultural and creative industries (Hughson & Inglis 2001). Democratisation of culture works to widen the accessibility of elite forms of culture like improving the accessibility to galleries and museums as well as new audiences programme (Smith 1998). I suggest that, the cultural learning alliance should also be used to ensure that children as well as young people have accessibility to culture. It is a way of avoiding social exclusion that promotes cultural cohesion by bringing different culture together. However, democratisation of culture is questioned by the idea of Bourdieu since it raises concerns whether the circle of cumulative processes can be broken because the middle class are the ones who benefit from this approach. It still raises the question of policymaker’s dilemma where social class is not eliminated. Referring to cultural democracy, social exclusion can be resolved by the use of community based projects. Examples of community based project that served to promote cultural democracy are the Action Factory Community Arts in Blackburn and the BFI’s First Light Programme (2001 onwards). Irrespective of its contribution to curbing social exclusion, cultural democracy raises various problems such as; ghettoization, it is more prone to austerity cutbacks and it is difficult to break the circle of cumulative process since the majority of the participants are usually from the middle class groups just like in democratisation of culture. Culture and creative industries can also be used to raise the success of the cultural as well as creative industries economically. I support this initiative since it facilitates and promotes the competitiveness of artists in the creative industries both locally and abroad. Culture and creative industries also depart from elitist policy making and improve cultural regeneration and urban regeneration (Byrne 2005, p.146). Even though culture and creative industries provide a solution to social exclusion, it raises a problem of social inequality through urban regeneration as a form of cultural policy (Jones 2000). The problem of social inequality is also seen in cultural value as explained by Smith that there exist two art worlds, one for the superiors and the other for the ordinary people. Social inequality increases social exclusion that complicates further the policy maker’s dilemma. Based on the social and cultural hierarchies identified by Bourdieu, cultural policy can be used to erode these hierarchies through legitimising social differences. It can also be used for addressing social exclusion through social cohesion (Smith 1998, p.15). I have discussed three approaches that can deal with social exclusion; however, the three approaches have problems. According to Bowring (2000, p.308), the discourse of social exclusion seems like a minimalist reform instead of far reaching change, as access to ladders of social improvement instead of the length of the ladder. Hence, the problem of cultural hegemony in capitalism is still in existence. Cultural hegemony is where one class of people dominates the other. I see this view as supporting smith’s views in cultural value that, the existence of social classes within the society and it is a big challenge in cultural policy. Therefore, social exclusion is interrelated with cultural value in increasing the policy maker’s dilemma. Academic Approaches to Cultural Policy Another key debate that surrounds cultural policy that I want to talk about is concerned with the academic approaches to cultural policy. They include; cultural policy consultancy work and cultural policy critique. One of the contributors to the cultural policy consultancy work approach was Tonny Bennet. In his neo-Gramscian approach, Bennett viewed cultural policy as a type of ideological critique (Bennett 1992). I disagree with Bennett’s view as criticizing the ideological view of human nature. Referring to the idea of Bourdieu in cultural value, human nature is not universal and considering it as universal creates a dilemma in cultural policy. I strongly disagree with this view of universality of human nature since people are different in terms of ideas and values. Foucault was another contributor to the cultural policy consultancy work approach who viewed modern society as characterised by increased governmentalisation of social relations with a wide variety of social practices that are brought for policing, regulating and measuring. The view of Foucault is related to the view of democratisation of culture that supports the combination of different cultures that serves to measure excellence through eradication of social exclusion. It supports the production of harmonised national schemes that bring communities together through cultural cohesion. A good example that I want to use here is the work of DCMS that encourages public as well as professional bodies to work together to develop and monitor performance against the best indicators that are available (DCMS 2000, p.61). The argument here is that, people of high social class or elites are encouraged to lower their political views and behave in a way that will enable them connect with other people in low social class through debates and practices that administer culture (Bennett 1998, p.61). People of different classes have the capacity to interact and share at the same level which supports cultural cohesion. This view relates to the aspect of cultural democracy that allows people to work together in the same projects. It provides a solution to social exclusion since it embraces the use of dialogue by bureaucratic agencies that leads to real reforms. As a cultural policy approach, cultural policy consultancy work is seen to deal with the problem of hierarchies of social class that were defined by Bourdieu. However, Lewis (2002) argues that, it raises the problem of being overly committed to governance as well as regulation. In addition, Jameson (1993) noted that, the cultural policy consultancy work approach brings the problem of Faustian pact with the state and can only be applicable mostly in university departments. Cultural policy critique is another academic approach to cultural policy. Jim McGuigan was one of the contributors to this approach who identified continuities as well as discontinuities that exist between conservatives and new labour. Jim was a critique to Bennett’s contribution to cultural policy that criticises the ideological form of human nature. I agree with Jim since human nature cannot be considered to be universal but ideological. In his view, Jim supports democratic communication just like Habermas who embraces decentralisation of power where businesses can thrive, citizens are protected and consumers benefit (McGuigan 2004, p.50). It is a cultural policy approach that aims at eliminating the problem identified by Bourdieu of social class and favouritism. This discussion board describes a critical analysis of the key debates surrounding cultural policy. In its analysis, the discussion board elaborates arguments based on three key debates of cultural policy including cultural value, social exclusion and academic approaches to cultural policy. From the analysis, the three aspects of cultural policy are interrelated and each borrows a lot from the other. All aspects raise key problems that need to be dealt with including; policy maker’s dilemma, social class and impact beyond academic. Even though the discussion identifies various solutions to the problems, these solutions are not conclusive and the subject of cultural policy requires future research so as to come up with an effective solution to the identified problems. References Bennett, T, 1992, ‘Putting Policy into Cultural Studies’ in L. Grossberg, C, Nelson and P, Treichler (eds) Cultural Studies, London: Routledge Bennett, T, 1998, Culture: a reformer’s science, London: Sage. Bowring, F, 2000, Social exclusion: limitations of debate, Critical Social Policy, Vol.20, Iss. 3. DCMS, 2000, Annual Report 2000, London: HMSO. Eagleton, T, 1990, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Oxford: Blackwell. Hesmondhalgh, D, 2013, The Cultural Industries (3rd edn), London: Sage. Holden, J, 2004, Capturing Culture: how culture has become a tool of government policy, London. Hughson, J, & Inglis, D, 2001, Creative Industries and the Arts in Britain: Towards a “Third Way” in Cultural Policy’, Cultural Policy, Vol.7, Iss.3. Jameson, F, 1993, ‘On cultural studies’, Social Text, Vol.34. Jones, J, 2000, Come, friendly bombs, The Guardian, Lewis, J, 2002, Cultural Studies: The Basics, London: Sage. Lewis, J. and Miller, T. (eds) 2003, Critical Cultural Policy Studies: a reader, Oxford: Blackwell Marx, K. & Engels, F, 1977, The German Ideology, London: Lawrence & Wishart. McGuigan, J, 2004, Rethinking Cultural Policy, Maidenhead: Open University Press Smith, C, 1998, Creative Britain, London: Faber and Faber. Smith, D, 2004, ‘He's our favourite artist. So why do the galleries hate him so much?’ The Observer. Wolff, J, 1983, Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art, London: Allen and Unwin. Read More