The Implications for Contemporary Australian Cultural Policy - Term Paper Example

STUDENT NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: COURSE NAME: COURSE NUMBER: INSTRUCTOR: INSTITUTION: TOPIC: CULTURE IS AN UNEQUAL PLAYING FIELD WITH UNEQUAL ACCESS TO CULTURE CONSUMPTION. DISCUSS THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION INTO CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND TASTES OF CITIZENS. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN CULTURAL POLICY? DATE: INTRODUCTION Culture refers to a complex and varied system of inter- related and shared beliefs, customs, knowledge, practices and signifiers of a society that provides structure and importance to the groups that exist within that society and eventually an individual’s experience of his personal, social and physical worlds (Kashima, 2001). This involves shared norms, attitudes, beliefs and values as seen in the kin relationships, the language used, the law and general practices of a society. Mostly, cultural practices are a dynamic phenomenon that are maintained collectively and changed by societal members over time. Therefore, cultural transmission, maintenance and transformation are created through the continuous interaction of people engaged in shared activities in concrete situations (Halloran, 2004, p. 2). Nevertheless, whereas culture is for the most part socially constructed and maintained, governments also can play a part in its evolution. Throughout history, governments have played a key role in advancing culture and policies related to culture. Indeed, many governments place a major emphasis on cultural to the extent that many governments have ministries of culture and/ or heritage such as the governments of New Zealand, Kenya among others. This government involvement in a nation’s culture has both its downsides and upsides. As such, the role of the government in shaping up the culture of a nation cannot be gainsaid and the following discussion shall thus examine how governments intervene in culture; the consequences of such intervention and the implications of such intervention on contemporary Australian Cultural policy from a historical context. THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION INTO CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND TASTES OF CITIZENS Governmental intervention into the cultural activities and tastes of citizens comes about in various ways. According to the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage (2004), this government intervention can take the form of cultural policy formulation; providing advice on the expansion of international interchanges and contacts; the growth of cultural industries; and the fostering of the importance of cultural awareness and artistic achievement. According to Globerman (1983, p. 68) the tools of government intervention into culture can be broadly grouped thus: (1) direct government expenditures, subsidies and/ or indirect subsidies such as tax expenditures given to non profit cultural organizations like museums and performing arts groups; (2) direct or indirect subsidies to profit- making producers for instance the exemption of books from government sales taxes; and (3) several types of regulation that usually involve restrictions on competition from foreign producers through measures such as content requirements on radio and television broadcasters. Indeed, one of the fastest growing forms of government regulation is government regulation. This often takes the form of regulations on the licensing rights of broadcasting rights and ownership and operation of cable television and content requirements for television and radio broadcasters. The result of this regulation is that it shapes the tastes and preferences of its citizenry by dictating what type of television programmes they watch, the type of music they listen to, and so on. There are various consequences for such government intervention. One such consequence is with regards to the curtailing of the freedom of expression. When cultural representatives such as musicians or artistes are prevented from expressing themselves freely, the result is the development of a narrow and definition of culture and identity that not all the members of the society in question will be able to identify with. People will thus be forced to adhere to the cultural norms of another group, even if it is against their own cultural norms. This subtle form of coercion if left unchecked can brew discontent and cause social instability which may eventually lead to violence. Another consequence is with regards to how government interests within the cultural industry are structured in terms of the uneasy mix of cultural and commercial objectives within various broadcasting policies in the world. For instance, in New Zealand, Television New Zealand is owned by the State and is thus a primarily commercial enterprise and the type and level of cultural content is controlled by the management and Board. The current monitoring arrangements and structures do not consider the cultural impact of broadcasting (The New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, 2004). As such, there is a great danger of the advancement of government propaganda if there is government intervention in cultural matters. A further consequence is the curtailing of unbiased production of information that is very important for the survival of a free society. Australians are entitled to a justification for accepting the costs and the risks associated with the active cultural intervention pursued by the government. In addition, the idea that one culture is superior to others is often propagated through government intervention. This is particularly so if the culture that is being advanced belongs to the dominant ethnic group. Advocates of government intervention argue that government promotion of culture is essential in enhancing social survival. Further to that, they claim that state intervention is necessary in ensuring the survival of artistic markets (Globerman, 1983, p. xviii). However, such an argument holds little water since, if indeed the advancement of culture is a real requirement for social survival, why should a progressive society acting on its own self- interest not voluntarily promote culture? The truth is, there is an underlying prejudice in government intervention which alludes to the fact that some tastes are better than others, an intolerable basis for government action in a supposedly democratic society. Another argument is that government intervention is necessary for the advancement of a country's sense of identity (Globerman, 1983, p. xx). THE IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION FOR CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN CULTURAL POLICY Australian society is characterized by ethnic complexity and with this comes cultural and economic implications. In 1989, the Anglo-Celt group comprised approximately three quarters of the population; other European groups comprised 20 per cent and Aboriginal and Asian groups comprised only 5 per cent of the total population (Webmasters World of Cultural Democracy, 2007). Ever since the World War 2, Australia has been very prominent in Asian affairs and has strengthened its economic and political links with South-East Asia, India and Japan. About two centuries ago, the culture of Australia was fundamentally the Aboriginal culture. However, the initial phases of immigration slowly began to change these cultural