Towards a Novel Conception of Bene Culturale

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to seek a leit motif that can be justified in sociological terms, underpinning evolving trends in the concepts of bene culturale and culture over time. The evolutionary conception of cultural goods is identified in three specific phases from a prevailing view of cultural goods strongly centred on their material characteristics, to a more dynamic view that abandons to a certain extent the reductionist approach, up to a more recent view in which the conception of cultural value evolves in the vision of the intangible and toward a service logic. In this changing view, the value of a cultural good is conveyed by the value of use derived from its setting as a systemic value that is achieved in terms of service. A scheme of synthesis is devised to summarise the observed evolutionary pathway as a shift from a preliminary formalised proposal centred on an objective view of cultural value, towards a proposal open to multiple experiential pathways in the enjoinment of cultural heritage.

1 Introduction

This chapter aims to identify a leit motif that can be justified from a sociological perspective, underpinning evolving trends in the concepts of bene culturale (cultural good) and culture over time.

Massimo Montella’s interesting and pertinent reconstruction proposed in the first chapter illustrates in detail the various meanings that the concept of cultural goods has acquired in history, ranging from a “testimony of civilisation” to a richer description of underlying symbolic meanings.¹ Recovering and enhancing the conception of time in terms of context, the aseptic contemplation of beauty, the hedonistic and often elite pleasure perceived from an opera of the past, a work of art, a landscape or a tradition, is substituted by an overt form of interaction between the work of art and the individual.² In short, the value of the cultural good is conveyed by the value of use derived from its setting as a systemic value that is achieved in terms of service.

This evolutionary conception of cultural goods can be identified in three specific phases as follows.

In a preliminary phase, the prevailing view of cultural “goods” is strongly centred on their material (physical) characteristics and on the safeguarding of elements belonging to historic and natural scenarios, its leit motif being cataloguing and conservation, where possible in situ. Clearly, an objective—that could be described as static—view of the goods is highlighted in this case. The limits are evident in this respect of a “goods-dominant logic” that focuses on the view of the presumed intrinsic value of cultural goods. A reductionist perspective prevails wherein the specific technical-scientific (archaeological, historical, etc.) perspectives are predominant, orienting the policies of intervention in the priority direction of conservation.

In a second phase, a dynamic view of cultural goods is conceived. This perspective abandons, to a certain extent, the purely reductionist view and recovers the concept of the “mobility” of the goods and, consequently, their potential enhancement through different settings that are established for their enjoyment in time and space. The concept of enhancement includes a market(ing) perspective. It could be said that a shift occurs from the “object in itself” to the idea of the “product” as an object that has been “type cast” in a variety of settings but which remains “pre-packaged” by the proposer, contemporaneously taking into account the various pathways for potential enjoyment.

More recently, an ulterior phase has emerged in which the conception of cultural value evolves in the vision of the intangible, more subjective and contextualised dimension of cultural goods, or in other words, in which the reference to traditions, customs, practices and know-how is exalted and the material element of the goods becomes functional regarding the preservation of the culture, identity and value system of a community, population, ethnic community and so on.³

Evidently, this conception that embraces the notion of intangibles reveals the emerging awareness of a dimension of cultural value that, by abandoning the objectivity of the intrinsic value of the goods as such, implicitly supports a more subjective dimension, which however, still does not grasp the full implications of emerging trends.

2 Interpretative Premises

2.1 Redefining the Role of the Individual in Viable Contexts

The focus on evolving trends in terms of paradigm can be interpreted and explained by examining the development of technology and the gradual redefining of the role of “the individual” in context. Awareness relative to the processes in which an individual is engaged (family, professional, administrative, social and so on) has created a growing need for visibility and participation. This need is revealed in the attempt to shift from the initial role as an inert spectator of a far-flung external world to that of an “extra” or walk-on participant, and eventually, to a “principal actor”, thus modifying the way in which inter-subjective relations even of the most veiled type occur in any social context.

