Happy now?: Well-being and cultural policy

K. Oakley, D. O’Brien, David Lee
{"title":"Happy now?: Well-being and cultural policy","authors":"K. Oakley, D. O’Brien, David Lee","doi":"10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although much of the debate in UK policy circles has been on the definition and measurement of well-being, there have been as yet relatively few attempts to apply a well-being lens to specific policy areas. One partial exception has been cultural policy. In 2010 the Culture and Sport Evidence Programme (CASE) reported on a three-year research project into the drivers and impacts of participation in sports and cultural activity. CASE was a major programme within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the UK's ministry of culture. A key strand of the programme was to understand and assess the benefits of cultural engagement. The project assessed in terms of subjective well-being the value to the individual of participation in sports and engagement in cultural activity (CASE 2010, 5). In a policy area often criticized for its lack of investment in research and evidence-gathering, the size of the programme alone--[pounds sterling]1.8m for an effort that brought together all the main cultural policy organizations in the UK--could be taken as a sign that the \"well-being agenda\" held out some promise for cultural policy-makers. Indeed, it could be argued that cultural activities, with their associations of conviviality, \"flow-like\" engagement (Csikszentmihalyi 1992), and attention to questions of both meaning and belonging, offer fertile ground for policy engagement with well-being. Yet despite the rather startling finding that a visit to the cinema once a week had an income compensation value of [pounds sterling]9,000 per household per year (CASE 2010), developing a well-being-inflected cultural policy is proving quite problematic. Although debates about culture and the good life are of ancient lineage, our concern is with the UK policy regime of the last fifteen years or so, first under the New Labour government (1997-2010) and later under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. This corresponds with the growth of well-being as a policy discourse, both in the UK and internationally. Given that, we use the term \"well-being\" as is commonly done in policy circles to refer to a combination of subjective well-being with more eudemonic measures, although we recognize that these definitions are both contested and confused. Although we understand \"culture\" in a broad sense to include the arts (visual and performing arts, music, literature, and so on), the media (film, TV, radio, videogames, and other social media), heritage (museums, built and natural heritage), and sport, the focus of this paper will be largely on \"cultural policy\" as it concerns the arts and heritage. The link between participation in sports and well-being is reasonably well-demonstrated (Scully et al. 1998; Chatzisarantis and Hagger 2007), whereas media use is more often associated with debates about its role as a source of ill-being and a variety of moral panics (Kraut et al. 1998). Media policy-makers may legitimately wish to stress the well-being benefits of media participation, and in the case of film they sometimes do (DCMS 2012), but theirs is often a rear-guard action against the suggestion that media use is often harmful, particularly for children (Livingstone and Haddon 2009). In the arts, however, the struggle for legitimacy, and hence the call for public spending, is generally stronger, and the use of instrumentalist arguments for advocacy purposes is more fully developed. The arts have thus been the focus--along with heritage--of well-being-influenced policy discourse. New Labour's Cultural Policy: The Emergence of Well-being Until recently, the engagement of cultural policy with ideas about well-being in the UK has been primarily of two sorts: encouraging arts and creative activities as a part of education, and using arts therapy as treatment for ill-being of various sorts. The latter form has perhaps the longest history: from the therapeutic benefits accorded to visual expression for sufferers of schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis, to the use of art as a form of therapy for depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses (Staricoff 2004; Heenan 2006). …","PeriodicalId":82464,"journal":{"name":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":"18-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Report from the Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13021/G8PPPQ.312013.131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Although much of the debate in UK policy circles has been on the definition and measurement of well-being, there have been as yet relatively few attempts to apply a well-being lens to specific policy areas. One partial exception has been cultural policy. In 2010 the Culture and Sport Evidence Programme (CASE) reported on a three-year research project into the drivers and impacts of participation