The discussion in this session focused on the role of culture in the wake of the global crisis. In this regard, the participants highlighted the increasing search for a more harmonious, sustainable and forward-looking social model, yet one that is anchored in the roots of national identity. With the global crisis, this quest for a new kind of paradigm of development has, even in Italy, once again focused what perhaps was otherwise languishing interest on the crucial importance of “culture”. Though somewhat relegated in what some saw as the cryptic wording of article 9 of the Italian Constitution, the participants suggested that the significance of culture today can perhaps best be grasped by envisioning it as a concept made up of three constituent elements, namely: the body of general knowledge of institutions and society, and the business and scientific spheres; the specific know-how of circumscribed groups and fields of endeavor; and beliefs and values, in the sense of the benchmark standards that govern, above all, public morality and individual and collective behavior.
However, in order to understand how this notion of culture might come to be compelling as a unifying and socially and nationally cohesive factor, the seminar participants felt that it would be worthwhile reflecting first on the “environment” from which the crisis that has engulfed the current development model stemmed. This was an environment characterized by a “must have everything now“ mentality that got out of hand, by the excesses of unbridled individualism, by a lack of long-term horizons, and by the interests of the community losing out over those of the individual. Having thus identified as a priority the need to invest the “consciousness of the country” with a long-term perspective, and having accepted the interpretation of culture as a mix of knowledge, know-how and beliefs as viable, the participants felt that the first objective must clearly be to make efforts to improve the quality of the very educational and training institutions in which knowledge is acquired, know-how is accrued, and beliefs are instilled.
It was stressed that the pivotal importance of the latter, namely beliefs, becomes evident when it is considered that, whilst knowledge and know-how can certainly be variegated, Italy cannot do without a set of shared and clear values. And it cannot do without them not just because of the destabilizing effects of the crisis, but particularly because of the impact of the momentous changes brought about by the technological revolution, unprecedented demographic trends, and the now irreversible tide of globalization. Put in simpler terms, faced with a world undergoing tumultuous transformation, Italy must ensure it has at its disposal tools capable of deciphering the complexity of the contemporary world and managing change, without however losing the country’s unique identifying characteristics. This applies both to the country’s institutions and society at large, including Italian businesses, which must now contend with and compete in a global marketplace.
The role of steering such an undertaking clearly falls to those in positions of leadership. This makes forging a credible and legitimate class of leaders even more imperative – one that is receptive to knowledge and values, careful not to fall into the opposing errors of assimilationism and pigeonholing into neat little boxes, and capable of harmonizing the diversity of human relationships and cultures that Italy will, to an ever greater extent, be forced to engage with. In the face of such an increasingly complex scenario, even on a theoretical level, the traditional Weberian-style processes which contribute to how leadership is defined must be accompanied by other factors that may be less well-codified but are nevertheless also linked to the complexity of modern life, including: the pivotal importance of communication, the speed with which decisions are made, the propensity to assume risk, and the ability to listen to and perceive the needs of stakeholders, whether they be voters, consumers, or users of services or facilities.
By way of conclusion, the participants emphasized that the question of “responsibility” is one that applies to all spheres of activity, extending to the political arena, the business world, advocacy groups, and the non-profit sector. Whether it manifests itself in a spirit of service or corporate governance, this focus on social impact, on the concrete implementation of decisions and their ramifications for the interests of the community, goes beyond mere solidarity, to which it has often been confined, and enters the realm of public morality, respect for rules, and the attractiveness of a system that is otherwise in decline and without bearings. Indeed, it was observed that today, more than ever, it is to this realm that we must look in order to rediscover a shared sense of our identity, to rekindle that identity in a world that has been radically transformed, and to make it the linchpin of a new, more sustainable and durable development model.