Earticle

Eines der großen kulturpolitischen Projekte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist das sogenannte ?Humboldt-Forum“, das im neu erbauten Stadtschloss inmitten Berlins geplant ist. Dabei geht es um nicht mehr oder weniger als um eine historische Klarung 100 Jahr nach dem Ende deutscher Kolonien:Was wurde anderen Kulturen geraubt und außer Landes gebracht? Wie geht es weiter mit den ethnologischen Museen in Deutschland und Europa? Und welche Prasentation der Artefakte wird im 21. Jahrhundert dem Anspruch gerecht, die Kolonialzeit kritisch aufzuarbeiten? Provinienz-Forschung wird dabei ebenso Schwerpunkt einer neuen Kulturpolitik wie der Umgang mit Restitution. Eine andere Baustelle ist unmittelbar an die Debatte um Dekolonialisierung geknupft:Wie viel Vielfalt reprasentiert die deutsche Kulturlandschaft? Personal, Programm und Publikum der Kunstbetriebe, insbesondere Theater und Museen, entsprechen immer noch nicht dem Querschnitt der Bevolkerung! Und die hat zu einem Viertel Migrationshintergrund, bleibt aber trotz offentlicher Forderung außen vor. Es gibt viele kunstlerische Projekte und kulturpolitische Programme, die sich dem Diversitatsmanagement widmen und mit Audience Development Impulse zu setzen wissen, um der UNESCO-Konvention zum Schutz und zur Forderung der Vielfalt kultureller Ausdrucksformen gerecht zu werden. Dazu zahlen auch Maßnahmen der kommunalen Kulturpolitik in Bund, die Dezentralitat von Kulturarbeit zu ermoglichen. Mit dem Programm ?TRAFO-Modelle fur Kultur im Wandel“ wendet sich die Kulturstiftung des Bundes erstmals gezielt an landliche Regionen und kleinere Gemeinden, um dort Transformationsprozesse anzustoßen. Dabei geht es nicht allein darum, moglichst viele der bestehenden Einrichtungen zu bewahren, sondern vielmehr nach ihrer veranderten Rolle zu fragen:Wen wollen wir erreichen? Wie soll ein attraktives Kulturangebot in Zukunft aussehen? Wie kann es anders organisiert werden? Gefordert werden Projekte und kunstlerische Ansatze mit Pionierfunktion, die neue Wege kultureller Produktion aufzeigen.

The huge popularity of Korean pop culture overseas, labeled Hallyu,otherwise known as the Korean Wave, is an unprecedented event in the culturalhistory of Korea. Many foreign observers tend to see it as the result of the Koreangovernment’s policy efforts. This paper claims that Hallyu in essence is an unintended“success without design.” No one, including the Korean government,intentionally planned it. There were five key factors that made it possible: thecompetitiveness of Korean culture industries, political economic changes inEast Asian countries, entrepreneurs in show business, fragmentary governmentalsupport, and global digital networks. Each of these factors has independentlycontributed in its own way to the success of Hallyu. The fact that Hallyu is not aproduct of any deliberate plan has some important implications for cultural policyand culture industries.

South Korean popular culture has generated a great deal of interest abroad, making South Korea into a potentially major soft power. In spite of the global dissemination of South Korean popular music and television drama, there is a genre that remains relatively unknown abroad: literature. This paper seeks to explain the reasons why South Korean literature is not part of the Korean Wave. In addition, the paper points to the potential problems of cultural policy that seeks to export “culture”: global popularity may very well vitiate cultural content.

High tech products come from highly educated societies, where families choose quality over quantity in children, causing low fertility, hence, population-aging, and labor shortage. From personal stamina and strength, the source of comparative advantages shifts to collective effort like research and public communication, and leadership with insight, reputation and expertise. Hundreds of architects can thrive in a firm under one star leader. In particular, for high tech societies strong in implementation and communication, agglomerative externality benefits fields like entertainment and mass media. Additionally, state sponsorship, social commitment and visionary policies can nurture historical and cultural endowment. Again, by Linder hypothesis, products of national passion evolve into distinctive exports. With wideband infrastructure, successive presidential proclamations on cultural industrial policy, and media support, successful Korean TV plays, movies and on-line games have demonstrated the four-fold economic principles stated above. Thus, for on-line games, 34 Korean universities established major programs, and qualified draftees can substitute game training for military duties. A leisure activity soon becomes a national sport. A key impact may be on economic structure: triumphs have invited creative pioneers to augment thriving Chaebols.

