Preamble

Rural Public Cultural Services Promoting Rural Revitalization in China: Model Exploration and Value Innovation

Wang Dan, Chen Ya
School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing

[Abstract] To address the problems of unbalanced and inadequate development between urban and rural areas and further improve farmers' living standards, China has proposed the rural revitalization strategy. Rural cultural revitalization constitutes a crucial component of this broader strategy, with rural public cultural services serving as its primary vehicle. Through literature review, online investigation, and case analysis, this paper systematically examines research and practical outcomes regarding how rural public cultural services promote rural revitalization in China, analyzing in depth the logical relationships and internal mechanisms involved. The study identifies three main models through which rural public cultural services advance rural revitalization: cultural soul-building, culture-tourism integration, and culture-agriculture mutual assistance. The paper further analyzes how rural public cultural services can better promote rural revitalization and achieve high-quality development by focusing on key elements including environmental patterns, participating subjects, product services, and implementation methods.

[Keywords] Rural public cultural services; Rural revitalization; Model exploration; Value innovation; Culture-tourism integration
[CLC Number] G249.2
[Document Code] A

Since the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, as China's principal social contradiction has evolved, the people have developed higher standards for public cultural services. The 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development emphasizes prioritizing agricultural and rural development and optimizing the allocation of cultural resources between urban and rural areas. The Rural Revitalization Promotion Law and subsequent policy documents have all indicated that under new development conditions, achieving high-quality development requires promoting the integration of public cultural services with technology and establishing a coordinated cultural development pattern. There is an urgent need to clarify the logical relationship between rural public cultural services and rural revitalization, using public cultural services as a lever to boost rural cultural revitalization and achieve deep integration between rural cultural undertakings and industries [1][3].

1. Literature Review

Current domestic research on the relationship between rural public cultural services and rural revitalization focuses on supply models and effectiveness, practical manifestations of rural public cultural services, spatial reshaping, and dilemma analysis and path research. Regarding supply models and effectiveness, scholars emphasize constructing a multi-subject supply system for public cultural services and address issues such as religious culture occupying rural cultural spaces [4], homogenization of rural culture [5], regional supply imbalances [6], lack of professional talent [7], and mismatched supply and demand that reduce effectiveness. Research on practical manifestations typically begins with case studies, examining the development status of rural public cultural services in different regions. Studies find that farmers' participation in public cultural activities is characterized by low frequency, short duration, entertainment-focused content, and high transportation costs [10]. Scholars propose integrating regional cultural resources and advancing integrated urban-rural public cultural service system construction to address supply imbalances [11].

In terms of spatial reshaping, rural public cultural spaces serve as carriers for rural culture generation and inheritance, as well as venues for farmers' daily interactions, playing a significant role in shaping rural social moral values and constructing social order systems [12]. Research in this area focuses on issues of spatial weakening, subject role performance, and other prominent problems in rural public cultural services [14]. Regarding dilemma analysis and path research, scholars argue that promoting high-quality development of rural public cultural services requires changing mindsets, fully implementing basic public cultural service standards, developing library and cultural center branch systems, and promoting socialized development of public cultural services [15].

International research differs significantly due to varying historical, cultural, political, and social structures. Western scholars examine rural development from perspectives of marketization and multi-center governance [17], focusing on the connotative characteristics and value functions of rural culture. Culture possesses social communication functions [18], promotes industrial transformation and social change [19], and rural tourism development [20]. Rural cultural heritage [21] and cultural commodities can effectively address poverty issues in sub-Saharan Africa [22]. The Japanese "family spirit" plays an important role in agricultural economic development [23].

Overall, existing academic research provides theoretical references for this study, but most current research explores how rural revitalization strategy implementation impacts rural public cultural service construction, lacking in-depth examination from the perspective of public cultural services themselves regarding their logical relationship with rural revitalization.

