就理論或是實踐的層面上，傅柯本人並沒有正面發想「文化治理」這個概念，主要是涉及政治上的自由主義以及新自由主義，而這也是現有文獻著力甚深的面向。當然，傅柯或多或少也指涉了宗教、家庭、性別以及主體建構的治理，但「文化」這個字彙始終不在他或是目前主流治理性文獻的理論議程之中。歐美學術圈之所以會有「文化治理」的概念，當然是受到Tony Bennett的影響甚鉅，而在台灣的人文社會學科之中，論及「文化治理」的討論，王志弘一系列的作品也必然是對話的對象。因此本文的書寫策略就是從傅柯、Bennett與王志弘三位學者的著作來依序進行討論。總的來說，本文試圖想做的，並非是對傅柯式的「治理性」或是Bennett的「文化治理」這兩個概念進行系譜學的分析，畢竟前者已有學者多有著墨了，後者目前也有一些退燒了；而是，在他們的基礎上，試圖對「文化治理」在台灣這個既是研究領域也是研究方法的概念進行反思與檢討。 本文發現，傅柯本身有三種版本的治理性解讀。而Bennett與王志弘兩位學者，基於不同的學術生產脈絡，對於文化治理的理論化工程則是大相逕庭，前者主動與傅柯進行對話，對於文化治理的理論化比較偏向傅柯第二版本的治理性，並將文化治理與文化政治切割開來；而後者基於與都市治理研究的對話成果，則是認為文化治理與文化政治兩者是相互指涉的。鑑於以上這點，本文作者進一步指出，文化治理在台灣的理論化工程是發散而不明確的，無法突顯出文化與治理之間的歷史性與理論關係性。

Theoretically or practically, Foucault himself didn’t elaborate the “cultural governance”. Rather, both his main focus and the current literature are linked to the liberalism and neo-liberalism. Without any question, Foucault more or less referred to the government of religion, family, gender and subject, but the “culture” is eventually excluded from his or mainstream theoretical agenda. Tony Bennett enacted the “cultural governance” as a research agenda. And in Taiwan, the pilot scholar was Chih-hung Wang. Therefore, logically, the author tries to elaborate the “cultural governance” based on these three scholars’ writings sequentially. In doing so, this article’s main problematic is to introspect and criticize the “cultural governance” as a rising sub-field of cultural studies or sociology in Taiwan. This article concludes that Foucault himself had three distinct but intrinsically related versions of governmentality. Bennett and Chih-hung Wang, based on different intellectual context, theorized two contrasted versions of cultural governance. Bennett actively involved and dialogued with Foucault, his interpretation contrasted the cultural governance with cultural politics and was much more linked to the second version of Foucault. Conversely, Chih-hung Wang, who was trained in urban governance and political economy school, argued that cultural governance and cultural politics is mutual–reference. Accordingly, the author argues that the theorization of cultural governance in Taiwan is blurring and defocusing, unable to the highlight the historical-ness and theoretical connection between culture and governmentality.