Back to issue

Full text - PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/UCS.2020.1(6).02

UDC 316.74

I. I. Maslikova, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv,
60, Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, 01033, Ukraine

METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS STUDIES

The article deals with the "atomistic", "holistic", "teleological" theories of social institutions, which form the methodological basis for the Cultural Institutions Studies. The "atomistic" theories of institutions (D. North, D. Hodgson, E. Ostrom) relate to the conclusions of the institutional economics put emphasize on the importance of certain normative models and frameworks of social behavior, which are the institutions. Representatives of the "holistic" theories of institutions (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons) highlight the connection between institutions ("structures") and their contribution to a society ("function"), and distinct institution are described as interdependent and necessary for functioning of the society in general. Representatives of the "teleological" approach in explaining the essence of social institutions (P. Gielen, S. Miller, Ch. Taylor, etc.) focus on the realization of a common goal, which is a set of interrelated individual goals, which are perceived by distinct individuals as their personal goal, but which makes sense only in the interaction of all participants of joint actions. Such actions most find their expression in the cultural sphere: team games, dances, theatrical performances, musical events, academic activities, etc.

Recourse to these concepts allows us to outline the problematic field of cultural institutions studies as a research area, which is based on the latest investigation in cultural studies, sociology, and cultural economics. The main tasks of cultural institutions studies are related to the creation of descriptions of institutional practices, the elucidation of the patterns of functioning of cultural institutions, the prediction of future changes in institutional cultural practices in the context of cultural economy and cultural policy.

In consideration of the basic approaches to the definition of a social institute, the essential characteristics of a cultural institute are revealed, which are manifested in three aspects: normative and regulatory aspect (complex of values, norms, rules), behavioral and procedural aspect (behavioral models, institutional roles, forms of joint interaction), organizational aspect (cultural institutions that produce, preserve and promote cultural good).

Key words: Cultural Institutes Studies, social institution, joint activity, social practices, Cultural Economics, cultural economy, and cultural policy.

REFERENCES:

1. Gielen, P. (2019). Instituczijna uyava: instituczionalizacziya suchasnogo mistecztva (minus "suchasnogo") [Institutional Imagination: Institutionalization of Contemporary Art (minus "contemporary")]. In Pereformatuvannya spil'nogo mista. Na peretini mistecztva, politiki j gromads'kogo zhittya: zb. statej. Kharkiv, IST Publishing.

2. Rubinshtejn, A. Ya., Muzychuk, V. Yu. (2013). Kultura i rynok. Opekaemye blaga [Culture and the market. Trustees of good]. St. Petersburg. Aletejya.

3. Maslikova, I.I. (2007). Do viznachennya ponyattya kulturnogo institutu [To defining the concept of cultural institution]. Naukovij chasopis NPU im. M. P. Dragomanova. Seriya 7, #12 (25), 63‒70.

4. Maslikova, I. I. (2018). U poshukakh spil'nogo blaga: etichni koliziyi soczialnikh praktik [In search of the common good: ethical collision of social practices]. Kyiv, Vid. "Milenium".

5. North, D. (1997). Instituty, instituczionalnye izmeneniya i funkczionirovanie ekonomiki [Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance]. Moskow, Fond ekonomicheskoj knigi "Nachala".

6. Nussbaum, M. (2014). Ne radi pribyli. Zachem demokratii nuzhny gumanitarnye nauki [Not for profit. Why democracy needs the Humanities]. Moskow, Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly e'konomiki. 

7. Ostrom, E. (2010). Upravlyaya obshhim: evolyucziya institutov kollektivnoj deyatelnosti [Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action]. Moskow, IRISEN, Mysl'.

8. Taleb, N. N. (2017). Chernyj lebed'. Pod znakom nepredskazuemosti [The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable]. Moskow, KoLibri, Azbuka-Attikus.

9. Throsby, D. (2013). Ekonomika i kultura [Economics and culture]. Moskow, Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki.

10. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2014). Kulturnye industrii [The cultural industries]. Moskow, Izdatelstvo Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki.

11. Hodgson, D. (2003). Ekonomicheskaya teoriya i instituty [Economics and institutions. A manifesto for a modern institutional economics]. Moskow, Izdatel'stvo "Delo".

12. Towse, Ruth. (2011). Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

13. Hasitschka, W., Tschmuck, P., Zembylas, T. (2005). Cultural Institutions Studies: Investigating the Transformation of Cultural Goods. The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society. Vol. 35, 2, 147‒158.

14. Miller, S. (2019). Social Institutions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/social-institutions/.

15. Miller, S. (2010). The moral foundations of social institutions: a philosophical study. New York: Cambridge University Press.

16. Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, Free Press.

© I. I. Maslikova 2020