简介： In 1963，Richard Hoggart was invited to be an English professor in University of Birmingham and lectured an inaugural speech named Schools of English and Contemporary Society which specified some research subjects including critical evaluative of mass culture，popular culture and mass media. In 1964 professor Richard Hoggart invited Mr. Stuart Hall to cooperate to found the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies and carried on to run the centre as professor Richard Hoggart setup in his lecture.From 1964 to 1979，media studies was always the centre of the research in CCCS. In this period，some importat works were published and CCCS exerted a great influence in academic field，especially in audience research，violence research in television，advertisement studies，ideology studies，feminist media studies，and so on. The following is the specific contents.The first chapter is about the media studies from 1964 to 1971 when the media group was founded. From the last months of 1969，CCCS and other leftist research instituiotns began to translate，introduce and absorb the continental theoretical resources massively. Media studies in this period is not very familiar to the researchers but actually the media studies in this period was extensive and fruitful. The first publication of CCCS is about the possibilities of local radio，the first two sponsored project of CCCS were media related，and professor Hoggart and Mr. Hall did agreat amount of researches about BBC，ITV，commercialization of radio，newspaper and Picture Post， etc.Chapter 2 is about the politics and ideology studies. Most of the founders and leaders of the centre were born in working class families，so they are very sensitive to the industrial relations，general election and policies. In 1972 researchers of CCCS did a thorough analysis to the news photos. And the next is the analysis of the industrial conflict and current affairs programs.The next chapter is the popular audience research. After the Hall’s important text‘Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse’is published，CCCS had continually provided theoretical works such as ‘Reconceptualising the Audience’，the practical works such as Everyday Television：Nationwide，The Nationwide Audience，Crossroads，etc. ‘Audience Research’ is very important in media studies in CCCS and it created a history of audience research either in the critics of Leicester School and Frankfurt School or the rediscovery of audience.When the event that a male white man was stabbed to death had been reported in the media researchers of centre began to pay close attention to how media transform one robbery event to a ‘moral panic’event which was moral concerned，was disturbed in the politics，state and society fields. From 1972，researchers of centre did a series of study and published a series of papers and finally Policing the Crisis was published in 1976，which is about the production of capitalist media extensively and thoroughly.Since 1970 the feminist movement had a great influence on many territories in the world and of course exerted a great influence on the media studies in CCCS. In the first period of the 1970s Stuart Hall and Michael Green decided to do some feminist media studies and they finished a study for the female magazines，Cure for Marriage，but unfourtunately the night before the study was scheduled to be reported the manuscript was lost.Although a lot of things happened the related researches were moving forward，mainly about the images of women in the mass media，ideology of adolescent femininity and housewives and mass media，etc.As the third director of CCCS，Richard Johnson，said in his essay ‘What is Cultural Studies anyway？’‘Cultural studies is now a movement or a network. …… It exercises a large influence on academic disciplines，especially on English studies，sociology，media and communication studies，linguistics and history’，media studies was in the centre of the works in CCCS which include the founding and spreading of some critical media theories and the publish of some important texts. When Hall left the centre in 1979 the Hall Period is over and a new era is initiated. Along with the leaving of Hall and the graduation of the students，media studies in CCCS just like the seeds，grow up out of the greenhouse and disseminate to the UK，America，the European Continent and the whole world.Key Words：CCCS；Cultural Studies；Media Studies

简介： 文化产业历史短暂而又广阔无边，西方理论丰富多采而又晦涩难解。本书根据作者所理解的文化产业基本问题为结构原则，首先阐明西方文化产业理论的来龙去脉，最后评论诸理论的思维风格。作为全书主体的第二、三两部分，在文化“大转型”的背景下，以20世纪“理论”为中心，连接古今思想，跨越学科分界，把浩瀚精深而又分散无序的各种有关文化产业的评论、阐释、研究和批判综合为劳动方式、产品、意义、传播、消费、政府管理、全球竞争七个“基本论域”和技术、经济、政治、社会、欲望、文化六种“话语样式”，广泛清理，精心勾连，明其脉落，殚其系统，描写西方文化转型，叙述当代理论交锋。材料丰瞻，叙述清晰，评论公允，观点鲜明。三卷书册，一气呵成，重建西方文化的批判论据和解释逻辑；百余万言，用心写就，再现智性文本的思想魅力和言外之意。本书是掌握西方文化理论的入门书，分析中国文化产业的工具书。