This study compares two countries, Korea and Japan, in the diffusion and usage of the internet among college students. The two countries exhibit different strategies in adopting new IT, which influences the adoption rate of the internet. Although Korea and Japan are adjacent to each other and share somewhat similar values and culture, there are significant differences in the usage of new media and new technologies. We attempt to empirically investigate these differences between the two countries. A survey of 977 university students of the two countries reveal that although governmental policy fueled the diffusion of internet service usages, there are other cultural factors that influence the adoption and usage of internet services. Koreans are more inclined to use the internet as a communication media, whereas the Japanese use the internet for information and entertainment. Individualistic vs. collectivist culture seems to have influenced these differences in usage patterns. Although Korea and Japan are often regarded to be similar in many socio?economics developments and sometimes culture, the adoption of the internet is significantly different between the two countries.

The argument in this paper is two?fold: (1) Policy making should reflect a consideration for socio­cultural factors; and 2) Policy making, whether or not policy makers realize it or desire it or not, inevitably reflects the influence of socio­cultural factors. Cultural forms of ECEC are valuable, under?appreciated, and endangered by globalization and pressures to modernize, rationalize, and compete with those of other countries. These beliefs and practices should be preserved and treasured. But they should not be viewed as fixed. Early childhood education practitioners, policy makers, and scholars should value the early childhood educational beliefs and practices of their culture and should think of them as national treasures, as patrimony, as endangered educational ecology, which it is their responsibility to protect and pass on to the next generation.

This study explores the role of cultural values in shaping attitudes toward compliance with emergency measures during health crises, such as the COVID?19 pandemic. While culture is a multi?dimensional concept, scholars often rely on the individualism?collectivism dichotomy to explain the higher compliance observed in East Asian countries compared to the West. Beyond the simple dichotomies of previous studies, this study categorizes cultural characteristics of East Asian societies into four key aspects?anti?pluralism, social hierarchy, social harmony, and group primacy. Based on the latest data from the 6th Asian Barometer Survey, the results of the analysis significantly support the idea that different aspects of cultural values have varying impacts on citizens' compliance with emergency measures within East Asian societies. Specifically, attitudes toward anti?pluralism and social hierarchy are more strongly associated with higher compliance than those toward social harmony and group primacy. The results examining the interaction with trust in government also show that the influence of cultural values persists, even when such trust is low.

Over the past two decades, South Korea has increasingly engaged in cultural public diplomacy; however, empirical research on its effectiveness in advancing foreign policy interests is lacking. Existing studies focus on how cultural public diplomacy shapes Korea's image and the attractiveness of Korean products among foreign consumers without addressing the ultimate diplomatic objective of influencing the actions of foreign governments. This study fills this research gap by examining the impact of the King Sejong Institute (KSI), a government-funded cultural institution, on Korea's foreign policy pursuits worldwide. Analyzing data from 2005 2021 - spanning 192 countries (84 with KSI), our study reveals that the presence of KSI leads to increased political alignment in voting on United National General Assembly resolutions and greater de jure economic integration between the Korean and host governments. These results suggest that KSI can serve as a strategic tool to foster amicable bilateral relations.

The sole purpose of imposing colonial language on the colonies was to create a group of people who mediate between rulers and the ruled. The ruled ones were always on the receiving end and had nothing to lose except their pride to be forced to learn what they didn’t want to. Language has both cultural and academic influence on the learned ones. Colonial education has been controversial and widely divergent interpretations have been offered from contrasting ideological perspectives. But often, the implementation of a new education system leaves those who are colonized with a lack of identity and a limited sense of their past. The indigenous history and customs once practiced and observed slowly slips away. The colonized become hybrids of two vastly different cultural systems. Colonial education creates a blurring that makes it difficult to differentiate between the new, enforced ideas of the colonizers and the formerly accepted native practices.