Contemporary trends characterising the second half of the twentieth century revealed or produced effects that were recorded and analysed in depth by various scholars in numerous disciplines. Alvin Toffler in “The Third Wave” (1987) introduced the concepts of ‘demassified or prosuming society’, describing what he called a new monolithic conscience’: millions of persons are desperately searching for an identity. Engaged in this effort, they are developing greater awareness of their identity and of the features that make it unique. They are asking to be considered and treated as individuals. ⁴ Toffler’s view is elaborated in Jeremy Rifkin’s work, “The Empathic Civilisation: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis” (2010), in which the author, in the paragraph dedicated to ‘the meanings of survival’, states that we are all part of a species that is gregarious by nature, the exponents of which are searching constantly to extend and deepen their links and inter-personal relations, going towards a vaster community of sense. Social structures that are ever more complex are, consequently, the tools for this type of research. ⁵

Rifkin’s analysis is accurate; it would be useful to identify how the phenomenon of ‘ever more complex social structures’ can be classified. From this perspective, cultural phenomena such as TV reality shows can be included in a single interpretative scheme together with collective forms of culture that underpin value-creating trends in the various sub-systems of society: business networks and industrial districts in the context of business systems; the various forms of class action in the system of consumption; common funds in the financial system; and even social networks and “blogs on opinion-making issues”, that are typical of the social system as a whole.⁶ A pattern involving the community of practice and the tendency to create lobbies has become an expression of an intriguing projection towards a future in which the welfare state is substituted by an individual-centred welfare society, in which conditions are stipulated from the bottom up—in the absence of formal hierarchies—for the emergence of a self-regulatory system. ⁷

It is precisely the combining of such trends that returns to the “person” the task of constructing potential future scenarios in the context of an ever-growing range of knowledge and the gradual destabilising of conventional rules and regulations underpinning collective action.⁸

2.2 The Gradual Change in Perspective

The consolidated habit of referring any problem to its constituent parts in our view defines the main element of the distortion of observed reality. A problem defined as such is qualified by one or more obstacles that impede the achievement of a purpose or goal. The change in perspective, or rather the capacity to avoid focusing on the missing link or dysfunctional component rather than addressing the process that has not been set in motion, represents a radical change in paradigm. The shift towards overcoming the limits of the analytical reductionist approach, combined with the tension towards a model of observation that is capable of grasping the entirety of the object under investigation as a whole, creates the need for a systems approach, a methodology that reconciles both the analytical and holistic knowledge of any phenomenon.⁹

The viable systems approach has been widely discussed in the debate linked to the diverse levels of the observation of reality.¹⁰ As illustrated in Fig. 1, through the lens of the viable systems approach, the perspective can shift from a reductionist to a structural up to a systems view by shifting focus from the parts to the relations up to the interactions between the components of the investigated object.

In the mechanical-reductionist approach, the object investigated is analysed as if it were out of context; step by step, mono-directional, linear, causal relations are sought to explain the way in which specific causes have determined the effects observed. Therefore, in many cases the solutions are inadequate with respect to changed relational contexts.

The thrust towards overcoming the limits of the analytical-reductionist approach, together with the pressing need to find an approach capable of grasping the integral and global nature of the object investigated, push towards the adoption of a systems thinking perspective as a bridge between a reductionist and a holistic view of reality in phenomenological terms. Figure 1 pinpoints the implications of “myopia” in a prospective sense—the incapacity of global vision typical of the analytical-reductionist perspective.

Fig. 1

The change in perspective: from the observation of the parts to a vision of the whole (Barile, www.asvsa.org. Figure used with permission of aSvSa)

From the recognition of the limits of the traditional analytical-reductionist approach, the systems thinking paradigm has gradually gained ground as an adequate organisational and interpretative methodology for governance that is capable of grasping the process dynamics characterising the functioning of any entity observed. In this respect, the viable systems approach provides general interpretation schemes to support the analysis of the phenomenon to define the most appropriate governance approach. Prospective modalities to resolve fundamental doubts are provided and a valid theoretical platform is proposed, not only for scholars but also for experts in the field, based on the structure-system perspective in which the change in paradigm is summed up in the shift from a static to a dynamic vision that underpins the systems thinking approach.¹¹

