Naturalizing culture—time for an ecological understanding of “culture” in international culture and sustainability policies

Miikka Pyykkönen
{"title":"Naturalizing culture—time for an ecological understanding of “culture” in international culture and sustainability policies","authors":"Miikka Pyykkönen","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2024.1252771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current hegemonic understanding of culture and sustainability leans strongly on the conceptualization of ‘culture’ as profoundly anthropocentric. ‘Sustainability’ in cultural policies again means often the potential of creative industries in contributing to economic growth. This approach can be seen as very problematic in the era of extending the environmental crisis, which urgently calls for not only new kinds of policies on sustainability but also new thinking on the relationship between culture and nature. The main purpose of this article is to analyze how recent theories and concepts concerning the rethinking of nature–culture relationship and ecological citizen-subjectivity could challenge the hegemonic economist sustainability discourse of cultural policies. The article presents the results of discourse analysis on how the economic side of sustainability has recently become the mainstream signification in international cultural policies and what are the major documents and institutions maintaining and strengthening this approach. The discourse analysis focuses on the questions: how is cultural sustainability systematically signified, and what are the arguments and justifications for the main significations the documents make? The data consist of the conventions, declarations, and program papers of the G20, OECD, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, and WTO from “Brundtland report” (1987) until now. Theoretically, I go through the recent ideas of social theories on the ecologization of economy, society, culture, and citizenship/subjectivity as proposed by Tim Jackson, Bruno Latour, Andreas Malm, and the Planetary Wellbeing Research Group. I consider how the hegemony of economism and anthropocentrism in cultural policies could be changed with their help.","PeriodicalId":502753,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1252771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current hegemonic understanding of culture and sustainability leans strongly on the conceptualization of ‘culture’ as profoundly anthropocentric. ‘Sustainability’ in cultural policies again means often the potential of creative industries in contributing to economic growth. This approach can be seen as very problematic in the era of extending the environmental crisis, which urgently calls for not only new kinds of policies on sustainability but also new thinking on the relationship between culture and nature. The main purpose of this article is to analyze how recent theories and concepts concerning the rethinking of nature–culture relationship and ecological citizen-subjectivity could challenge the hegemonic economist sustainability discourse of cultural policies. The article presents the results of discourse analysis on how the economic side of sustainability has recently become the mainstream signification in international cultural policies and what are the major documents and institutions maintaining and strengthening this approach. The discourse analysis focuses on the questions: how is cultural sustainability systematically signified, and what are the arguments and justifications for the main significations the documents make? The data consist of the conventions, declarations, and program papers of the G20, OECD, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, and WTO from “Brundtland report” (1987) until now. Theoretically, I go through the recent ideas of social theories on the ecologization of economy, society, culture, and citizenship/subjectivity as proposed by Tim Jackson, Bruno Latour, Andreas Malm, and the Planetary Wellbeing Research Group. I consider how the hegemony of economism and anthropocentrism in cultural policies could be changed with their help.
文化自然化--从生态学角度理解国际文化和可持续性政策中的 "文化 "的时间
当前对文化和可持续性的霸权理解主要是将 "文化 "概念化为深刻的人类中心主义。文化政策中的 "可持续性 "往往也意味着创意产业在促进经济增长方面的潜力。在环境危机不断扩大的时代,这种方法可以说是非常有问题的,因为环境危机不仅迫切要求制定新型的可持续发展政策,还要求对文化与自然之间的关系进行新的思考。本文的主要目的是分析近期有关重新思考自然-文化关系和生态公民-主体性的理论和概念如何挑战文化政策中霸权经济主义的可持续性话语。文章介绍了话语分析的结果,即可持续性的经济层面如何在最近成为国际文化政策的主流符号,以及有哪些主要文件和机构在维护和加强这种方法。话语分析主要关注以下问题:文化可持续性是如何被系统化地表述的,文件中主要表述的论点和理由是什么?数据包括从 "布伦特兰报告"(1987 年)至今的 20 国集团、经合组织、联合国、联合国贸易与发展会议、联合国教科文组织和世界贸易组织的公约、宣言和计划文件。从理论上讲,我研究了蒂姆-杰克逊(Tim Jackson)、布鲁诺-拉图尔(Bruno Latour)、安德烈亚斯-马尔姆(Andreas Malm)和行星福祉研究小组(Planetary Wellbeing Research Group)最近提出的关于经济、社会、文化和公民身份/主体性生态化的社会理论观点。我将考虑如何在他们的帮助下改变经济主义和人类中心主义在文化政策中的霸权地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信