이 논문의 목적은 한국 지역발전 정책의 진화에서 자본의 문화적 순환에 관계된 행위자-네트워크의 영향력을 검토하여 설명하는 것이다. 이를 위해, 2000년대 초반부터 2010년대 초반까지 벌어진 사건을 중심으로 글로벌 컨설팅 기업과 국내 경제언론 간에 맺어진 초국적 행위자-네트워크의 역할에 주목한다. 이 시기 동안 우리나라의 지역발전 정책은 지역 간 균형을 추구하는 공간적 케인스주의가 쇠퇴하며 지역 경쟁력에 집중하는 방향으로 선회했는데, 이는 국토종합(개발)계획, 수도권정비계획, 국가균형발전특별법의 변화를 통해서 확인했다. 이때 등장했던 혁신성 및 창의성 주도형 지역발전 정책의 형성 과정에서 자본의 문화적 순환에 관여하는 행위자-네트워크, 구체적으로 매일경제와 글로벌 컨설팅 기업이 공동 생산하여 확산시키는 처방적 경영지식과 마이클 포터나 리처드 플로리다와 같은 지역정책 구루의 역할이 중요했다. 이러한 경험적 발견은 구조주의에 기반한 지배적인 설명 양식의 한계를 드러내고, 지역발전 정책 연구에서 행위자 중심적 접근의 적합성과 타당성을 적시한다. 아울러, 관리주의 거버넌스와 기업가주의 거버넌스 간 이분법적 개념화의 현실적 문제도 발견했다. 문화적 순환의 행위자들은 관리주의적 담론과 실천의 지식을 생산해 유포하는 경향이 현저했기 때문이다. 따라서 기업가주의 거버넌스가 관리주의의 새로운 형태는 아닌지에 대하여 보다 면밀히 점검할 필요가 있다고 판단된다.

This article offers an account of how regional development policy in Korea has evolved under the influence of actor-networks comprising the cultural circuit of soft capitalism. In so doing, the roles played by transnational actor-networks forged between global consulting firms and national business media are emphasized. For this discussion, the waning of spatial Keynesianism in the country is contextualized in the first place, with particular attention to changing planning goals of key regional development policies including consultancies, influential policy gurus (e.g., Michael Porter and Richard Florida), and local business media outlet Maekyong are found to be key movers and shakers in the transition. These empirical findings call for striking a balance between dominant structuralist accounts and emerging actor-oriented approaches, and also help shed a new light on the dualistic conceptualization of managerialist and entrepreneurial governance in a way that the latter may be a new form of the former.

This article employs surveys by Gallup, the Central Asia Barometer, and the Barometer of Eurasian Integration, as well as focus groups that were commissioned as part of this research, to argue (1) that Kazakhstani perceptions of the United States compare unfavorably to perceptions of China and especially of Russia; (2) that Russian influence is a minor or nonexistent cause of the United States’ poor image; (3) that US cultural influence has an ambiguous effect on the country’s image in Kazakhstan, due to a “clash of values” between conservative Kazakhstani society and relatively liberal US cultural exports; (4) that the United States’ foreign policy, especially its violation of other states’ sovereignty, has an unambiguously negative effect on its image among Kazakhstanis; and (5) that the resulting relatively negative image of the United States translates into reluctance to build or maintain ties with it. In conclusion, we highlight areas in which the United States?Kazakhstan cooperation is likely to receive a better reception.

