文化治理

文化治理是以文化进行政治与社会、经济的调节^[1]，涉及了文化于各领域的治理作用，而不限于文化事务的行政管理。它包括政府制定的文化政策，但也包括受非国家行为者所倡议而影响的文化和间接影响文化的政策。 ^[2]

定义

文化治理大多由政府进行主导，但这并非官方的专利，也包含了公民、文化界、学界等私部门对于历史及文化遗产保存的推动与对文化的影响。“治理”的广义解释还可以包括文化政策范围之外，但影响文化的政府政策 ^[3]；而“文化多样性”则是文化治理中广泛被提及的，涵盖了从有形到无形的各种文化。

文化治理的确切含义，有相当大的程度取决于对“文化”的定义，狭义而言可以指包含GLAM（博物馆、图书馆、档案馆、美术馆）、剧场、音乐厅等文化机构与艺术文化的链接，广义而言则包含向是社会的生活方式或其知识系统与符号意涵。 ^[4]从更广泛的角度来看，文化治理从整体上处理社会中意义的产生，包括文化产业、品味的形成和语言的使用。 ^[5]

而在文化治理兴起的趋势下，某些起初并非以文化保存为首要目标的社会运动，也开始挪用“文化策略”的阐述，将不被普遍认同其文化价值的对象加以“文化化”，宣称其保存价值，藉以迎合官方对于文化治理的意图，甚至发展出讲求以“文化”为主轴的新运动。^[6]

世界

全球文化治理的主要机构是联合国教科文组织，这是一个总部位于法国巴黎，成立于 1946 年的联合国专门机构。 ^[7]教科文组织订定的文件指引经常被地方政府用作为指导方针，甚至成为政府的法律条文。他还促进了全球文化多样性联盟等网络的发展，以促进文化领域的公共/社会/私人伙伴关系。近年来^[何时？]教科文组织更强调了城市（地方非营利组织参与地方治理）作为文化参与者的重要性，并以其所属的国际反对种族主义城市联盟和全球创意城市网络来进行推动。 ^[7]

21世纪文化议程Logo

联合国教科文组织本身在评选、发展和推广世界文化遗产方面依赖与公民部门的伙伴关系。 ^[7]评选世界遗产的会议吸引了数百名与会者，包括感兴趣的团体代表。“世界遗产”议题透过在大众媒体中的宣传以及诸如《国家地理》杂志和其他相关出版物的宣传而更广为人知。这个过程的所有步骤都促进了“元文化”的发展，能够从普遍性的角度来讨论全球文化问题，并产出文化经典。 ^{[5] [8]}

21世纪文化议程由国际组织城市和地方政府联合组织运作代表了其成员在地方层级进行全球治理的平台。^[7]这个概念认同了“文化是永续发展的第四大支柱”，为《21世纪议程》所订立的“永续发展三大支柱：经济、社会和环境”做了扩展。 ^[7]

区域和地方

Camino de Santiago是中世纪的基督教朝圣之路，被欧洲理事会宣布为第一条欧洲文化路线，也被被列为联合国教科文组织世界遗产。 ^[9]

欧盟

欧盟的文化治理包括一系列旨在促进欧洲文化的文化政策。 

欧盟委员会在2007 年的“在全球化世界中的欧洲文化议程”中描述了与文化的交互，通过各种管道包括支持与咨询文化机构、鼓励艺动力（Artist mobility）和跨文化交流、在国际关系中使用欧洲文化、欧盟著作权法的推动与执行，以及欧洲文化产品和服务的推广。 ^{[10] [11]}由于自由市场中文化成果的不足，欧洲各国政府认为有必要积极促进和引导文化发展。此外，跨文化交流和融合被认为与经济一体化相提并论。 ^[11]

参考文献

1. 王志弘. 文化如何治理？一個分析架構的概念性探討. 世新人文社会学报. 2010, (11): 1-38 [2021-10-03]. （原始内容存档于2021-10-03）.
2. Schmitt, Thomas M. Global Cultural Governance. Decision-Making Concerning World Heritage between Politics and Science. Erdkunde. 2009, 63 (2): 103–121 [2021-10-03]. ISSN 0014-0015. （原始内容存档于2021-10-03）.
3. Schmitt (2011), pp. 48–49. “In order to be able to understand the governance of a cultural object, this must not just be considered alone, but also in the light of the often conflicting overlaps and interferences between different fields of governance that have an interest in the “cultural object”. Such considerations lead to the concept of cultural governance in the broad sense. For example, the members of a theater ensemble may be bound by labour regulations, or the treatment of a historic building may be determined by fire prevention regulations or the specific interest of the users.”
4. Schmitt (2011), pp. 11–18. Concepts or ideas thus have a twofold dialectical relationship with human agency on the one hand, and institutions on the other hand: concepts or ideas have a discursive influence on human agency, shaping actions, whether consciously, practically or unconsciously (see also Giddens 1984, Werlen 1997: 153). However, when actors take up ideas and appropriate them for themselves, they can change them, or they can create new ideas; they do not always have to act as passive recipients and actualizers of discourses. There is also a dialectical relationship between ideas and concepts on the one hand, and institutions on the other hand; but strictly speaking this relationship is always mediated by human agency. Political institutions (such as UNESCO) can take up and spread ideas, and can also reshape them. Ideas and institutions mutually “frame” each other (for a neo-Gramscian view, see Bøås/ McNeill 2004). / Ideas, symbols, concepts constitute one pole of the cultural sphere, while the other pole is made up of actions and practices (especially rituals and performances) and the material (or digital) artefacts in which concepts, ideas, senses and meanings are manifested.”
5. Thomas M. Schmitt, “Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning World Heritage Between Politics and Science （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）”; Erdkunde 63(2), 2009. 引用错误：带有name属性“Schmitt2009”的<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次
6. 王, 志弘. 文化治理與空間政治. 台湾台北市: 群学. 2011. ISBN 9789866525476.
7. Nancy Duxbury & Sharon Jeannotte, "Global Cultural Governance Policy （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）"; Chapter 21 in The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture; London: Ashgate, 2013. "While global entities such as the World Bank or the World Trade Organization have played roles in global cultural governance, the primary actor in this policy area over the past 40 or 50 years has been the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)." 引用错误：带有name属性“DuxburyJeannotte2013”的<ref>标签用不同内容定义了多次
8. Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）”; Museum International, June 2004; doi:10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00458.x.
9. Cristina Sánchez-Carretero, "Heritage Regimes and the Camino de Santiago: Gaps and Logics"; in Regina F. Bendix, Aditya Eggert, & Arnika Peselmann, eds., Heritage Regimes and the State, Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property, Volume 6; Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2012; ISBN 978-3-86395-075-0.
10. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）; Brussels, 10 May 2007.
11. Rachael Craufurd Smith, “The Cultural Logic of Economic Integration”; in Psychogiopoulou (2015).

参考书目

• Macdonald, Susan & Caroline Cheong (2014). The Role of Public-Private Partnerships and the Third Sector in Conseving Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Historic Urban Areas （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. ISBN 978-1-937433-19-2.
• Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia (2015). Cultural Governance and the European Union: Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity in Europe. Palgrave- Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-45375-4.
• Schmitt, Thomas (2011). Cultural Governance as a conceptual framework. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity. MMG Working Paper 11-02. ISSN 2192-2357.
• Shepherd, Robert J. & Larry Yu (2013). Heritage Management, Tourism, and Governance in China: Managing the Past to Serve the Present. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4614-5918-7.