The transition from a structural to a systems perspective must occur in coherence with observation purposes. Based on the nature of the problem, the focus can be placed on the components or relations of the structure or, alternatively, by changing the perspective, on the processes of interaction both inside and external to the system observed. The aim, for instance, of cataloguing cultural goods finds analytical methods to be a useful approach for identifying the technical-scientific characteristics of the goods for cataloguing purposes. Diversely, the interpretation of the cultural value of goods as a “testimony of civilisation”, in other words the enhancement target, requires historical contextualising to grasp the expressive capacity of the cultural value of place and time-specific cultural goods.¹² At the same time, the process of identifying and cataloguing cultural goods to absolve their cultural function should also take into account systems contextualising with respect to potential target users, wherein specific process structures in which the goods play a cultural role expressing their potential value in use can be sought. The excessive focus placed on the parts, to the detriment of the whole, clearly emerges ‘in the cataloguing’ approach.

In contextual terms, emerging trends relative to cultural goods indicate that the initial excessively reductionist vision, which focused on the memory and collocation of the objects or “things” rather than on their role or the context in which they belonged, is gradually being replaced by the acceptance of the cultural function of the “goods”. This function, which cannot be identified and circumscribed in material and physical terms, represents significant progress by implicitly grasping the need for a change in perspective. The focus is shifting from the objects themselves to the series of relations that connect the objects in a significantly meaningful structure, which is conceptually adequate for expressing the function of the “testimony of civilisation”. The process, however, still has a long way to go; the shift to a perspective that prioritises the interpretation of cultural value and, consequently, the functional links relative to the cultural goods themselves is crucial if we are to understand the complex dynamics of the process by which such value is expressed.

Meanwhile, if accepting non-materialistic goods as a distinctive peculiarity of categories of “cultural goods” marks an implicit recognition of the need to extend the perspective from material objects to contexts not necessarily connoted by material factors such as traditions, art, customs, praxis, and knowledge, this acceptance could take on meaning and cultural value. Additionally, this element could lead to a new dichotomist vision that distinguishes and classifies cultural goods on the basis of the connotation of their material/immaterial quality and conceives distinct governance approaches¹³ in each case.

Consequently, the immaterial finds its place in a wider evolutionary pathway that characterises the concept, definition and approach to cultural goods.¹⁴ The process dynamics of such a new approach shift towards a system of enhancement structured in the target user’s subjective perspective.

3 Towards a Novel Conception of Cultural Goods

The need to compact the trends delineated into a model is fundamental if useful dimensions are to be found in which to frame the evolutionary dynamics of the concept underpinned by the general expression “cultural goods”. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the following two dimensions have evolved over time:

Fig. 2

The goods-product-service (GPS) matrix of cultural heritage (Barile, www.asvsa.org. Figure used with permission of aSvSa)

• 1. the internal/subjective dimension, defined as the “extent of the user’s involvement” (see graph), which qualifies the prevailing scheme through which the individual perceives himself in the reality and interprets the process of satisfying needs differently acting accordingly with respect to the cultural goods;

• 2. the external/objective dimension, defined as the “potential for proposal interactiveness” (see graph), refers to conceiving and representing the contexts (in the sense of expressive and conveying forms) in which “culture” can be conserved and diffused, in other words, the set of perceptive perspectives that frame what we observe.

In the first dimension, the following three constructs can be identified and defined briefly:

• goods: objects having the requisites of utility, materialness, limitedness and accessibility;

• product: a set of tangible and intangible attributes for procuring a benefit to a user/consumer;

• service: the capacity for orienting the information variety of a context to the advantage of the interlocutor.¹⁵

In an initial context, that of “goods”, the internal generation of knowledge prevails by means of consumption, envisaging cultural goods as detached from the context and capable of intervening only marginally in the process of extending the information variety appropriate for each consumer. The user has complete control of the fruition process, autonomously organising time and ways to enjoy the good. In actuality, the good intervenes in the learning processes of the user through an appropriately organised set of “things”, “places”, and “facts”. The fact that the perception of individual goods can affect the generation of new concepts or the broadening of mindsets, and subsequently the satisfaction of pre-existent needs, cannot be taken for granted.