Seongnam is one of the major cities around Seoul, the Capital of South Korea and the number of its population reaches at around 1million. The city has been separated into two parts, so called, 'Old downtown' and 'New downtown' in terms of socio-economic class division, even the citizens' psychological way of thinking 'What we are as a citizen of Seongnam'. The separation have threatened socio-economic integrity and cultural identity of the city and regarded as one of the major obstacles to developing the city. It is, therefore, one of the principal tasks for Seongnam Cultural Foundation to tackle the impediments. Seongnam Cultural Foundation has focused on 'citizens -centred cultural policy and practice', aiming at transforming Seongnam into a cultural city with possibility of community recovered and power of community enhanced. To do this job, an ideal and essential medium would be voluntary art network which is organised by amateur or citizen-led art groups in both making-policy and delivering -policy, expecting them to establish new identity of the city. The network and groups are called in Seonangnam 'Club, Sarangbang'. Based on this background, Seongnam Cultural Foundation has founded five cultural policy projects and delivered them since 2006; [그림] ① Establishing the identity of Cultural City, Seongnam ② Club Sarangbang Network ③ Building Cultural Community in Our Town ④ Setting Cultural Currency System ⑤ Promoting Creative Activity of Seongnam Citizens All projects are closely related to each other and the principle of them is to support citizens in order to build sustainable cultural environment by themselves and develop their creativity in their ordinary life. Therefore, it is the most important task to support citizens' creative base and network them. To do this task, firstly 1,103 clubs were found by research and support them to make their network. the network, the core of all the projects, is called 'Club Sarangbang' whose diverse activities performed in ordinary life in town. 'Cultural Currency' mediates between clubs and space, relieving their economic condition. By these cultural policy projects, it would be possible to create public sphere in which citizens communicate each other and build their network. From this point of view, cultural identity of Seongnam would emerge and be formed, in the end the city would be transformed into cultural city.

최근 한국의 예술 분야에서 “문화매개”라는 용어가 빈번히 사용되고 있다. 기존의 문헌들은 정책 연구의 문화매개(médiation culturelle)와 사회학의 문화매개자(cultural intermediaries)를 개념적으로 분리하거나 상호 배타적인 것으로 취급해왔다. 정책 지향적 문화매개 논의는 문화 민주주의적 견지에서 향유자의 예술 경험을 증진시키는 전문 직무를 문화매개라 정의하는 반면, 산업 지향적 문화매개자 논의는 생산과 소비 사이의 다양한 지점에서 가치를 형성하는 전문가를 문화매개자로 정의한다. 본 연구는 두 관점이 문화정책과 문화산업 모두에서 증가하는 매개 활동이라는 동일한 현상을 상이한 이해관심으로 정의하는 것으로 파악하고 둘 사이의 이론적 연결을 구축하여 문화매개(자)에 대한 포괄적이고 심층적인 이해를 시도하고자 한다. 특히 문화매개 개념 및 직무가 내포하는 불확실성을 문화정책과 문화산업의 이념적이고 구조적인 맥락 속에서 탐구함으로써 문화매개가 근원적으로 모순적이고 복합적임을 드러내고자 한다. 마지막으로 본 연구는 사회학의 이론적 자원들을 통해 문화매개에 내재하는 고유한 불확실성에 대한 이해를 도모함으로써 문화매개가 지향하는 문화 민주주의의 가능성과 한계를 가늠하고자 한다.

Recently, the term “cultural mediation” has been frequently used in the field of cultural policy research in Korea. Most works on this topic have made a distinction between the notion of “cultural mediation” in the field of cultural policy research and that of “cultural intermediaries” in the field of cultural sociology by regarding the two conceptually separate and even exclusive to each other. The former from the perspective of cultural democracy defines cultural mediation as professional tasks that improve the audiences’ experiences of art. The latter defines cultural intermediaries as professions who construct the value of symbolic goods within the chains of cultural industry that link products with consumers. This study tries to build a theoretical linkage between the two research orientations by arguing that they investigate the same phenomenon which emerges across cultural policy and cultural industry from different perspectives. By utilizing theoretical resources of cultural sociology to investigate the uncertainty inherent in cultural mediation within the ideological and structural dynamics in cultural policy and cultural industry, this study argues that the notion and task of cultural mediation is contradictory and complex in its nature. This study also argues that sociological analysis of the unique uncertainty of cultural mediation will contribute to the understanding of both the limit and the possibility of cultural democracy entailed by cultural mediation.

