德國法蘭克福學派學者阿多諾（Adorno）曾為文論證「文化」與「行政」兩者本質上彼此歧異矛盾，又相互糾葛依賴的關係。文化作為規範客體，而其概念呈現出開放、多義與複合性，並無一個統一性的規範概念。本文研究目的想要探尋憲法如何規範國家在文化領域的活動，一方面從國家的文化任務加以探討，此處涉及國家之權限以及中央與地方對於文化領域之權限劃分；另一方面從國家與人民在文化領域之互動加以觀察，此處主要與國家如何藉由法律影響文化形成，亦即與人民文化性的基本權利之關聯性。本文先探究憲法關於文化概念的規範內涵為何，其次則討論對於文化之保存與維護之憲法義務，並藉此檢視相關具體法制。憲法所確立之多元文化是價值秩序，而國家承擔文化保存與維護之義務內容程度上並非相同，從履行主體到具體措施，透過公私協力方式以及從間接獎助到直接保護之具體措施，呈現出多種可能性。承擔文化責任之主體是國家，也涵蓋了中央與地方，藉由文化資產保存法制，反思現行中央與地方在文化領域權限之劃分。一方面地方團體作為國家行政之一環，另一方面也作為地方文化形成之主體，而得向中央主張其地域文化的自治權。

Adorno, a scholar of the Frankfurt School of Germany, has written a paper arguing that “culture” and “administration” are inherently different and contradictory that depicts an entangled relationship. While culture is a normative object as its concept demonstrates openness, polysemy, and intricacy, it does not encompass a unified concept of norms. The purpose of this article is to explore how the Constitution regulates activities of a nation in the cultural field. On the one hand, this article discusses the cultural task of a nation which involves the power of a nation and the division of power between the central and local authorities in the cultural field. On the other hand, this article examines the interaction between a nation and its people in the cultural field that mainly involves how a nation influences the formation of culture through laws as well as the relevance to people’s basic rights of culture. This article first explores the normative meaning of the cultural concept from the Constitution. Secondly, it discusses the constitutional obligations for the preservation and maintenance of culture and review relevant and specific legal system. The multiculturalism established by the Constitution is a valued order; however the content of a nation's obligation to preserve and maintain culture is not the same. From the exercising entities to specific measures, numerous possibilities are presented through public-private partnerships plus specific measures ranging from indirect grants to direct protection. A nation is a main body undertaking the cultural responsibility which also includes the central and local authorities. Moreover, through “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act”, this article reflects on the current division of cultural authority between the central and local governments. It sheds light on how local groups act as part of national administration and as main bodies of local culture formation may claim the autonomy of regional culture from the central government.