In short, the significance of the cultural offering in the form of “goods” implies that consumption is linked to aimless thrusts, such that the liturgy of belonging to a community prevails over the specific utility of contact with the cultural goods per se. Belonging to a community of people interested in culture implies visiting museums, arts exhibitions, and “cultural places” in general, without paying any attention to the contents implicitly expressed by the goods.

A second context, that of “product”, orients consumption in the direction of a pre-constituted desire along a pre-constituted path. Goods in general and cultural goods in particular can be placed within a pre-codified pathway that is devised by the proposer when intentionally selecting and organising the potential options to offer with respect to a clearly identified function of use. The validity of the good, and therefore its value, is based on the capability to contribute to the satisfaction of specific users’ expectations. Although a separation remains between the cultural offering provider and the beneficiary, there appears to be a strong correlation between what the former offers and what the latter desires based on an analysis of social behaviours.¹⁶

In a third context, goods are presented with elevated margins of freedom. The opportunity and the likelihood on the part of the consumer is evident, whereby intervention in the specification of the wider dimension of the goods is accomplished and their distinctive characteristics are co-created by emphasising certain characteristics.¹⁷ In this context, the interaction between the organisers of the supply offering (the value proposition) and the consumers of the same is at a maximum; in a process that exalts the subjective specifics, the perceptions formed are redefined dynamically and integrated with changed meanings. These meanings have been modified along an interpretative pathway based on the intrinsic information variety at the disposal of the individual in a relationship with the objects intercepted. In essence, although different subjects perceive the same stimulus, the subjects extract different rational and emotional contents. Consequently, consumption becomes a process and takes on the configuration of service in which object and subject interact dynamically, co-creating expressed value and distinctive connotations. Even more important is the element relative to the sharing of non-predictable outcomes emerging from the interaction between the consumer and the organised offer proposed. These derive not from pre-constituted options but rather from potential and emerging relations between the information varieties interacting in the context. A more articulate and less explicit offering “space” is defined that reveals the relevance of the work of “world making”, which because of its intrinsic difficulty, requires the ability of imagination, communication and self-organisation to be held by all participants in the process.¹⁸ In the context of the latter dimension, with reference to cultural goods, the following three constructs can be identified:¹⁹

• historicising: in the sense of representation of places and periods defined by the virtue of goods proper to the same; the focus is on the goods as such;

• setting: in the sense of inserting goods in relation to other goods and to times and places that are different to those of origin;

• contextualisation: in the sense of sharing the goods on the part of the consumers; from the relation between goods to the interaction between individuals.

The initial context, historicising, highlights the determination of the decision maker delegated to organising the consumption proposal relative to the goods in the desire to study, interpret and explain an “object” by relating the object to the exact period in history in which it first appeared. The intention lies in the desire to satisfy a general need for culture that can be expressed by a community through interpretation in a top-down process, elaborated by decision makers appointed institutionally. Their priority goals are to collect and preserve cultural “goods” rather than to formulate innovative theories of consumption. An objective criterion through which cultural goods can be qualified and classified is the set or series, limited to their aggregation on the basis of specific objective factors of belonging as follows: historic-epochal, landscape-natural environment, artistic, technical-practical and scientific-technological. These aspects are expressed in the conception of museums, monuments, archaeological sites, galleries, and so on.