이 논문은 ‘박정희 시대’로 통칭되는 1960∼1970년대 한국 문화정책을 문화사회학적인 시각에서 보다 심층적으로 이해하기 위해 이 시기 문화정책을 초국가적 맥락과 비교하여 조망해보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 이 논문은 먼저 학문 영역에서의 문화담론과 프랑스 문화정책, 그리고 유네스코 국제규범을 중심으로 이 시기 초국가적 맥락에서 문화를 둘러싸고 대두되었던 학문적·정책적 측면에서의 논의들을 살펴본다. 그리고 이와의 비교적 관점에서 당시 한국의 문화정책을 고찰한다. 분석 결과, 1960∼1970년대 문화정책을 둘러싼 초국가적 흐름은 문화적 위계와 심미적 보편성을 강조하는 엘리트주의적 예술관을 벗어나 문화의 다양성과 상대성을 인정하고, 문화소비 및 생산 활동에 있어 대중의 자율성을 존중하는 방향으로 이동해 갔다. 반면에, 같은 시기 한국 문화정책은 국가권력에 의해 문화의 범위와 가치가 ‘민족’과 ‘외래’, ‘건전’과 ‘불온’의 축에 따라 위계화 되고, 대중은 국가위기의 극복과 국가 경제 발전이라는 목표 아래 개인보다는 ‘집단’으로, 자율적 선택과 비판적 목소리를 내기보다 국가가 원하는 방식대로 ‘동원’되거나 ‘순화’되어야 하는 존재로 규정되는 방향으로 이동하였다. 이를 통해 이 논문은 그동안 한국 문화정책의 태동기이자 체계화 혹은 제도화의 시기로 명명되었던 1960∼1970년대가 문화정책의 방향과 내용, 특히 ‘문화’와 ‘대중’에 대한 인식적 측면에서 시대의 흐름을 거슬렀던 ‘역행의 시기’였음을 주장한다.

This paper aims to examine Korean cultural policy undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s, so-called Park Chung-hee era, particularly in comparison with the transnational contexts in order to reach a deeper understanding of it in a perspective of Sociology of culture. For that end, this paper first explores academic and political discussions regarding culture which had emerged in the transnational contexts in the 60s and 70s, focusing on cultural discourses in relevant academic disciplines, cultural policies of France, and international regulations of UNESCO. Then, it considers Korean cultural policy at the time from the comparative perspective. The results show that the transnational flow in 1960s and 1970s had moved toward a recognition of cultural diversity and relativism, as a departure from the elitist view of art emphasizing cultural hierarchy and aesthetic universality, and made towards respecting the public’s autonomy in their cultural consumption and production. The values and the range of culture in Korean cultural policy during the period, however, were rather assigned by the state authorities and thus were hierarchically stratified according to the axis of ‘national’ vs. ‘foreign’ and ‘sound’ vs. ‘insoluble’. Also, in the name of economic development and overcoming national crises, the Korean public were defined as ‘the masses’ to be ‘mobilized’ or ‘refined’ in the way the state preferred, rather than as independent individuals who are able to make their own decisions and raise voices. The paper concludes that, while the Korean government in the 1960s and 70s has been referred to as an embryonic stage as well as a period of systemization or institutionalization in the field of Korean cultural policy, the very period actually was ‘the years of retrogradations’ which went against the contemporary cultural flows in terms of orientation and contents of the cultural policy and particularly in understanding of ‘the public’ and ‘culture’.

In the contemporary world, a new development paradigm is emerging that links the democracy and culture. The main argument about democracy and culture may be grouped around the conflict between two paradigms: the democratization of culture versus cultural democracy. Government cultural policies, notably in France, are mainly steered toward the democratization of culture. A model of cultural democracy may be defined as one founded on free individual choice, in which the role of a cultural policy is not to interfere with the preferences expressed by citizen-consumers but to support the choices made by individuals or social groups through a regulatory policy applied to the distribution of information or the structures of supply, as happens in other types of markets. The modern post of Minister of Culture was created by Charles de Gaulle in 1959. The first Minister Andre Malraux was responsible for realizing the goals of the “droit a la culture” (“the right to culture”) by democratizing access to culture. To this end, he created numerous regional cultural centers throughout France and actively sponsored the arts. Malraux's artistic tastes included the modern arts and the avant-garde, but on the whole he remained conservative. Under president Francois Mitterrand the Minister of Culture was Jack Lang who showed himself to be far more open to popular cultural production, including jazz, rock and roll, rap music, graffiti art, cartoons, comic books, fashion and food. His famous phrase “economie et culture, meme combat” is representative of his commitment to cultural democracy and to active national sponsorship and participation in cultural production.