2. Logical Relationship and Internal Mechanism

The national rural revitalization strategy and public cultural service system construction strategy exhibit synergy. Public cultural service policy and related legislation consistently focus on rural issues, using cultural power to solve rural development problems. Rural revitalization specifically refers to adhering to agricultural and rural priority development, establishing and improving urban-rural integrated development systems and policy frameworks, and accelerating agricultural and rural modernization according to the requirements of prosperous industries, pleasant living environments, civilized rural customs, effective governance, and affluent life [24]. Rural public cultural services constitute the primary vehicle for promoting rural cultural development, defined as non-competitive and non-exclusive rural public cultural facilities and activities provided by government-led, socially-participating entities to meet rural residents' spiritual and cultural needs and protect their basic cultural rights and interests [25].

Rural public cultural services and rural revitalization share common value orientations, both aiming to meet people's practical needs and improve their sense of gain, happiness, and security. From the perspective of sustainable social development, they jointly serve the process of agricultural and rural modernization. Currently, prominent issues of unbalanced urban-rural development and inadequate rural development make rural revitalization implementation a direct response to real pain points. Rural public cultural services can provide spiritual and intellectual support for rural revitalization, driving innovative inheritance and development of local culture and deepening farmers' identification with it. Conversely, rural revitalization creates favorable conditions for rural public cultural service construction. Increased rural economic levels help alleviate resource shortages, optimize infrastructure allocation, and improve cultural resource supply quality. As farmers' living standards rise, their cultural demands increase accordingly, enhancing the utilization rate of public cultural services. Rural revitalization outcomes also attract talented individuals to rural construction, strengthening the talent pool.

Internal Mechanism Framework

Based on analysis of current rural public cultural service practices and corresponding theories, this study constructs an internal mechanism framework for rural public cultural services promoting rural revitalization [FIGURE:1].

Systematically Improved External Public Policy Environment. Since the Sixth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee first proposed public cultural services, laws including the Public Cultural Services Guarantee Law have defined public cultural services as government-led, socially-participating provisions of cultural products, facilities, activities, and related services primarily aimed at meeting citizens' basic cultural needs [26][27]. The 2021 Opinion on Promoting High-Quality Public Cultural Service Development clearly states that strengthening rural cultural governance is a major task and must closely center on the rural revitalization strategy [28]. China has established clear requirements and basic guidelines for rural public cultural service development at the macro-policy level, with current public finance providing fundamental guarantees. This systematically improved external policy environment enables rural public cultural services to better impact multiple aspects of rural revitalization, forming an important foundation and guarantee.

Diverse Rural Public Cultural Service Supply. With economic development and social progress, farmers have become the main demand subjects, exhibiting diversified, personalized, and localized cultural needs. Supply subjects include government, public cultural institutions, and social forces. Effective feedback on farmers' cultural demands can improve service targeting. Supply-side responsibilities involve accurately grasping effective demands, analyzing service characteristics based on current and future rural population structures, matching existing cultural resources with farmers' needs, and providing corresponding content and forms efficiently.

High-quality rural public cultural service development requires collaborative efforts from government, public cultural institutions, social forces, and other resources. Government ensures effective operation through: (1) financial guarantees via special cultural development funds; (2) talent guarantees by attracting high-level professionals and equipping towns with cultural specialists and volunteers; and (3) institutional guarantees through policy formulation, cultivating cultural associations, establishing performance evaluation systems, and emphasizing public satisfaction. Public cultural institutions, as main resource suppliers and policy implementers, include libraries and cultural stations. They provide professional services, integrate their own resources and services innovatively, connect with external entities, offer culturally relevant products, and supervise service effectiveness. Social forces also constitute major contributors, cooperating with government and institutions to provide services and evaluate outcomes.

Bidirectional Empowerment Between Rural Public Cultural Services and Rural Revitalization. High-quality rural public cultural service development provides spiritual motivation for rural revitalization. This accumulated spiritual power offers internal support for rural revitalization. As the ultimate beneficiaries of rural revitalization, farmers' basic cultural needs are met, enhancing their willingness to participate in public cultural service construction. The autonomous forces within rural areas can fully play fundamental roles in public affairs, reducing government governance costs and making rural revitalization more robust.

3. Models of Rural Public Cultural Services Promoting Rural Revitalization

Numerous excellent practice cases demonstrate increasingly mature rural public cultural service models integrated with rural revitalization. Through systematic review of typical cases, this study identifies three main models: cultural soul-building, culture-tourism integration, and culture-agriculture mutual assistance.

