Policy for culture's sake? Cultural theory, popular music, and the Canadian state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the conclusion of his seminal essay, “Culture is Ordinary,” cultural theorist Raymond Williams intones that “the ordinary people should govern; that culture and education are ordinary; that there are no masses to save, to capture, or to direct.” Williams’s passage captures the heart of his intellectual project and the central conflict in the development of cultural policy: the hierarchical separation of culture seen as a “whole way of life” and as “arts and learning.” Within cultural policy, this split is constructed at times as the democratization of culture (culture as civilizing) or cultural democracy (better access to the means of cultural production and distribution). This dissertation addresses these tensions by undertaking a case study of Canadian cultural policy in its support of the country’s independent popular music industry. Due in part to Canada’s geography and demographics, the country has developed a rich history of cultural policy that captures the historical tensions in understanding culture by attempting to adequately support both “serious” music and “music of a light or popular nature.” Moving beyond policy review, this study explores the impact of government-supported popular music subventions on the ground through interviews with policymakers, music industry personnel, and popular music artists. The results demonstrate the continual need of the state to redefine and reimagine the underlying intent of its policy interventions. Distinguishing an act of policy as either “cultural” or “industrial” fails to reveal how state political choices in matters of culture and democracy come to shape and inform their intrinsic value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".