문화는 새로운 부가가치를 창출하는 경제적 자원인 동시에 소프트파워(soft power) 의 중요한 구성 부문으로 세계 각국은 문화를 통한 소프트파워 강화에 나서고 있다. 최근 중국정부는 일대일로(一帶一路) 정책을 통해 정치 경제 및 문화 분야에서새로운 개방과 협력을 가져오는 국가 전략으로 제시하였다. 일대일로 정책은 중국의 적극적인 대외전략인 동시에 중화민족의 위대한 부흥을 목표로 하는 중국의꿈(中國夢) 을 완성하는 장기 프로젝트이다. 본 연구는 중국의 소프트파워 강화의 관점에서 중국의 문화정책을 살펴본 뒤 일대일로 정책의 전개과정과 문화적 전략을 분석하였다. 중국은 일대일로 정책을 통해 문화교류 시스템 구축, 문화교류 플랫폼 강화, 문화관련 무역 확대 등 문화 소프트파워 강화를 통해 중국의 영향력 확대라는 목적이함께 있음을 분석하였다. 따라서 중국은 다른 나라와의 문화를 존중하고 서로의가치를 존중하는 인류 보편적인 가치관을 바탕으로 한 문화 소프트파워 강화 전략을 가져야 한다는 점을 시사한다.

Culture is an economic resource that creates new added value and is an important component of soft power. Recently, the Chinese government has been proposed ‘The Belt and Road’ policy as a national strategy which will bring a new opening-up and cooperation in the political, economic and cultural fields. The Belt and Road policy is an active foreign strategy and a long-term project to complete so-called “China's dream”, which is to be implemented a great revival of the Chinese people. This paper examines Chinese cultural policy of the Belt and Road policy in terms of strengthening soft power of China. The Belt and Road policy aims to expand Chinese influence through strengthening cultural soft power such as building cultural exchange system, strengthening cultural exchange platform, and expanding cultural trade. Therefore, it can be suggested that China should have a strategy of strengthening cultural soft power based on universal human values that respects the other's culture and values.

한류의 열기는 지난 10여 년에 걸쳐 문화에 대한 관심을 크게 불러 일으켰다. 이 논문에서는 오늘날 이러한 한류의 추세 속에서 ‘문화산업’과 ‘문화정책’의 논리가 동아시아의 문화 패러다임을 지배하고 있다는 점을 지적한다. 문화산업의 논리는 신자유주의 경제관을 기반으로 하여 자본주의적 경쟁에서 살아남을 수 있는 효율성과 상품성을 강조한다. 따라서 문화 본연의 내재적 가치에 대해 소홀해질 수밖에 없다. 나아가 문화산업의 동반자 역할을 맡고 있는 문화정책의 논리 역시 중앙집중적 메커니즘을 동원하여 하향식 통제체제를 지향하고 있다. 이러한 통제의 논리는 창의성을 생명으로 하는 문화의 본질과 배치된다. 문화산업과 문화정책이 부분적으로 대중사회 시대의 문화의 발전과 보급에 기여하는 것은 분명하지만, 오늘날 다자간 문화 패러다임이 활성화되기 위해서는 문화산업과 문화정책 논리가 지배하는 문화 패러다임을 뛰어넘을 필요가 있다는 것이 본 논문의 주장이다. 문화산업과 문화정책이 극복되어야 할 대상이라면, 본 논문에서는 공동의 정체성 확립과 의미권의 구축을 대안으로 제시하고 있다. 논문에서 제시한 ‘트라디툼’의 논리는 문화적 정체성에 정당성을 부여하는 전통적 요소를 대변한다. 이러한 기반 위에서 공동의 정체성을 확보하려는 노력이 시급하며, 아울러 이를 바탕으로 한 ‘의미권’의 구축이 미래의 과제가 되고 있다. 동아시아 질서의 문화적 구현이라고 할 수 있는 이러한 의미권의 구축은 한 나라의 지배가 아니라 사회적 구성을 통해서만 가능하다. 이러한 작업은 자국 중심주의와 민족주의의 폐해를 극복하고 서로의 존재를 인정하게끔 해주는 ‘문화네트워크’의 구축으로 이어져야 한다는 것이 이 논문의 주장이다. 특히 공동의 문화기획 프로젝트로서 의미를 공유할 수 있는 ‘문화공론장’을 마련하는 일 역시 앞으로 동아시아 미래 질서의 방향을 가늠 짓는 중요한 시금석이 될 것이다.

