Taiwan's cultural diplomacy and cultural policy : a case study focusing on performing arts (1990-2014)

• Main Author: Chun-Ying, Wei
• Published: Goldsmiths College (University of London) 2017
• Subjects: 306.4
• Online Access: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.726825

This thesis examines the implementation of cultural diplomacy through the perspective of cultural policy in Taiwan (Republic of China). It elaborates how the policy-making and practice have progressed in response to the changes of Taiwan’s domestic cultural politics and foreign affairs, including its relations with China (People’s Republic of China). As an empirical study, the research focuses on Taiwan’s cultural policy in the timeframe of 1990-2014 and more specifically on the promotion of the performing arts. The research identifies three crucial elements of Taiwan’s cultural diplomacy. It complements traditional diplomacy, acts as an outlet in the process of cultural identity formation, and showcases cultural and creative industries. Each element is prioritised at different phases of policy practice. However, a long-term and continuous strategy is absent. The research reveals that Taiwan’s cultural diplomacy emphasises more on its self-presentation than creating mutuality. The unsettled issues of cultural identity have its profound influence on cultural diplomacy. Meanwhile, the projection of soft power is not necessarily reinforced by the market-driven policy orientation and the quantifiable policy objectives. The research also illustrates the interaction among the government, artists, and other actors from the private sector. The key finding indicates that the government is constrained by bureaucracy and its own contested political status. Civil society at the individual level participates in cultural diplomacy with a sense of enthusiasm, while corporations in general are less motivated. The research provides empirical evidence on communicating soft power through cultural diplomacy without much hard power. In this case, the promotion of soft power is limited and does not necessarily compensate for the deficiency of hard power.