Forum on Cultural Soft Power and Industry Security held in Beijing
The unveiling ceremony of the Institute of Cultural Industry Security at Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and an accompanying Forum on Cultural Soft Power and Industry Security were held in Beijing.
BIGC
On April 11th, the unveiling ceremony of the Institute of Cultural Industry Security at Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and an accompanying Forum on Cultural Soft Power and Industry Security were held in Beijing. The event, co-organized by the Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and the Research Center for Chinese Cultural Soft Power, was aimed at discussing and addressing the impact of Western culture on Chinese culture and the consequent challenges. Attendees to the forum maintained that China’s cultural industry faces a tough situation. They iterated the necessity of steering Chinese culture in the right direction and strengthening the security of China’s cultural industry as a whole, as well as strengthening national soft power.
After reform and opening up, especially from the 2000s, China’s cultural industry has developed rapidly, abounding with new opportunities. At the same time though, it faces tremendous challenges. “During the period of the 11th Five-Year Plan (2007-2012), China’s cultural industry grew at annual rate of over 15 percent—six to eight points higher than GDP. However, compared with most developed countries, its share of overall GDP is still quite low,” commented Li Menggang, director of the China Center for Industrial Security Research at Beijing Jiaotong University. By comparison, the U.S.’s cultural industry accounts for up to 25% of that nation’s GDP. “This indicates that China’s cultural industry is still in its infantry,” Li said.
Xu Shipi, former chairman of the Supervisory Board at China ACG Group, sees the problem as essentially being one of industry management at both a macro and micro level. He stressed that until reform takes place, China can expect more of the same.
Along the same lines, Li Menggang pointed out the disparity between available domestically produced cultural items and market demand. “The unfit product mix—basically a mismatch between what China’s cultural industry is set up to produce and what Chinese consumers want—has enabled foreign firms, with their advantage in funding and technology, to seize the opportunity and occupy the Chinese market, posing a threat to the security of the domestic cultural industry.”
Li also advised that Chinese consumers should be more attentive in judging cultural products, resisting lower elements of Western culture. “We need to attach more importance to the ideological import of our cultural output, as well as the more tangible product attributes. These are the things we have to pay attention to when it comes to industry security; we have to look at the social benefits and the economic benefits side by side.” He called on Chinese to simultaneously resist negative influences from foreign culture, especially what he sees as the corrosive power of culture that glorifies decadence, and actively build the domestic industry. To maintain our autonomy and independence—to take cultural security up a level—we have to channel the same sort of energy we had during reform and opening up into establishing our cultural industry now, Li urged.
Han Zhen, president of Beijing Foreign Studies University, emphasized the importance of keeping an open attitude and taking the initiative in addressing the cultural industry’s security problems. Chinese culture should be bold enough to go to the world, rather than passively defend against the influx of foreign culture, he commented.
Han’s views resonated with Ai Silin, executive vice president of the School of Marxism at Tsinghua University, who noted, “As a banner for Chinese culture, the ‘Chinese Dream’ will only be an attractive idea—both at home and abroad—when it comes to stand for China’s national features and the people’s well-being. At the same time, it has to keep up with the times and be open to the world.” Ai iterated that it is through China’s own innate appeal that its culture can gain world-wide recognition.
In an increasingly globalized world, the strength of a country’s cultural output has become a significant indicator of national strength. Development of the cultural industry is not only related to a nation’s soft power abroad, but also its cultural security at home. Attendees to the forum asserted that further research on cultural security could help Chinese culture meet its international competition, ensuring its security.
Wang Yongsheng, president of Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication, expressed that many important theories and practical problems of enhancing cultural industry security still need to be studied further. He also advocated additional integration of innovative resources and elements.
“History has taught us once and again that a nation’s rise is precipitated by the rise of its culture, and that a nation’s prosperity is, in final measure, tied to the prosperity of its culture,” said Zhang Donggang, vice director of the Social Science Department at the Ministry of Education. Zhang observed that as global society and the global economy develop, we are entering a new era in which culture and cultural production are being reformulated. Chinese culture should not only serve the country’s development needs, but also contribute to world civilization. The scholars of today should take responsibility for this process, helping to disseminate Chinese wisdom in order both to fuel China’s prosperity and the progress of humankind, he concluded.
Li Mengang outlined several suggestions for bolstering the security of China’s cultural industry, both on the governmental side and on production side. Foremost, he indicated that this division, and the responsibilities it implies, needs to be clearly defined. In terms of midrange management, Li advised that fostering more industrial associations could be key in facilitating professional management and strengthening self-discipline within the industry. He also stressed the necessity of joint effort between the government and domestic firms, which he sees as essential to improving collaborative innovation, both within the industry and beyond. Of course, the sustainable development of the industry will obviously be more possible in the right environment; we need to enact more legislation to better protect intellectual property, Li added. Moreover, he proposed that China should simultaneously work to preserve its traditional culture and help it gain more worldwide recognition—as well as exert more worldwide influence—but also support more naturally competitive industries that can carry the cultural image of China abroad.
Ma Xianzhong is a reporter from Chinese Social Sciences Today.
The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 440, Apr 17.
Chinese link:
http://www.csstoday.net/Item/65479.aspx
Translated by Jiang Hong