The fanatic boom of the han-ryu or the Korean wave during the last decade has stimulated people's attention to cultural exchanges in East Asia. This paper argues that the logic of cultural industry and cultural policy has overwhelmed the cultural paradigm in East Asia. The logic of cultural industry is based upon the neoliberal ideology so as to encourage capitalist competitiveness in terms of efficiency and commerciality. This means that we may miss the essential, endogenous values of culture. The logic of cultural policy also hampers the development of cultural assets as it accompanies hierarchical, top-down control mechanisms. This logic of hierarchical control contradicts the core aspect of culture ― creativity. Although the logic of cultural industry and cultural policy has contributed to the improvement and diffusion in the era of mass society, the paper argues for going beyond the current paradigms of cultural industry and cultural policy in order to realize a multilateral cultural paradigm in East Asia. This paper, as an alternative to the existing paradigms of cultural industry and cultural policy, suggests that we need to establish a common identity and a zone of meanings in the region. The concept of traditum introduced here represents the traditional element of legitimizing a common identity. In this sense, the paper necessitates the establishment of a zone of meanings in the East Asian region. This will be the cultural implementation of the future East Asian order, but it should be in the form of social construction rather than domination by a country. Thus, the paper emphasizes the logic of cultural networks in the region in order to overcome the ethnocentric and nationalistic biases in East Asia. The construction of cultural public sphere is also important in setting up the future direction of the East Asian order.

독일 문화예술 정책에서 문화 민주주의가 문화 시민권을 규정하는 일반적인 이념과 원칙이라면, 문화 연방주의는 정책의 구조와 작동 기제를 규정하는 이념과 원칙이다. 독일 문화예술 주권은 민주주의적 차원에서 시민에게 있으며 연방주의적 차원에서 연방주에 있다. 문화 민주주의는 정신과학적 문화주의로 시작해 사회적 문화주의를 거쳐 실용적 문화주의로 변해 왔으며, 문화 연방주의는 분산적 연방주의로 시작해 분권적 연방주의를 거쳐 집중적 연방주의로 전환해 가고 있다. 독일 문화예술 정책의 큰 흐름은 문화 민주주의가 실용성을 띠어가며 문화 연방주의에서 연방정부의 권한이 강화된다는 것이다. 하지만 실용적 문화주의는 문화 민주주의의 테두리를 벗어나지 않고, 집중적 연방주의도 문화 연방주의를 이탈하지 않을 뿐 아니라 문화 민주주의의 틀도 벗어나지 않는다. 코로나19 팬데믹에 대처하는 과정에서 독일 문화예술 정책은 연방정부의 적극적 정책을 통해 ‘모두를 위한, 모두에 의한, 모두와 함께하는 문화(Kultur für alle, von allen und mit allen)’를 추구하기 시작했다.

In the German cultural policy, cultural democracy is the general principle that defines cultural civil rights, whereas cultural federalism is the principle that defines the structure and mechanism of the policy. The German cultural sovereignty belongs to the citizen at the democratic level and to the federal state (Land) at the federalistic level. The cultural democracy has changed from Geisteswissenschaft culturalism through social culturalism to pragmatic culturalism. The cultural federalism is moving from dispersed federalism through devotional federalism to centralized federalism. The major trend in the German cultural policy is that cultural democracy becomes pragmatic and the federal government’s powers are strengthened. However, the pragmatic culturalism does not deviate from the cultural democracy, and the centralized federalism does not deviate not only from the cultural federalism but also from the framework of cultural democracy. In the process of coping with the COVID-19 pandemic, the German cultural policy pursues ‘culture for everyone, by everyone, and with everyone’ through the active policy of the federal government.