著者

川村 陶子

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2022, no.206, pp.206_149-206_164, 2022-03-25 (Released:2022-03-31)

参考文献数

52

---

In today’s world, cross-border movement of people, goods, and information causes instability of sovereign nation-state system and distrust in fundamental values. To attain security and creative development of international society, it is necessary to develop a policy which contributes to co-existence and -creation among people with different cultural backgrounds. Conventional research on cultural and public diplomacy suffers from multiplicity of terminology and difficulty in policy evaluation. A new conceptual framework is necessary, which allows comparative study across time and space, and enables analysis of broader policy process.This paper suggests two new concepts to meet the current needs: (1) management of international cultural relations (ICR-management), and (2) cultural relations policy (CRP). The first concept, ICR-management, refers to cultural resources management for the purpose of constructing better intercultural relations. The second concept, CRP, refers to commitment of a state to ICR-management.The paper consists of three parts. Part One sketches out the theoretical background of ICR-management, drawing on different approaches of IR-scholars (and also of practitioners) to cultural dimension of international relations. There are three main approaches: analytical, administrative, and combined. The combined approach explicitly pursues better cross-cultural relations by exploiting cultural resources. Researchers in other disciplines also take interest in ICR-management; recent works of Cultural Policy Research have especially a lot to offer.Part Two introduces the concept of CRP, i.e., a state’s policy which directly or indirectly promotes ICR-management. CRP consists of cultural policies in a broad sense with four interrelated dimensions: external (traditional cultural or public diplomacy), outward (nation branding and information), inbound (attraction of foreigners), and inland (intercultural education and diversity management). Planning and administration of CRP requires consultation and collaboration among many different actors – both public and private, domestic and foreign. Adopting the concept of CRP would make it possible to consider various “cultural policies,” which have conventionally been handled in different administrative sectors, within a single framework. The concept also enlarges the scope of policymaking in international cultural relations, thus facilitates a broader perspective in the analysis and evaluation of a cultural program.Part Three briefly examines the practices of CRP in Germany and Japan. Scope and content of a country’s CRP vary, according to the nation’s constitution and its history of cultural relations with internal and external “others”. While the CRPs of Germany and Japan contrast in their concepts and structures, the two countries share their historical principle of nation-building and the current issue of accepting migrant workers as a complement to aging society. For Japan, it is instructive that many German organizations with longtime experience in “external” cultural policy currently apply their know-how of ICR-management to new “inbound” and “inland” programs.

著者

川村 陶子

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2000, no.125, pp.180-196,L21, 2000-10-13 (Released:2010-09-01)

参考文献数

49

---

The official concepts of foreign cultural policy in the Federal Republic of Germany, formalized in three policy papers issued in the 1970s, preempt the philosophy of cultural activities in the interdependent and globalized world of the late 1990s. In the three papers, the German government does not actively constitute a “national culture” through presenting publicly authorized cultural elements to people in foreign countries, but it rather promotes transnational relations by encouraging free activities by various social actors across national borders.The formalization of these uniquely “liberal ” concepts —or, the “reform” of foreign cultural policy— resulted from multiple factors at different levels of the policy process concurring during the period from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. Although students of German politics might be tempted to regard the “reform” as a variable dependent upon general political change such as the formation of the social-liberal coalition and Willy Brandt's new Ostpolitik, the reality of policymaking and the content of policy papers, such as the key idea “enlarged concept of culture”, cannot be explained by such a parsimonious model.By tracing the history of the policy process, especially the development of the philosophy of cultural relations itself, one can recognize two factors which were of vital importance for the formalization of new concepts: the changing identity of policymakers, which lay at the base of the very formation of the Brandt government, and the reform initiative within the policy process taken by Ralf Dahrendorf, then the Parliamentary State Secretary of the Foreign Office. On the one hand, the quest for a new “FRG-identity” in the transition period of postwar international relations, which also meant the quest for a new Federal Repubulic open toward the world and contributing to international cooperation, was embodied in the “enlargement of the concept of culture” in the new philosophy. On the other hand, Dahrendorf influenced the making of the policy papers not only in the sense that he took the first step in the “reform” process of the Foreign Office, but also that the opposition party in the Bundestag felt obliged by this popular sociologist to organize a parliamentary inquiry committee for foreign cultural policy, which would produce a thorough report supporting the core of liberal ideas proposed by Dahrendorf himself.Although Dahrendorf left the Foreign Office within 10 months, he played a decisive role in the formalization of new concepts because Dahrendorf, with his progressive liberal theory and distinguished career in the Anglo-American social scientific field, personified the new identity and reform-mindedness of FRG-policymakers at that time. The fact that he could not stay in office for a long time indicates that the genuine Reformeuphorie was transient, but the timing for his initiative was good enough to get the “reform” started. The new concepts of the official FRG-cultural relations are not the byproduct of Brandt's new Ostpolitik, but, through the personality of Dahrendorf, rather reflects the Zeitgeist of the time, which sought for democracy and open-minded transnational cooperation in a changing world.

著者

大沼 保昭 伊藤 毅 西海 眞樹 齋藤 民徒 近藤 信彰 川村 陶子 金 惠京 久保庭 慧 石井 由梨佳 赤松 加寿江 松田 法子 稲葉 信子 小野寺 純子

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

挑戦的研究(開拓)

巻号頁・発行日

2017-06-30

著者

川村 陶子

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2012, no.168, pp.168_74-87, 2012

---

In Germany it is often said that cultural policy is the third pillar of foreign policy. That means culture, together with security and trade, constitutes an essential part of international relations. This concept was formulated during the Cold War period, mainly by Dieter Sattler, director of the Cultural Department of the Foreign Office (1959–66), and Willy Brandt, foreign minister of the Kiesinger administration (1966–69).<br>When the Federal Republic was founded, its government was reluctant of pursuing international cultural policy on its own. It was in the latter half of the 1950s that foreign policymakers, in the face of cultural offensive by the Eastern Bloc, thought they need a systematic cultural policy. Some cultural attachés, such as Sattler in Rome and Bruno E. Werner in Washington D.C., insisted that cultural policy must indeed be placed at the core of West German diplomacy.<br>Sattler regarded cultural policy as a tool of managing transnational relations in the contemporary world of interdependence. As a head of the Cultural Department in Bonn, he insisted that culture is the "third stage" of foreign policy, and strived to establish the organizational, financial, and conceptual bases of foreign cultural policy.<br>The thesis "culture is the third pillar of foreign policy" was formulated by Brandt, who headed the Foreign Office under the grand coalition. When the Cold War was locked in a stalemate, he thought that cultural policy was a suitable means to maintain the unity of German nation without legally admitting the existence of two German states. Though his plan of "all-German foreign cultural policy" was not realized, Brandt repeatedly stated in public that culture is one of the main pillars of foreign policy. The popular foreign minister regarded cultural policy as essential for making Germany a peacepursuing nation.<br>Sattler's "third-stage" argument and Brandt's "third-pillar" argument both see culture as an important field of international relations. The two theses differ, however, in time scope and worldview. While the "third-stage" argument is based on rather liberal vision focusing on interdependence and long-time, structural transformation of the nation-state system, the "thirdpillar" argument is more realistic, stressing the integrity and prosperity of the nation.<br>While the "third-pillar" argument became a cliché, German foreign policymakers could neither establish a firm principle nor execute consistent policy in the field of culture. Rather, foreign cultural policy got increasingly negative attention from politicians and the media, who thought that tax was not used in a proper form. The "third-pillar" argument could actually have created complications, since it did not clarify the content of "culture" while placing cultural policy as a priority.