If “the pace of change” is the figure of the new millennium, the hardest work is probably to fix the terms of the analysis, either economic, political, social or cultural. Reference points to understand and react are essential even in a time in which their identification often correspond to their overcoming. Further, a new challenge has been added to the pace of change: the end of the political and economic supremacies that had characterized late history, left the space to new macro-regional scenarios and led to the crash of walls that impose on the western countries comparing themselves not only with “the others” but also with a near-future perspective – that in many cases is already a reality – made of cross-civilizations, cultures’ living-together, sharing of problems and solutions. In such a context, many are the signs highlighting the urgent need of new models to understand changes and actors and, above all, the need of innovative solutions that concern “tout court” the entire world and that we can define of “high governance”. Essentially, in a time of extraordinary changes, we should be able to rule in an equitable manner, differences and citizenship’s requests.
The 21st century has been marked with changes whose extent is still difficult to assess at present, for both, public and private sectors, as well as for society as a whole:
– new information and communication technologies
– globalisation
In particular, globalisation has given to “culture” the right universal dimension. For the first time, in May 2007, the European Commission in its “Communication” declared the adoption of an “European Agenda for Culture” where it is underlined the fundamental role of culture in European integration process and in the development and improvement of the relationships with Third Countries, as well as its direct role for the achievement of the goals of the Lisbon Strategy.
It is not a case that the European Commission declared “2008: European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”. What to think about is the fact that the project, born to make the distinctive cultures of the 27 EU Member States known each others, showed very soon its bounds and the need to be partially redirected, in consideration of the complex reality to face. First, the difficulty to clearly specify the meaning of “national culture” in terms of culture typical to the population living on the territory of each Member State, because, as a matter of fact, those national cultures result contaminated by those of immigrants that, although living on the same land and already European citizens, brought with them their own culture and traditions. Second, EC became soon aware that any Intercultural Dialogue could be possible only through knowledge and valorisation of cultural diversities: in such a way the “intercultural dialogue” is “cultural innovation” and the wealth of the different cultural identities is a fundamental source of creativity.
Again, it is not a case that the EC declared “2009: the Year of Creativity and Innovation”. The transition from the EYID to the EYCI is very interesting to analyse because creativity and culture form an “ever-lasting whole”. Culture is our history, our present, it is the gift we leave to future generations. Culture is our inexhaustible wealth and it is a very special good: a good that the more it is consumed the more it grows and makes grown those who use it. Culture and creativity have a focal role in promoting European identity and citizenship since they are crucial components for a sustainable economic development – enhancing social inclusion – support the economic exchange, dissemination of knowledge and development of competencies, promoting different cultural expressions.
But, what is “creativity”? I want to underline that creativity should not be a goal in itself but should be an instrument to produce new ideas: creativity and culture are both pillars of the social quality that I mean as a background of freedom and democracy, economically developed and culturally sprightly. If creativity would be just an aim in itself, we should accept it incorporated in activities not expressing shared social values (criminal minds sometimes are creative too!). If it is not, and creativity is a mean, this mean should be read and filtered through the diverse communities’ cultures and creativity should represent the way for achieving goals endowed with value and socially approved: he added value of creativity must be positive.
Amongst the many definitions of “creativity” during the course of centuries, I would like to mention that belonging to Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize in Economics, who refers to a specific character of the relation between creativity and knowledge. He says that the actions are considered creative when generating something new and interesting or contributing to social value. An element that is original, interesting and endowed with social value represents the basis of creativity. The considerations made and the latest changes in international approaches to the themes of intercultural dialogue and creativity ask for an adjustment of cultural policies, at regional and national level: it is necessary that cultural policies match the economic development policies and that policy-making process listen to the requests and priorities coming out from civil society. In the whole, there is a need of renewing and developing the political agenda in order to make it closer to the today’s context and in order to make economic and social goals converged.
Emanuela Scridel: Economist – International Strategies and European Union Expert