gBDkI

In this sense and under specific conditions depending on the territorial context, cultural
participation can be considered to be a component inextricably linked with production and the
maintenance of cultural and social capital. Digging deeper into this original and primary meaning,
cultural participation also has something to do with an inclusive social/environmental condition –
where that sense of involvement underlines that any mechanistic, linear, instrumental or predictive
relationship between cultural participation and social inclusion is inappropriate for highlighting
those specific exchanges and effects. Those impacts are highly complex, with subterranean paths,
full of feedbacks and interactions, taking place over a long period, depending on the specific local
and social conditions and out of range of any predictable programme.
Cultural participation remains a crucial issue within the domain of culture, although its importance
reverberates in other social, economic and cultural aspects. Taking account of these interactions
gives a better understanding of the meaning of cultural participation in different contexts, while it
should not encourage any purely instrumental attitude. At the same time, it is worth underlining that
the meaning of cultural participation extends beyond the impacts and reverberations on other
aspects of civil life.
The earlier chapters identified the link between cultural participation and local society with its
specific conditions, opportunities and constraints in any region or territory. The inter-relationships
between cultural participation, participation as a whole, social inclusion and civil society cannot be
properly described in one simplified “standard” model. The same meaning of cultural participation,
the activities and phenomena encompassed in this definition, is shifting in different countries and
makes it essential to list what is inside the “box” of cultural participation case by case. Put slightly
differently, it is highly desirable that any attempted measurement of cultural participation should
mirror the actual cultural diversity of different countries and different territories, adopting the
appropriate lenses and tools to analyse and interpret local phenomena indepth, and therefore
being able to suggest appropriate policies.
However, a clear trade-off emerges here between the need to compare data, information, research
tools, and the capacity to interpret local society and to offer a clear vision and indepth
understanding of the specific situation. Even the best and most refined analytical tools, validated
through disciplined and academic debate and tested to produce good results in different countries,
can conceal major problems that would be likely to arise if adopted in another cultural context and
territory, only translating and adapting questions and information. The danger is not only to lose
effectiveness, but – maybe worse – to obscure specific phenomena, local constraints or
anthropological behaviour patterns that a set of scientific tools imported from another cultural
situation would not be able to detect or comprehend.
Bridging this gulf is beyond our capability. Nevertheless, what is possible is managing it with
effectiveness and sensitivity. Comparison is a crucial issue and certainly gives added value to any
survey: it enables researchers and policymakers to understand the position and the ranking, offers
benchmarking references and underlines the differences and distances from other target countries
or territories. A major concern in designing any survey about cultural participation is to deal with
comparisons: What information is worth comparing? Where are comparisons even possible? In
which cases might the same question be understood as having the same meaning, and when
could the apparent same question refer instead to quite different ‘habitats of meaning’ (Hannerz,
1996).
- 73 -