in sports and cultural activity. CASE was a major programme within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the UK's ministry of culture. A key strand of the programme was to understand and assess the benefits of cultural engagement. The project assessed in terms of subjective well-being the value to the individual of participation in sports and engagement in cultural activity (CASE 2010, 5). In a policy area often criticized for its lack of investment in research and evidence-gathering, the size of the programme alone--[pounds sterling]1.8m for an effort that brought together all the main cultural policy organizations in the UK--could be taken as a sign that the "well-being agenda" held out some promise for cultural policy-makers. Indeed, it could be argued that cultural activities, with their associations of conviviality, "flow-like" engagement (Csikszentmihalyi 1992), and attention to questions of both meaning and belonging, offer fertile ground for policy engagement with well-being. Yet despite the rather startling finding that a visit to the cinema once a week had an income compensation value of [pounds sterling]9,000 per household per year (CASE 2010), developing a well-being-inflected cultural policy is proving quite problematic. Although debates about culture and the good life are of ancient lineage, our concern is with the UK policy regime of the last fifteen years or so, first under the New Labour government (1997-2010) and later under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. This corresponds with the growth of well-being as a policy discourse, both in the UK and internationally. Given that, we use the term "well-being" as is commonly done in policy circles to refer to a combination of subjective well-being with more eudemonic measures, although we recognize that these definitions are both contested and confused. Although we understand "culture" in a broad sense to include the arts (visual and performing arts, music, literature, and so on), the media (film, TV, radio, videogames, and other social media), heritage (museums, built and natural heritage), and sport, the focus of this paper will be largely on "cultural policy" as it concerns the arts and heritage. The link between participation in sports and well-being is reasonably well-demonstrated (Scully et al. 1998; Chatzisarantis and Hagger 2007), whereas media use is more often associated with debates about its role as a source of ill-being and a variety of moral panics (Kraut et al. 1998). Media policy-makers may legitimately wish to stress the well-being benefits of media participation, and in the case of film they sometimes do (DCMS 2012), but theirs is often a rear-guard action against the suggestion that media use is often harmful, particularly for children (Livingstone and Haddon 2009). In the arts, however, the struggle for legitimacy, and hence the call for public spending, is generally stronger, and the use of instrumentalist arguments for advocacy purposes is more fully developed. The arts have thus been the focus--along with heritage--of well-being-influenced policy discourse. New Labour's Cultural Policy: The Emergence of Well-being Until recently, the engagement of cultural policy with ideas about well-being in the UK has been primarily of two sorts: encouraging arts and creative activities as a part of education, and using arts therapy as treatment for ill-being of various sorts. The latter form has perhaps the longest history: from the therapeutic benefits accorded to visual expression for sufferers of schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis, to the use of art as a form of therapy for depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses (Staricoff 2004; Heenan 2006). …
现在快乐吗?:福利和文化政策
尽管英国政策圈的大部分争论都是关于幸福的定义和衡量,但迄今为止,将幸福的视角应用于具体政策领域的尝试相对较少。文化政策是一个部分例外。2010年,文化和体育证据方案(CASE)报告了一项为期三年的研究项目,研究参与体育和文化活动的驱动因素和影响。CASE是英国文化部文化、媒体和体育部(DCMS)的一个主要项目。该计划的一个关键部分是理解和评估文化参与的好处。该项目从主观幸福感的角度评估了参与体育和文化活动对个人的价值(CASE 2010, 5)。在一个经常因缺乏研究和证据收集投资而受到批评的政策领域,单是这个项目的规模——180万英镑,汇集了英国所有主要的文化政策组织——就可以被视为“福祉议程”为文化政策制定者带来了一些希望的迹象。事实上,可以说,文化活动与欢乐、“流动式”参与(Csikszentmihalyi, 1992)以及对意义和归属问题的关注有关,为政策与福祉的接触提供了肥沃的土壤。然而,尽管有一个相当惊人的发现,即每周去一次电影院,每户家庭每年的收入补偿价值为9000英镑(CASE 2010),但制定一项受福祉影响的文化政策被证明是相当有问题的。虽然关于文化和美好生活的争论由来已久,但我们关注的是过去15年左右英国的政策体制,首先是新工党政府(1997-2010),后来是保守党-自由民主党联合政府。这与福祉作为一种政策话语的增长相对应,无论是在英国还是在国际上。考虑到这一点,我们使用“幸福”一词,就像政策界通常做的那样,指的是主观幸福与更幸福的措施的结合,尽管我们认识到这些定义既有争议又令人困惑。虽然我们从广义上理解“文化”包括艺术(视觉和表演艺术、音乐、文学等)、媒体(电影、电视、广播、电子游戏和其他社交媒体)、遗产(博物馆、建筑和自然遗产)和体育,但本文的重点将主要放在“文化政策”上,因为它涉及艺术和遗产。参与体育运动与幸福感之间的联系得到了很好的证明(Scully et al. 1998;Chatzisarantis和Hagger 2007),而媒体的使用更多地与关于其作为疾病和各种道德恐慌来源的角色的辩论有关(Kraut et al. 1998)。媒体决策者可能有理由希望强调媒体参与带来的福祉,就电影而言,他们有时也会这样做(DCMS 2012),但他们通常是对媒体使用往往有害的建议采取的后防行动,特别是对儿童(Livingstone和Haddon 2009)。然而,在艺术领域,争取合法性的斗争,以及因此而要求公共支出的呼声,通常更为强烈,而且为了宣传目的而使用工具主义论点的情况也更为充分。因此,艺术和遗产一直是受福祉影响的政策话语的焦点。直到最近,在英国,文化政策与幸福观念的接触主要有两种:鼓励艺术和创造性活动作为教育的一部分,以及使用艺术疗法作为治疗各种疾病的方法。后一种形式可能有着最悠久的历史:从精神分裂症和其他形式的精神病患者的视觉表达的治疗益处,到将艺术作为一种治疗抑郁症、焦虑症和其他精神疾病的形式(Staricoff 2004;Heenan 2006)。…
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信