文化治理的正當化政治：廣州都市更新下恩寧路與泮塘五約的文創產業化

Abstract

中國的都市發展常常被認為是由「國家引導」，具體體現在政府主導了都市政策制定、國有土地流轉、基於土地的財政等，且這個過程往往缺乏市民參與和社會制衡。不過，隨著近年來都市抗爭頻發，單方面的都市議程制定開始遭遇更多自下而上的質疑和挑戰，都市政府因而需要新的方法、說服民眾接受由政府擬定的都市計畫、進而鞏固國家引導之都市發展的「正當性」。正是在這個脈絡下，文化創意產業開始被視為一種有效的治理工具。透過「文化」行使的都市治理正在成為政府平息社會抗爭、正當化都市議程的關鍵策略。 恩寧路和泮塘五約是目前廣州最重要的兩片文化創意產業群聚區，但同時也是十餘年市民抗爭和政府因應之拉鋸的戰場。本研究將以這兩個都市聚落為經驗案例，檢視文化治理如何有助於維繫國家引導之都市發展的正當性？這涉及到三個需要具體解答的研究發問：在廣州都市更新中，「文化引導」如何在社會抗爭的脈絡下成為官方的都市發展政策？文化創意產業如何作為一種治理機制，從不同面向鞏固了都市治理的政治正當性？捲入作為治理機制的文創產業的文創工作者，他們又面對著怎樣的實踐困境？ 本研究發現，面對不同訴求的都市抗爭，政府主要通過三種類型的文化治理技藝、從三個面向鞏固了主導的都市發展之正當性。首先，通過擬定歷史保存條例，政府收編了來自社會的另類文化論述、進而鞏固了文化正當性。其次，通過出臺「微改造」和部署創意經濟，政府推動了歷史保存下的社區再發展、回應了在地居民對民生改善的訴求，鞏固了執政的績效正當性。再次，通過出臺「共同締造」機製作為公共參與平臺，政府回應了居民對政商壟斷的質疑、彰顯了政策制定之程序正當性。這個都市政策調試、平息社會抗爭、鞏固政治正當性的過程，最終體現在恩寧路和泮塘五約的文化創意產業化。換言之，文創產業化的過程，是文化治理機制形構的過程，也是政府擬定之都市議程的正當化過程。筆者嘗試提出「文化治理的正當化政治」將之概念化。 同時也需要注意到，文化創意產業也是由特定的文創工作者實踐出來的。當文創產業作為治理機制，那麼也正是捲入該機制的文創工作者支持了其治理效能的彰顯。本研究也聚焦到恩寧路永慶坊和泮塘五約中的具體文創工作者，指出他們與政府機構、地產企業、和在地居民的權力關係，以及他們的實踐所受制於的、背後支配性的政治、經濟、和社會議程。本文發現，這些文創工作者其實很難聚焦到本質上的創意生產，作為治理工具的文創產業、乃至背後的創意城市等都市戰略，也可能偏離了其致力於都市創新的原初理想。

Urban development in China is often considered to be 'state-led,' as evidenced by the government's dominance of urban policy making, state-owned land transfer, and land-based finance, and the lack of citizen participation and social resistance in this process. However, in recent years, as urban protests have become more frequent, the unilateral urban agenda has begun to encounter more challenges from the bottom up, and the city government has needed new ways to convince the public to accept the government-designed urban plans and to consolidate the 'legitimacy' of state-led urban development. It is in this context that the cultural creative industries have come to be seen as an effective tool of governance. Urban governance through 'culture' is becoming a key strategy for governments to quell social resistance and legitimize urban agendas. Enning Road and Pantang-Wuyue are currently the two most important cultural and creative clusters in Guangzhou, but they are also the battlegrounds of more than a decade of public resistance and government response. Using these two urban clusters as empirical cases, this study will examine how cultural governance can help maintain the legitimacy of state-led urban development. This involves three specific research sub-questions that need to be answered: How has 'culture-led' become an official urban development policy in the context of social resistance in Guangzhou's urban renewal? How do cultural creative industries, as a new governance mechanism, consolidate the political legitimacy of urban governance from different dimensions? What are the practical dilemmas faced by the cultural creative workers who are involved in the cultural creative industry as a governance mechanism? This study finds that in the face of urban resistance with different demands, the government has consolidated the legitimacy of urban development through three main types of cultural governance techniques from three aspects. First, through the enactment of historical preservation ordinances, the government has consolidated cultural legitimacy by incorporating alternative cultural discourses from the community. Second, by introducing 'micro-renovation' and deploying creative economy, the government has promoted the community redevelopment under historical preservation, responded to local residents' demands for livelihood improvement, and consolidated the performance legitimacy. Third, by introducing the 'co-creation' mechanism as a public participation platform, the government responded to residents' challenges about government-business collusion, and demonstrated the procedural legitimacy of policy making. This process of adjusting urban policies, pacifying social resistance, and consolidating political legitimacy is finally manifested in the cultural creative industrialization of Enning Road and Pantang-Wuyue. In other words, the process of cultural creative industrialization is the process of forming a cultural governance mechanism and the process of legitimizing the urban agenda set by the government. The author attempts to conceptualize this process by proposing 'legitimation politics of cultural governance'. It is also important to note that cultural creative industries are also practiced by specific cultural creative workers. When cultural creative industries serve as a governance mechanism, it is the cultural creative workers who are involved in the mechanism that support the effectiveness of governance. This study also focuses on the specific cultural creative workers in Yongqingfang on Enning Road and Pantang-Wuyue, pointing out their power relations with government agencies, real estate enterprises, and local residents, as well as the dominant political, economic, and social agendas that constrain their practices. This study finds that these cultural creative practitioners are actually hard to focus on purely creative production. The cultural creative industries as a governance tool, and the urban strategies behind them, such as the creative city, may have strayed from their original vision of urban innovation.