Cultural Policy and Industries of Identity

Québec, Scotland, & Catalonia

Devin Beauregard

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319736235
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319736242
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book explores the cultural policies of sub-states with strong nationalist inclinations–in particular, Québec, Scotland, and Catalonia–and their trend, in recent years, towards promoting and supporting the cultural industries as a means of not just preserving their respective cultural identities, but of growing them. This represents a paradigm shift from the traditional discourse around cultural policy, which often posits that concepts of identity fall under the purview of heritage institutions and organizations, not that of industries. Drawing on the work of Boltanski and Thévenot—notably, their economies of worth framework—this book develops a typological analysis of cultural policy. Specifically, this book seeks to fill a gap in the cultural policy and cultural studies literature where identity and the cultural industries are concerned, expanding on the role of the cultural industries in the development of identity and the implications it has for cultural policy.

© The Author(s) 2018

Devin BeauregardCultural Policy and Industries of Identityhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73624-2_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: Problematizing Culture in a Global Era

Devin Beauregard¹

(1)

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

End Abstract

In many political and social circles, the term “culture” has become a four-letter word; it is a broad and ill-defined concept that tends to be employed with some trepidation. For many, culture is a concept evoked duplicitously in conjunction with some sort of politically charged agenda—and often at the expense of the perceived “normative values” of the state . Even countries that have historically prided themselves on multicultural values have demonstrated skepticism toward culture’s perceived divisiveness and political application (Bloemraad, 2007). Complicit in framing culture as a political vehicle is cultural policy —a term, by its very nature, teeming with political overtones. It is perhaps, in part, for this reason that cultural policy has often been met with a measure of apprehension in cultural studies discourse—at least insofar as the practical side of policy is concerned (McGuigan, 1996). The argument follows that culture and politics should remain separate—a separation that cultural policy and its analysis outright ignore. Complementing cultural studies’ reservations, cultural policy has often played the role of afterthought or oversight in the broader context of public administration and public policy discourse. Even when cultural policy is the focus of analysis, the most fervent of cultural policy researchers will couch it in the context of instrumentalizing culture, often (if not always) in conjunction with other policy fields (e.g. Belfiore, 2006; Gray, 2007)—affirming, at the very least, concerns that culture is inherently (and perhaps nefariously) political. In other words, culture and cultural policy have, at best, been undervalued and, at worst, been characterized as politically driven.

Fundamentally, however, it can be argued that cultural policies serve to promote and convey ideas and ideals—in particular, the ideals of a state or nation as interpreted by the government du jour. By its definition, cultural policy is the “sum” of government activities as they relate to the arts, humanities, and heritage (Mulcahy, 2006, p. 320); through its application, governments are able to regulate, support, and communicate specific forms and expressions of culture, many—if not all—of which serve to foster a unique sense of shared identity, of community, within their constituencies. In particular, cultural policies —both explicitly and implicitly—determine “how the arts are supported, who decides what is broadcast, what pastimes [are] encouraged, when certain languages can be spoken or customs practiced, how we educate our children and treat our elders, how we relate to our diversity as a nation and to the rest of the world” (Adams & Goldbard, 1993, p. 231). Historical precedence would indicate that, short of explicitly dictating what is culturally acceptable, education and cultural policy have long been vehicles for educating the masses on what is “sweet and light” as a means of “tempering their dangerous and vulgar propensities” (Arnold, 1970, as ctd. by McGuigan, 1992, p. 21). In other words, cultural policies —through their usage to promote certain ideas or values—can act as a means of socializing the public in ways that best serve a government’s interests.

If it can be said that culture—and, by extension, cultural policy—has been undervalued in public policy and political discourse, the same cannot be said of its actual importance in national and international contexts. In a day and age when technological advancements and the broader processes of globalization have destabilized the boundaries between states and challenged the sovereignty of governments, questions of culture and cultural identity have taken on a new significance. As such, culture is now at the forefront of the international agenda “in a way it has never been in the past” precisely because its status both challenges and is challenged by the debates surrounding globalization (Graves, 2005, pp. 177–178). If nothing else, culture can be said to be a defining and ideational characteristic of human societies. It is through culture—and its expression and application—that societies “make sense of and reflect their common experiences” (Hall, 1981, pp. 21–22). The concept of culture, through its ostensible and ubiquitous nature, enables individuals to express themselves, challenge their dispositions, and create meaning—literal or symbolic—and understanding of themselves and the broader world (Lewis & Miller, 2003). By extension, government support for arts and culture—in the form of cultural policy —represents an embracement of certain forms or ideations of culture and cultural identity , and it is, at least implicitly, through cultural policy that questions of cultural identity are formalized in political and cultural discourse (Paquette, 2012). For this reason, cultural policy—regardless of its ultimate intent—plays a significant role in shaping the identity of a nation or a state . The ability of a government to employ culture in this capacity, however, is being challenged by globalization .

