国際文化関係運営の政策を構想する

――「文化外交」を超える思考枠組みと独日の実践――

抄録

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.