龚鹏程x罗伯特·弗鲁｜多元化会不会造成文化混乱？

龚鹏程对话海外学者第五期：在后现代情境中，被技术统治的人类社会，只有强化交谈、重建沟通伦理，才能获得文化新生的力量。这不是谁的理论，而是每个人都应实践的活动。龚鹏程先生遊走世界，并曾主持过“世界汉学研究中心”。我们会陆续推出“龚鹏程对话海外学者”系列文章，请他对话一些学界有意义的灵魂。范围不局限于汉学，会涉及多种学科。以期深山长谷之水，四面而出。

罗伯特·弗鲁博士（Dr Robert Frew）毕业于伦敦大学玛丽皇后学院（Queen Mary University of London），主修物理学，后又在伦敦城市大学（City, University of London）取得艺术政策与管理学的博士学位。他主要研究创意产业中的盈利与非盈利机构，聚焦文化艺术机构中的管理与领导力问题，并提出了英国主要艺术资助的新型方案。他是英国皇家特许管理会计师公会会士（Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants），也是特许全球管理会计师（Chartered Global Management Accountant）。作为一名财务管理专家，他是许多组织的管理顾问，并在英国、南部非洲和土耳其帮助许多企业起死回生。他的国际职业生涯跨越了诸多领域，包括航空、广播、休闲、媒体、黄金开采、石油勘探和国际贸易。他也是一名政治活动家，同时是英国保守党外交和联邦委员会的成员（Member of the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council）。

龚鹏程：您好！非常高兴能访问到您。您读的艺术政策与管理学，曾经是我当年办学的一个理想。因为二十世纪九十年代整个中国都还没有这种专业，我跟政府沟通许久，才勉强获准开办美学与艺术管理研究所。但美学研究与艺术管理其实各有重点，不应这样生硬拼和。这就显示了大家对艺术政策与管理学的陌生，以及这个学科发展的不易。您能不能借此机会，向我们简要介绍一下英国艺术政策与管理学的情况？

罗伯特·弗鲁：龚教授，您好。在英国，对艺术政策与管理而言，最重要的是数字、文化、媒体和体育部（DCMS）。

DCMS是英国政府的一个部门。英国的艺术经费有多种来源，但很大一部分来自DCMS。它通过提供补助金或政府补贴的方式为艺术制定预算，这些资金由四个国家艺术委员会管理：英格兰艺术委员会、北爱尔兰艺术委员会、创意苏格兰和威尔士艺术委员会。这四个艺术委员会还从国家彩票中获得资金，国家彩票是一个国家特许经营的彩票。艺术委员会在发放资金方面的运作方式略有不同，但基本上它们指导各自国家的整体艺术政策和方向。总的来说，DCMS政府机构也会通过这些艺术委员会影响政策的方向。

因此，整体政策是由政府通过DCMS制定的，同时向艺术委员会提供整体预算，而艺术委员会则进一步对组织、公司和个人获得的补贴或补助金额实施自己的政策。大部分资金被发放给英国的主要表演艺术公司，如主要的歌剧、管弦乐队、剧院和舞蹈公司。而中小型公司和个人则可获得数千或更少的资助。

在英国，这些补贴，尤其是给大型表演艺术公司的补贴，完全不足以支撑公司的运营。因此，艺术管理部门需要付出很多努力来获得额外的资金，特别是通过赞助、捐赠和遗赠。

这与法国或德国的情况截然不同。在那里，政府对艺术的补贴要高得多，并能满足艺术机构的大部分运营成本。

在英国，艺术管理更象是 "艺术行政"，重点是为艺术组织获得足够的资金以维持其偿付能力。他们还需要有足够的资金来开展额外的非核心活动，比如艺术委员会要求的与教育和多元化问题有关的活动，这是他们资金的要求，而这些活动并没有得到他们的全部资助。这种情况确实造成了节目制作的问题。

Central to arts policy and management in the UK, is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS is a department of the UK Government. The arts in the UK are funded from a variety of sources, but a significant amount comes from the DCMS. It sets the budget for the arts by providing funds by way of grant-in-aid or government subsidies, which are administered by four national arts councils: Arts Council England, Arts Council of Northern Ireland, Creative Scotland and Arts Council Wales. The four arts councils also receive money from the National Lottery, a state-franchised lottery. The arts councils operate slightly differently in awarding funds, but essentially they direct the overall arts policy and direction of their respective countries. Overall the DCMS government body will also influence the direction of policy through these arts councils.