简介： 主 任：张学立 陶文亮 袁华副 主 任：唐建荣 张鹏程 肖远平 胡忠良 王林 韦维 樊铁钢 徐进委 员：（以姓氏笔画排列） 王建山 兰东兴 龙耀宏 卢云辉 石朝平 任达森 何兴发 吴好学 陈玉平 张卫国 柳远超 唐德松 黄平 喻健 蔡曙山 颜春龙学术顾问：杨昌儒 吴晓萍 杜国景 周相卿 石开忠主 编：张学立 袁华副　主　编：肖远平 王林 喻健（执行）编辑部主任：彭刚 王伟杰（执行）编 辑：金潇骁 李光明 冉永丽“多彩贵州”是新时期提炼的一个以贵州原生态文化为主体的多元文化关系、多样文化生态、多种文化现象涵聚的地域文化概念，还是一个集旅游、影视、传媒、演艺、工艺、美术、会展、体育、食品等多种业态为一体的品牌产业集群。作为贵州省实施文化产业发展战略的重要成果，“多彩贵州”如今已成为贵州省的一张名片，产生了显著的经济效益和社会效益。多彩贵州文化协同创新中心是2013年9月贵州省教育厅按照“贵州急需、国内一流”要求批准成立的省级“2011协同创新中心”之一，该中心由贵州民族大学牵头，贵州省文改文产办、多彩贵州文化产业集团、中国联通贵州分公司、贵州文化演艺集团等多家单位联合申报获批的唯一一个文化

简介： Fred Casmir,Professor Emeritus,Pepperdine University,CaliforniaOne way of looking at sustained human communication is to consider that it is always need-driven.Throughout the ages,and in all major cultural centers shaped by the human race,there have been philosophers who were concerned with understanding and developing organized systems related to human communication within their own communication environment.For Western culture,early rhetoricians significantly impacted the thinking and concerns of many future generations to come.In studying all human conditions and endeavors,it has always been relatively simple to study and describe the“how,who,what,and where”.What has continued to represent a major,even ultimate challenge has been understanding the“why”of human actions and interactions.Tens of thousands of systems of study,theories,techniques,and entire fields or disciplines have attempted to find all-inclusive,or at least satisfying-for-the-moment,ways of developing organized explanatory systems.Possibly there have been many more than that.These attempts most frequently have led to sustained and at times bitter confrontations between those who became adherents,disciples,or followers of a particular individual or philosophical approach.It has been suggested that understanding one's own culture is more difficult than understanding another.That reaction points to the fact that need-driven sustained communication includes a significant amount of individual interpretation and reaction to the needs that the culture in which we exist and operate tends to establish and sustain.It is at this point that the study of intercultural communication faces the same kind of challenge early Western rhetoricians and many others faced.Are we to become merely“sales-men and-women”of the practical applications we have discovered,or what we define as“effective”communication?There have been a lot of reasons to condemn the actions of past generations in various historical and cultural settings,whose major or only aim was the domination of others for their own benefit.“Colonizing”has been a major effort in all parts of the world at one time or another.There is a great possibility for deception that makes it impossible for anyone,in any endeavor,at any given time,to be aware of the negative aspects of their supposedly beneficial efforts.The question thus becomes one which a number of us wrestled with decades ago as we tried to understand what would be the best approach to the study of intercultural communication.Would we succumb to the blandishments of academic systems and cultures that offered advancement,money,and recognition?Or to what extent would it be possible for students of intercultural communication to impact all academic fields of study in order to developed insights into the human“why,”based on those cultural and individual needs I mentioned? When one considers the varieties of backgrounds,both cultural and academic,of those of us who first met to consider this issue,you can understand why we struggled with what the future of the“field”（or even if there should be a“field”）should look like.It is an important fact that now,over 50 years later,the academic,grand-and great-grandchildren in the various academic fields find themselves in what indeed have turned into various academic disciplines.What will they see as their ultimate purpose,their ultimate understanding of the needs behind the sustained communication of those who see a reason for communication with those from other cultures?That is a challenge far beyond any contribution any of us can make to what academic discipline we see as our anchor.In 1974,a small group of individuals with different academic and cultural backgrounds met to consider the possible future of intercultural communication studies both on universities and colleges,the academtc community at large,and the world.Our desire was to connect what one might see as“the old”and“the new.”In the first SCA sponsored volume of the preceding Annual,the“Editor's Notes”suggested：This is not a new venture… It is in effect a very old venture when viewed against the total human experience of studying and reporting our insights,efforts,and concerns.However,it is just as vital to point to the hopes and aspirations of a group of people who have envisioned this publication for some time,because they wanted to bring together some old and some new ideas within a new setting with a new framework,to assist all of us in our attempts to gain some new insights.（Casmir,1974,p.iii）However,we also realized some of the fundamental challenges our proposed venture would face：It may be time to challenge fundamental concepts.It may be time to ask within the framework of intercultural and international settings if our new sacred cows,our 20thCentury“mysticism”and“superstition”（possibly centering around our elevation of science to a quasi-religious level）,need to be challenged.Maybe it is time to ask first how we see Man and his world［considering men and women］,and then to understand why we almost necessarily reach our conclusions,in spite of the illusion of objectivity,which may be dictated by our cultures,societies,instruments,methodologies,and languages.Certainly,within the pages of this publication a new scientific or Western ethnocentrism can be meaningfully fought which otherwise could cause us to take the standards of Western culture as the basis for our discovers of other human beings as they compare,favorably or unfavorably to our own way of perceiving.（Casmir,1974,p.iii）Later,on that same page,you can find the beginning of a vision that included our concern for avoiding what we saw as past mistakes：…The fact that this is a“shrinking' world has been mentioned so often that it would be meaningless to delve into a discussion of it once more.What may not be so obvious,is our search for commonalities,for common experiences,for common perception to make our human interaction possible,meaningful,happy,more satisfying.Certainly,our world is threatened,or at least challenged,by a great many dangerous factors.But if communication scholars have learned anything,it is the concept that mere presentation of facts,mere discussion of the issues does not solve our problems.（Casmir,1974,p.iii）Here then are some of the conclusions that I believe still can be seen as contemporary concerns and challenges if as both students and practitioners of human communication we are to be considered to be moral,ethical,responsible contributors to the ongoing positive development of the human condition：Maybe it is time to ask if all Man's［people's］acts are not first of all based on the concept that he needs to control his［her］environment,keep it in balance,feel safe,and at the same time carry out his［her］efforts,work,and thoughts in such a way as to enable him［her］to grow,to feel needed,wanted,to feel as if he［she］is contributing and growing as an individual…It appears to be a time to synthesize,think,meditate,evaluate,and then to move on with methods perhaps yet undeveloped or undiscovered,rather than to be shackled by the fetishes of a yesterday which many of us fear to leave behind.（Casmir,1974,p.iv）Reference：Casmir,F.L.（Ed.）.（1974）.International and intercultural communication annual,Volume also 1.Pepperdine,CA/Falls Church,VA:Speech Communication Association.