Cultural Soul-Building Model

The cultural soul-building model uses outstanding local traditional culture as its core content, guided by socialist core values, to actively promote excellent traditional Chinese culture and advanced socialist culture. Using public cultural service venues like libraries and cultural centers as platforms, it improves rural public cultural infrastructure, employs urban-rural interaction and sharing, and aims to serve and benefit the public.

Typical Cases:
- Beijing Mentougou District Junzhuang Town: Leveraging local historical culture, the town uses cultural auditoriums and rural bookhouses as main propaganda venues. The "Junzhuang Drum" performance has become a famous local cultural activity with large-scale participation, undertaking major event performances and inheriting culture through school programs [29].
- Suzhou Wuzhong District Mudu Town: Conducts "Green Reading" campaigns for youth, integrating reading with intangible cultural heritage skills, using puppetry to interpret classic children's stories, and cultivating children's reading interest [30].
- Yulin Fugu County, Shaanxi: Addresses the "last mile" reading barrier through public welfare cooperation between libraries and post offices, enabling farmers to enjoy reading services [31].
- Suining Anju District, Sichuan: Innovatively implements "Library School" programs, emphasizing the inheritance of library culture and forming a "1+5" library pattern with Huang'e Library as the core and five other libraries as supplements, also serving as a family tradition education base [32].

Culture-Tourism Integration Model

The culture-tourism integration model uses local historical and distinctive culture as resources to promote deep integration of rural culture and tourism, achieving mutual cultural empowerment and tourism enhancement. This model has the most abundant application forms and most direct, obvious effectiveness, representing a key direction for future rural public cultural service construction.

Typical Cases:
- Taizhou, Zhejiang: A demonstration area for themed homestays, Sanmen County's red-themed cultural homestays have transformed ancestral halls from family sacrificial spaces into public cultural activity venues, forming red education bases and integrity culture demonstration sites, creating the "One Ancestral Hall, One Brand" system [33].
- Sanming, Fujian: Shaxian County's Xia Mao Town Yubang Village leverages its distinctive snack culture, building snack streets and promoting rural catering formats, transforming into a mature industrial village and being selected as a national key village for rural tourism [34].
- Liuzhou, Guangxi: Rongshui Miao Autonomous County deeply explores ethnic traditional festivals, creating festival tourism projects and cultural brands like the Yuanbao Mountain ethnic customs tourism belt and festival-themed interactive experience zones, making characteristic cultural tourism a path to prosperity [35].
- Foshan, Guangdong: Sanshui District's traditional ancestral hall resources are revitalized by injecting new connotations and modern elements into clan culture, creating red education bases and promoting tourism consumption [36].

Culture-Agriculture Mutual Assistance Model

The culture-agriculture mutual assistance model emphasizes rural agricultural civilization construction, creating agricultural industry development, promoting farmer quality improvement, and achieving synchronized revitalization of rural culture and industry.

Typical Cases:
- Jinan, Shandong: Huaiyin District uses abundant land resources and cultural landscapes along the Yellow River to build modern agricultural industrial parks and industrial clusters, fully protecting and utilizing rural folk culture and traditional farming culture [37].
- Datong, Shanxi: Yunzhou District insists on using culture-agriculture industry as the lever, promoting the integration of culture with rural natural resources, building characteristic agricultural parks, and accelerating daylily processing industry development [38].
- Kunming, Yunnan: Jinning Xiaoyu Village creates pastoral cultural complexes, integrating libraries, intangible cultural heritage centers, and museums, offering cultural experiences like creative plaster painting, revitalizing the ancient fishing village [39].

4. Value Innovation in Rural Public Cultural Services Promoting Rural Revitalization

Based on the bidirectional empowerment relationship between rural public cultural services and rural revitalization, research reveals that high-quality rural public cultural service development can achieve innovative breakthroughs in environmental patterns, participating subjects, product services, and implementation methods.

Environmental Patterns: From Government Monopoly to Cross-Boundary Integration

The current trend of cross-boundary integration highlights the need for equitable allocation of quality public cultural resources in rural areas and demonstrates government commitment to improving public service quality. Rural public cultural services seize this opportunity, emphasizing supply subjects, integrating resources, and establishing multi-subject collaborative supply systems involving government, social organizations, and public cultural service institutions. This breaks the deadlock of independent cultural institutions and integrates public cultural services into all aspects of rural construction.