customs. A defining moment in relation to Australian cultural values was attained in the 1930s. The European migration was a crucial contributing factor to the transformation that brought many people who had deep interest in cultural activities from Middle-Europe into Australia. Later on, there was a major post-war influx of European immigrants causing the community to become more open to change and also exposed them to a broad range of cultural values. Further to that, progress in relation to transport and communication lessened Australia's isolation from the rest of the world (Webmasters World of Cultural Democracy, 2007). This further caused the community to be receptive to foreign culture. Even in recent years, immigration into Australia by Asian and African people has been on the upward curve due to Australia’s relatively less stringent immigration rules, further changing the ethnic dynamic of the country. In post-industrial Australia, specific measures have been put into the development of culture, welfare activities and leisure through government intervention. Such government intervention has had major negative implications for Australia’s contemporary cultural policy. According to Murn (2008, p. 30), state regulations and bureaucratic red tape has become a growing barrier to a vibrant Australian culture. This is true with regards to the state of artistry in Australia. The hardest part for any Australian artist is at the initial stages of their career. This is due to the fact that artists do not possess the promise of windfall profits that commercial entrepreneurs have and this often turns away investors. Unfortunately, taxpayer subsidies in Australia significantly favor the recognized and established artists. In 2007, the Australia Council allocated $156 million in grants of which about 40 per cent of the total funding ($63 million) was issued directly to orchestras alone. Evidently, obtaining funding is always a major challenge for young Australian artists yet now, they face the added challenge of high regulatory barriers that are major obstacles that prevent them from getting exhibition and per­formance space, getting permits and hosting events (Murn, 2008, p. 30). New artistes find it challenging and quite burdensome to get funding that they have to then spend on lawyers, licenses, public liability insurance, permits, acoustic engineers and building inspectors to ensure they adhere to the regulatory requirements. In addition, there exist various regulations to venues and their availability. Venue owners have to adhere to extremely burdensome regulations. To begin with, a place of public entertainment permit (POPE) is required from the local council for the public to be allowed in. The POPE costs can be as high as $2,050 in the City of Melbourne which negatively affects smaller cultural and com­munity institutions and causes a shortage of venues for upcoming artists. POPE permits carry with them various stringent regulations such as the requirement that venue owners get oc­cupancy permits which involves hiring building inspectors to ascertain that the venue complies with the building code and safety regulations. These regulations and more create a major problem with regards to how to bring an artists talent to the public. Finding a place to perform is unnecessarily difficult and for musicians, in recent years there has been an increasing decrease in the demand for live acts by venue owners. All the various types of regu­lation have undoubtedly contributed to the downward trend in demand (Murn, 2008, p. 30). As such, the musical aspect of Australian culture has been negatively affected whereby fewer artists are able to display their talents diluting the overall art scene in the country. Government intervention is also present in relation to liquor consumption. As in any country, liquor consumption is part of the cultural framework of Australian culture and serves as an intrinsic aspect of Australian life. Nevertheless, the government has imposed stringent rules on its consumption which has unnecessarily increased the cost of cultural production for venue owners and artists. Liquor regulation is mainly in the form of licenses and in Melbourne, liquor licenses cost about $500 while in Sydney they cost up to $60,000 (Murn, 2008, p. 30- 31). The state government in Melbourne ratified a 12-month freeze on all new liquor licenses that trade after 1am in the inner suburbs and the city. The freeze on late night licenses is a major impediment to competitive entry as it curbs the growth of new venues while still supporting older venues by reducing potential competition. All these regulations inevitably affect the cultural scene of Melbourne and other places in Australia, further decreasing the avail­ability of cultural venues. Other government regulations are with regards to EPA (Environment Protection Authority) noise level regulations which are very complicated and technical .In Victoria, for example, the suitable noise levels vary according to the day of the week, the type of venue, the number of times the venue is used and so on. In addition, the method of measuring the noise levels varies between day and night with the night requirement being more stringent. Such noise regulations, while necessary, are unnecessarily burdensome and put a damper on cultural activities which in turns negatively affects the overall cultural state of Australia. CONCLUSION Evidently, culture is as integral part of any society and when all members have equal access to its consumption, it has positive benefits such as the strengthening of kinship relationships and the creation of a sense of identity. Nevertheless, when the government intervenes in the cultural policy of a nation, several problems arise. As such, regulatory reform is crucial so as to create an innovative and vibrant culture. The most important reform is to do away with all the bureaucracy. If governments are genuinely concerned about building cultur­ally rich communities, instead of emphasizing on contentious issues such as government arts subsidies, they should first do away with regulatory barriers that stifle innovation. This is the only way in which culture will stop being an unequal playing field and culturally rich societies shall be developed for the betterment of society both now and for future generations. REFERENCES Globerman, Steven. 1983. Cultural regulation in Canada. Quebec, Canada: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Halloran, Michael J. 2004. Cultural maintenance and trauma in Indigenous Australia. School of Psychological Science La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/psy/aw/Halloran-Murdoch_law_journal.pdf Kashima, Y. 2001. Culture and social cognition: Towards a social psychology of cultural Dynamics. In D. Matsumoto (ed.), Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press pp. 325-360. Murn, Christopher. 2008. Empty spaces: Government regulation is killing Australian Culture. Institute of Public Affairs Review. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1219715396_document_60-3_murn.pdf The New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage. 2004. Government’s Role in the Cultural Sector: a survey of the issues. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.mch.govt.nz/publications/govt_role_in_cult_sect/5.html Webmasters World of Cultural Democracy. 2007. Cultural Policy in Australia. Retrieved 13th February, 2010 from http://www.wwcd.org/policy/clink/Australia.html Read More