简介： 城市是文化的容器，城市的发展离不开历史文化的传承。城市发展当以文化传承为先，以文化创新为本。本书以南京为研究区域，在深入梳理南京文化资源种类、分析南京文化特质的基础上，从多学科视角，从城市精神塑造，红色文化、佛教文化、旅游文化的建设与实践，城市形象传播等层面，探讨了南京文化在传承与创新方面存在的不足，构建了南京历史文化遗产保护与利用的总体战略，以期对国内其他城市的文化传承与创新、文化政策制定等具有一定的借鉴作用。

简介： 本书以公共经济学、公共管理学、民族社会学等学科为理论基础，在第一手调研资料的基础上，本着“问题导向”，通过对青海藏区公共文化产品的内涵与结构、政府服务供给的价值目标与体系模式等核心问题的研究，梳理和架构符合民族文化特点与农牧区实际的发展思路和实践路径。主要内容包括：青海藏区自然、人文环境、社会经济发展的阶段性特征及与公共文化发展的内在关联性；青海藏区公共文化产品的特质与功能，公共文化建设的特殊性表现；青海藏区政府公共文化产品供给能力和公共文化服务差距；青海藏区公共文化产品价值选择与服务供给模式建构；青海藏区公共文化产品和服务供给的制度保障与政策工具；青海藏区公共文化服务能力提升的路径和需要处理好的几大关系。

简介： “二为”方向与“双百”方针的建立、完善与发展，是中国共产党人基于中国社会的历史与现实，根据社会主义文化艺术建设的需要，在长期的社会主义建设的历史进程中完成的，经历了复杂和艰难的探索过程。它建立于新中国成立初期，在改革开放以来得到新的阐释和深化，又在我国进入社会主义市场经济以来获得持续发展，迄今为止，已成为中国共产党和各级政府领导文化艺术建设的重要纲领和总政策。特别是在我国进入社会主义市场经济体制以来，党和政府历次重要会议和文件，始终把坚持文艺“为人民服务、为社会主义服务”的方向和“百花齐放、百家争鸣”的方针作为基本纲领加以重申和强调。“二为”方向与“双百”方针是中国共产党人对马克思主义文化建设思想和理论体系深入研究与不断探索的结果，它极大地丰富了马克思主义文艺思想及其理论体系，是对马克思主义文化建设思想的重要继承与深化，为马克思主义的当代发展做出了显著的贡献；“二为”方向与“双百”方针的确立与成熟是中国共产党人集体智慧的结晶，不仅是对中国传统优秀文化思想的继承，更是对中国当代社会文化建设与发展的科学审视与把握，它在建设中国特色社会主义历史进程中得到持续完善，为中国特色社会主义文化建设理

简介： 《燕京创意文化产业学刊》创办于2010年，第一卷至第五卷由首都师范大学文学院文化产业系主办；自第六卷起，由首都师范大学创意产业与传媒文化研究中心主办。本刊以国内外文化创意产业与传媒文化为主要研究对象，同时侧重反映首都北京文创产业与传媒文化领域的研究成果。本刊自2012年起改为以年编序，本卷学刊为2016年卷，总第7卷。