Participating Subjects: From Passive Acceptance to Conscious Participation

Traditional rural public cultural service construction typically featured government dominance, resulting in passive farmer acceptance and limited autonomous value realization. Under high-quality development, farmers' subject consciousness has greatly improved. They are both beneficiaries and decision-makers in public cultural services. Rural revitalization background services prioritize people-centered approaches, listening to farmers' opinions and providing more targeted services. Farmers' enhanced discourse power in cultural construction enables broad participation based on cultural identity. As ultimate beneficiaries, their satisfied basic cultural needs strengthen participation willingness. Internal autonomous forces in rural areas play fundamental roles in public affairs, reducing governance costs and stabilizing revitalization progress.

Product Services: From Basic Provision to Quality Supply

Traditional rural public cultural service products were limited in content and form, offering only basic cultural guarantees like occasional movies or performances. Under rural revitalization, services provide targeted, characteristic quality products. Notably, services now address different population preferences, conducting science popularization for youth, and offering differentiated services like health lectures and dance performances for left-behind children and elderly people. Supply channels have diversified, breaking traditional single supply methods. By excavating local historical, folk, and agricultural culture and integrating with technology, industry, and social industries, rural public cultural services promote cultural tourism development, enhancing farmers' cultural acquisition.

Implementation Methods: From Offline-Only to Dual Online-Offline

Traditional implementation required farmers' physical presence, resulting in low enthusiasm and participation. With technological development and mobile device popularization, digital culture has become the main component of rural cultural consumption. Rural public cultural services are undergoing digital transformation, building public digital cultural service cloud platforms and improving network service systems. Public cultural resources are aggregated and disseminated through cultural cloud platforms. The implementation method has shifted from offline-only to interconnected online-offline parallel approaches, which will be further expanded in the future. However, digital online experiences cannot completely replace physical offline participation; approaches must be tailored to local conditions with balanced online-offline implementation.

5. Conclusion

No unified model exists for rural public cultural services promoting rural revitalization. Due to varying natural endowments and economic development levels across regions, each village must adopt targeted measures based on actual conditions and explore new paths for improving local public cultural service effectiveness. Rural public cultural services not only directly affect rural cultural revitalization but also influence the overall implementation of the rural revitalization strategy [42]. Challenges remain in rural cultural revitalization practice. Broadening perspectives and injecting rich cultural texture and humanistic connotation into China's rural revitalization efforts will create vibrant prospects for development.

References

[1] Song Xiaoxia. Cultural Revitalization is the Soul of Rural Revitalization[J]. Shandong Social Sciences, 2022(3): 99-104.

[2] Zhang Yaoqi, Liu Xuguang, Han Mei. Research on the Importance, Current Situation, and Countermeasures of Rural Cultural Revitalization[J]. National Library Journal of China, 2022(3): 28-33.

[3] Zhang Kangzhi. Urban-Rural Public Cultural Service Governance Models and Optimization[J]. Shandong Social Sciences, 2019(4): 176-181.

[4] Chen Guo. Research on the Fragmentation Dilemma in China's Rural Public Cultural Service Supply[J]. Library Forum, 2019(7): 42-49.

[5] Li Xianglong. Basic Guarantee for High-Quality Supply of Rural Public Cultural Services[J]. Library Construction, 2018(10): 23-31.

[6] Gao Ruiqing. Research on Rural Public Cultural Service System Construction from the Perspective of Public Cultural Space[J]. Library Work and Research, 2019(5): 137-146.

[7] Ouyang Xuemei. Challenges and Practical Paths for Rural Cultural Revitalization[J]. Party Building and Ideological Education, 2018(5): 30-36, 107.

[8] Chen Jian. Research on the Functional Failure of Rural Public Cultural Services in Rural Revitalization[J]. Social Science Research, 2021(5): 115-123.

[9] Zhou Bo. Weakening of Rural Public Cultural Space: The "Absent" Subject in Rural Cultural Revitalization[J]. Guangxi Social Sciences, 2020(8): 139-144.