So, overall policy is set by government through the DCMS along the overall budget to arts councils, who further impose their own policies on the amounts of subsidy or grant-in-aid that  organisations, companies and individuals receive. The majority of the funding is awarded to UK major performing arts companies, such as the major opera, orchestras, theatres and dance companies. Whilst thousands or smaller grants are available to small, medium sized companies and individuals. In the UK these subsidies, especially those given to major performing arts companies, are totally inadequate to run the company. As a consequence, much effort is required by the arts management to secure additional funds especially through sponsorship, giving and bequests.

This is very different situation to that that exists in France or Germany, where government subsidies to the arts are significantly higher and meet most of the costs of running arts organisations.

Arts management in the UK, is more like 'arts administration', in that the emphasis is in obtaining sufficient funds for arts organisations to stay solvent. They also need to have sufficient money to pursue additional non-core activities, such as activities related to education and diversity issues as required by the arts councils, as a requirement for their funds and which are not fully funded by them. This situation does create programming issues.

龚鹏程：英国的文化创意产业特别发达，您觉得它的特点和发展动力是什么？

罗伯特·弗鲁：虽然创意产业包括营利性和非营利性艺术，但在这个问题的背景下，我觉得我们可以认为创意产业更多是与营利相关联的。数字世界和技术带来了创新、新的生产和工作方式。这推动软件/游戏、广播和电影制作公司产出新的大量创意，让新的全球市场机会和盈利机会得以增多。

然而，从文化的角度来看，我认为在非营利性艺术公司中存在着文化漂移，它们得到的资金不足。

如果要说的话，那就是英国正处于文化衰退期。历届英国政府所犯的最大错误是不支持民族文化。民族文化被淘汰了，多元文化被纳入其中——英国占主导地位的主流文化被搁置，艺术机构的资金不足。

Whilst he creative industries include the profit and the not-for-profit arts, in the context of this question, I think we can consider the creative industries as more related to being profit-based. The digital world and technology has brought innovation, new ways of production and working. This has driven a new substantial creative output from software/games, broadcasting and film production companies, providing the development of new global market opportunities and profit making opportunities. However, from a cultural standpoint, I believe there is a cultural drift amongst the not-for-profit arts companies, which receive inadequate funding. If anything, the UK is in cultural decline. The big mistake that successive UK Governments have made is in not supporting the national culture. National culture is out, multiculturalism is in - UK predominant and mainstream culture has been sidelined and arts organisations underfunded.

龚鹏程：创意产业中的盈利与非盈利机构，在艺术政策方面有何不同需求？其管理学最大的歧异是什么？

罗伯特·弗鲁：各个部门或流派之间，并没有太多的直接对比。但拿一个例子来说，通过比较伦敦西区的商业剧院和其他主要的艺术资助剧院以及歌剧公司，我们可以得出一些区别。

最大的区别在于管理风格：西区剧院的管理层需要拿出非常赚钱的戏剧作品，以使制作公司/制作人能够支付所有费用，偿还投资者并获得利润。而与之相反的是，艺术经理人可能更专注于保持传统艺术形式的活力。这些经理人很难制作新的艺术作品，以及大受欢迎的知名作品，同时还要满足艺术委员会的非核心标准，并维持组织的财务状况。非营利性或政府资助的艺术部门公司的运作基本上取决于政府的补贴，这对节目制作有直接影响。

在盈利和非盈利组织中，优秀的经理人和领导者，基本上都有类似的基本技能，但使命和目标会有所不同，组织的优先事项也会有所不同。

There are not so many direct comparisons one can make between the sectors or genres. But by way of an example, it is possible to draw some differences by comparing London's West End commercial theatre, with other major arts funded theatres and perhaps opera companies.