Globalizing processes, fuelled by commercial and media conglomerates whose franchises espouse a “cultural conservatism and nostalgic reformatism” that appeals to a broad liberal-minded audience (Parker, 2002, p. 22), have led to a progressively homogenized global culture—one which ensures prominent staples of modern and popular culture are present in virtually every corner of the world. As similar global inputs and pressures are being introduced to various localities throughout the world, these localities are invariably led “to do various things in much the same way” (Ritzer, 2011, pp. 167–168). Short of reducing barriers to culture, this cultural homogeneity has been a cause for concern in many countries, to the point where international organizations—such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)—have gone so far as to identify globalization and “trans-global corporate giants in the audio-visual media industries” as direct threats to certain, vulnerable cultures or cultural expressions (Throsby, 2010, pp. 161–162). The fear is that, as global processes shape and reshape culture, indigenous cultures are at risk of being either consumed or subsumed by a broader, global culture. Consequently, far from the classic categorical definition(s) of culture as (a) “absolute or universal” values, (b) the ensemble of “intellectual and imaginative” works known to humanity, and/or (c) social practices and particular ways of life (Williams, 1981, p. 43), culture has become a battleground on which many governments have fought to stake a claim to their nations’ respective identities and reassert a form of difference between them, the global culture proliferated through globalization , and the culture of other nations. Cultures and societies that fail to take the challenges of globalization seriously “run the risk of inadvertently conceding intellectual and social spaces won through constant struggle for national, cultural and economic identity” (Breen, 1993, as ctd. by Bennett, Firth, Grossberg, Shepherd, & Turner, 1993, pp. 11–12). In the global context—and in the face of globalization —almost all indigenous cultures have effectively become cultural minorities and must, therefore, act to preserve their culture or risk assimilation.

Stark as this outlook may be, globalization has led to a reassessment of the role and place of cultural policies vis-à-vis culture as a symbolic order around which identity is formed. In particular, it is as a tool for socialization and mobilization that cultural policies have had a unique evolution in recent decades—specifically in their capacity to mobilize individuals of a particular nation or culture. In effect, cultural policies establish and support a framework around which individuals can develop a shared or collective identity—in some cases, a national identity . This shared identity has often been contextualized around historical events or activities that hold significance for the state or its people. To this end, when discussing themes of identity and community , cultural policy literature often emphasizes their connection to heritage and heritage institutions (Crooke, 2010). However, as a result of global trends, governments have shifted much of the focus of their cultural policy away from heritage, toward cultural consumption—and, in the process, have shifted the purpose of cultural policy “towards becoming an arm of economic policy” (Throsby, 2010, p. 5). As a result, over the last two decades, much of the cultural policy that has been implemented in the developed and developing worlds, alike, has been focused on establishing the cultural and creative industries—that is to say, the industries that are “involved in the production and consumption of culture” and cultural products or, more specifically, “the production of social meaning” (Hesmondhalgh, 2007, pp. 11–12)—as legitimate and “defined” industries that can provide “communitarian benefits” and social inclusivity (Cunningham, 2014, pp. 29–30). Rather than instrumentally employing cultural policies to achieve other (non-cultural) policy outcomes, governments are now implementing cultural policies in a way that allows them to use the cultural industries to reassert their states’ cultural identities, the very same industries that, through globalization , have arguably threatened those identities. This, in effect, represents a paradigm shift in the ways in which governments use cultural policy.

The fact that cultural policy trends, in recent decades, have pointed toward an industry/economic-based approach suggests that government reliance on the cultural industries has become the norm. The cultural industries have, if nothing else, moved closer to the center of economic action in the developed world—to the point where they are as much drivers of the economy as are the more traditional industries that develop “real” or “durable” goods (Hesmondhalgh, 2007, pp. 1–2). This proliferation of (and...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction: Problematizing Culture in a Global Era
• 2. The Evolving Nature of Cultural Policy
• 3. The Cultural Industries Turn in Cultural Policy
• 4. Cultural Industries in Québec
• 5. Culture, Politics, and Identity in Scotland
• 6. Cultural Distinction and Identity in Catalonia
• 7. A Typology of Sub-State Cultural Policy: Québec, Scotland, and Catalonia
• 8. Conclusion: Toward a Common World of National Minority Cultural Policy
• Back Matter