[10] Xu Yibo. Research on Chinese Rural Public Cultural Service System Institutional Change: An Analysis Framework Based on Historical Institutionalism[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021(3): 28-39.

[11] Chu Jian. Thoughts on Strengthening Rural Public Cultural Service Construction[J]. Theoretical Study, 2018(21): 125-127.

[12] An Guojian. Rural Public Cultural Service and Rural Revitalization: Value Logic and Promotion Path of Bidirectional Empowerment[J]. Library and Information Service, 2022(11): 81-89.

[13] Huai Ping. Rural Residents' Public Cultural Participation in Rural Revitalization: An Investigation of 26 Administrative Villages[J]. Library and Information Service, 2018(11): 153-160.

[14] Woods M. Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring[M]. London: Sage, 2003: 32-44.

[15] Gorlach K, Klekotko M, Nowak P. Culture and Rural Development: Voices from Poland[J]. Eastern European Countryside, 2014(1): 115-130.

[16] Fleischer A, Tchetchik A. Does Rural Tourism Benefit Agriculture?[J]. Tourism Management, 2005(4): 493-501.

[17] Duelund P. The Nordic Culture Model[M]. Copenhagen: Nordic Cultural Institute, 2003: 40-58.

[18] Ankomah K, Larson T. Creativity and Cultural Tourism: The Rural Development Potential in Sub-Saharan Africa[J]. Tourism Review International, 2008(3-4): 171-186.

[19] Rausch S. Local Identity, Cultural Commodities, and Development in Rural Japan: The Potential Viewed from Cultural Producers[J]. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 2005(1): 122-137.

[20] Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. State Council's Opinions on Implementing Rural Revitalization Strategy[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-02/04/content_5263807.htm.

[21] Xinhua News Agency. Authorized Release from Two Sessions: Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives Through 2035[EB/OL]. [2023-07-04]. http://www.xinhuanet.com/2021-03/13/c_1127205564.htm.

[22] Guangming Daily Research Group. National Snack Industry Enriches People and Leads Trends[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. https://www.sohu.com/a/686187861_119038.

[23] Sohu. Visiting Ancient Town Deng's Ancestral Hall: Listening to Revolutionary Stories[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. https://www.sohu.com/a/674397693_120157024.

[24] Wenmai Cloud. Hundred Festivals and Folk Customs Build "Vibrant Rural Revitalization"[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. http://www.wenmaiyun.cn/news_details464.html.

[25] China News. Shanxi Datong Yunzhou: Strengthening Regional Cultural Development[EB/OL]. [2023-08-05]. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1784409318715752183&wfr=spider&for=pc.

[26] Beijing Mentougou District Government. Junzhuang Town Takes Multiple Measures to Protect Juvenile Growth[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. http://www.szwz.gov.cn/szwz/mtjj/202209/00c685778049427898fdabddbfec51c8.shtml.

[27] Suzhou Wuzhong District Government. Wuzhong Mudu Town's "Green Reading" Campaign Protects Juvenile Healthy Growth[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. http://www.szwz.gov.cn/szwz/mtjj/202209/00c685778049427898fdabddbfec51c8.shtml.

[28] Suining News Network. Sichuan Normal University Suining Campus: Public Welfare Cooperation Innovation in Library Schools for Cultivating High-Quality Applied Talents[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. https://xmapp.snxw.com/wap/article/index/941831.

[29] Taizhou Municipal Government. Sanmen Leisure Tourism[EB/OL]. [2023-08-16]. https://www.zjtz.gov.cn/art/2021/7/16/art_1229551191_59044747.html.

[30] Party Building Leads Rural Industrial Revitalization: Jinan Huaiyin District, Shandong[N]. People's Daily, 2023-08-28(6).

[31] Sohu. How Does This E-commerce-Based Pastoral Complex Create Success?[EB/OL]. [2023-08-10]. https://www.sohu.com/a/404764798_120086998.

[32] Yunnan Net. Kunming Fumin Banshan Gengyun Pastoral Complex Attracts Visitors with Fun[EB/OL]. [2023-08-10]. https://m.yunnan.cn/system/2020/06/04/030699163.shtml.