The big difference is in management style: West End theatre management need to deliver successful theatre production to enable the production company/producers to cover all costs and repay investors and make a profit. At the other end of the scale, arts managers are probably more focussed on keeping alive the legacy art form. The managers have difficulty producing new artistic works, along with hugely popular well-known productions, whilst meeting arts council non-core criteria and keeping the organisation afloat financially. The not-for-profit or government funded arts sector companies operate essentially up to the extent of their government subsidy, which has a direct effect on programming.

Good managers and leaders, in both profit and not-for-profit organisations, will have essentially similar basic skills, but mission and objectives will be different as will be organisational priorities.

龚鹏程：您的国际职业生涯跨越了诸多国家，也跨越了诸多领域，能不能分享一些经验、感悟，或故事？

罗伯特·弗鲁：谢谢！我有很多想说，不过我认为重要的问题是围绕着“文化”这个词。什么是文化，多元文化的问题，它是谁的文化？我自己对这个问题的简单看法是“文化”可以被认为是一颗钻石：这颗钻石的晶格是由语言、法律、历史和传统形成的。文化钻石定义了国家文化和身份，而在钻石的晶格或几何形状中，其他文化和亚文化也可以存在。

这些其他文化或多种文化只能在主文化的框架内存在。如果没有一个主要的文化晶格，所有的文化都会融合成一个混合体，有相互竞争的价值观，甚至没有价值观，这可能会破坏社会，造成文化混乱。

今天，在西方，特别是在英国，我们看到了这样一种情况，在很多人看来，政府似乎在压制主流文化和价值观，并提倡多元文化和新的 “唤醒议程”。这鼓励了文化上的异议和文化上的不团结，并允许政府采取“分而治之”的方式。毫无疑问，西方社会正变得越来越不民主，受到更多的政府控制，同时社会也变得更加支离破碎。

Thank you! I have so much to say, however, I think that important questions surround the word 'Culture', what is culture, issues of multiculturalism, whose culture is it? My own brief views on this are, that 'Culture' can be considered a diamond: a diamond whose lattice is formed by virtue of language, laws, history and  traditions. The cultural diamond defines national culture and identity, and that within the lattice or geometry of the diamond, other cultures  and sub cultures can exist. These other or multi cultures can only exist within the framework of the main culture. Without a main cultural lattice, all cultures merge into a melange, with competing values or even no values that can break down society and create cultural disorder. Today, generally in the West and specifically in the UK, we are witnessing a situation, where it seems to many people that Government suppresses predominant culture and values, and promotes multiculturalism and the new 'Woke agenda'. This encourages cultural dissent and cultural disunity, and allows for a 'divide and rule' style of government. There is no doubt that Western society is becoming less democrat, subject to more government control whilst society becomes more fragmented.

龚鹏程：您也是一位杰出的政治人物，您从政，最主要的关注点或主张是什么？

罗伯特·弗鲁：我在互联网上提出了一系列主题的政治问题。我最近在网上发表了一篇题为 “BBC还是BBC PLC？：政府政策需要澄清 ”的文章，试图探讨政府将BBC私有化的意图。

我现在关注的主要问题是改写英国历史和文化史的趋势，无论它是好是坏，都是以牺牲英国主流文化为代价：即英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的主流文化。

I raise political issues on a range of subjects on the Internet. My latest on-line article entitled ' BBC or BBC PLC ?: Government Policy Needs to be Clarified' sought to explore the Government's intention to privatise the BBC. The main concerns I have right now, is the trend to rewrite some of Britain history, cultural past, whether it was good or bad, at the expense of the predominant mainstream cultures of the UK: that is of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

龚鹏程，1956年生于台北，台湾师范大学博士，当代著名学者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

办有大学、出版社、杂志社、书院等，并规划城市建设、主题园区等多处。讲学于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、台北、巴黎、日本、澳门等地举办过书法展。现为美国龚鹏程基金会主席。