A Study On The Cultural Regulation

The previous researches spell out that regulation is generally divided into economic and socialones, where cultural regulation is regarded as a segment of social regulation. This view, however,is argued without taking into consideration of the particularity of cultural regulation. As it is theproduct of history and politics, furthermore, the culture, there appears to be a schism fromeconomic and social regulation whatever in objectives and reasons or in mechanism and trends ofregulation. In a word, cultural regulation is the third regulation characterized relativeindependence which differs from economic and social regulation.This dissertation has introduced a complete concept of legitimacy of cultural regulation consistedby following three aspects: Firstly, the formal legitimacy, namely the legality in fact dimension;secondly, the value legitimacy, namely the harmony with morality in value dimension; Thirdly, thepractical legitimacy, namely the conformation to public interests both in fact dimension and valuedimension. Accordingly, this dissertation develops that the legality and the harmony with moralityare built on the basis of the conformation to public interests, where identity is the based onlegitimacy of cultural regulation and communication is the core. It is to be proved the best way toachieve the combination of harmony with morality and legality on the basis of conformation topublic interests is to establish the efficient communication mechanism and to get the identitythrough this communication.What will be further discussed in this dissertation is the boundary of cultural regulation, usuallyconfused as a line. As a matter of fact, the boundary of cultural regulation is not always a clearlydefined line, but a border area composed of psychological boundary of regulators and ofregulatees. Diachronically, the boundary of cultural regulation is changeable; and synchronically,the practical boundary of cultural regulation is largely dependent on the interaction and gamebetween the regulators and regulatees. Two major principles for solving the boundary of culturalregulation are the principle of boundary consciousness and of predictability.The cultural regulation is not a panacea. The conflict effects are apparent to explore observationalcultural regulation, which lays out the limited effects of cultural regulation, however, severerebound and amplification effects appear, that is psychologically unrecognized cultural regulationby regulatees will not work in the short term, and is often paradoxical in the long term. Threecauses lead to the failure of cultural regulation: firstly, the inherent self-interest of regulators willinfluence the actual effect of cultural regulation; secondly, the regulatees have the consciousnessof acting a role as well as the difficulity of self-control; thirdly, the cultural regulation is nottechnically possible in the face of meme with great capability of cultural diffusion andenculturation.With development of technology and ideological concept, the only cultural regulation reform inChina to maximize the public interest is the good cultural regulation which is able to effectivelyface the challenges from new innovative technology and concept. The direction of the Chinesecultural regulation reform is to loosen the cultural market access, negotiate the content of cultural products, and perfect the ways of demarcating boundaries, sorting and classification. Theparadigm of good cultural regulation are composed as followed: one basis(based on identity); twofocal points (emphasizing on the regulatees and the stakeholders); three ideas of regulation (ideaof demarcating boundaries, idea of sorting, idea of classification); four mechanism(mechanism ofdialogue, mechanism of evaluation, mechanism of monitoring, and mechanism of error-correcting);five principles(principle of transparency, principle of independency, principle of legitimacy,principle of accountability, and principle of moderation).