In the second context, particular circumstances and conditions prevail in which the expressive elements of culture, rather than being identified on the basis of an objective criterion of belonging to an epoch (for instance, contemporary) can be described by a relational criterion, chosen by the decision maker of the moment and organised to provide a response to the pre-estimated need of a potential consumer.²⁰ This aim is achieved through a specific setting based on careful selection of the goods available in which the explicative content of a particular perspective is conveyed. This modality of representation could well be defined as qualifying the “environment”, thereby affirming the concept of “milieu”, in the sense of an integrated vision in a perspective of observation. For example, the works of Leonardo da Vinci can represent the arts, creativity, and intelligence of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries from a historicisation perspective; from a setting perspective, these works are recomposed in thematic representations on the basis of specific views. In the case of reporting the historical development of medicine and healthcare in Italy, Leonardo’s works on the development of the physiological and pathological anatomy should be selected. Conversely, to represent the urban architectural heritage in Italy, building engineering and architecture works should be selected. From a natural sciences perspective, or a perspective examining mechanics or painting, other studies should be identified. Thus, although the objective value of the goods remains, the goods are put in perspective and targeted to an expressive specific finality. The concept here is that of “milieu”, intended as an integrated view of elements that is targeted to express a specific observation perspective. The third context of representation is that in which the driving effort consists in creating the conditions of intense sharing capacity for the goods, now dematerialised, in the sense essentially of an experience in which the consumer is involved. In other words, this context considers the way in which the process prevails over the outcome or in which the series of circumstances, complementary elements, and situational framework all prevail over the material object. This approach marks a new way in which organisations in the cultural sector must enrich relationships with users by providing them with the tools and support that they need for real involvement and positive experiences.²¹ What becomes relevant is the set of interactions with the elements perceived or merely sensed and absorbed by an individual observer, who by experiencing the context, becomes an integral part. Therefore, to express the artistic culture of the sixteenth century or to exhibit the famed “La cena di San Gregorio Magno”, the Vasari apprentice work is remade alive, by rebuilding it and replicating emotional nuances such as the tension towards artistic competence, the appreciation of the scholarship, the anxiety of doing, indulgence towards the powers, and so on. One way is to transfer knowledge that exalts emotional understanding in the face of rational thought, finding in the “empathic” interaction the stimulus conditions for learning and sharing. The definition of “contextualisation” suits this last level of representation well because the emotional significance linked to the involvement in the concept of cultural goods is highlighted. This means that when the offer is not completely pre-meditated in its articulation, the content of the service can emerge dynamically and can be customised through interaction with the user.

In Fig. 2, the proposed representation describes the result arising from the combined action of the two analysed dimensions. The x-axis shows through a visual metaphor (the colour of the ellipse that becomes progressively lighter) the reduction of the information asymmetries between the various decision-making levels that connect supply to demand. The y-axis expresses the growing potential of the proposal from a traditional mode inspired by logical structures objective, such as, for example, the presentation of findings related to a specific space-time unit chronologically classified, to reach an interpretable and accessible representation, in essence, reconfigurable, depending on any single user’s information variety.

The action of the two dimensions in synergy, illustrated in the graph moving along their evolutionary pathway, sums up the shift from and towards the following two specific conditions:

• from a preliminary formalised proposal, centred on the thesis that the composition of any object can be oriented towards an objective, non-declinable, unique goal;

• towards a proposal open to multiple experiential pathways, provided with considerable degrees of freedom, and where the initial indication of perspective, that also exists, is assimilated and incorporated first into a logical structure and subsequently into the personal system of each individual user.²²

To reiterate the points above, in the diagram of Fig. 2 the proposed two dimensions of interpretation form the basis for explaining the evolutionary course of the concept of bene culturale, such as the contextual expression of the evolution of the cultural attitude of the individual in his dynamic relating to reality:

• the internal/subjective dimension, which would qualify a changed mode of perception of the viewer. By gradually changing the degree of involvement in the process of interaction with the proposal, this dimension passes from an attitude of passive perception in the majority of the “aesthetics” of the cultural heritage to an active participation marked by an increasingly important role. This includes a fruition process in which the cultural proposal is finalised with the intervention of the user realising, in a full and active involvement, a cognitive activity of co-creation of meaning that can be summarised in the well-established notion of service;

• the external/objective dimension, which leads to the identification of three distinct representations of the areas in which the cultural object is traced as a function of progressive focus on the levels of historicisation, setting, and contextualisation.

The framework that emerges from the formalised proposal of the conception of cultural goods moves towards a new vision in which the dynamic process of evolution from goods to product to service, on the one hand, and from historicising to setting to contextualisation on the other, implies a more radical change in perspective, in which the attribute “cultural” does not merely qualify the goods or product as such, but rather the target user’s behavioural and cognitive attitude; in short, this includes the fruition system, through which the user relates to the cultural goods.

The evolving modality of interaction between proposer and user, posited in relation to cultural goods coherently with the constructs of service dominant logic and service science, as we will discuss in the next section, demonstrates how decision makers who are devising proposals must seek spaces of consonance with the target user, anticipating needs and favouring resolutions while the latter can effectively participate in the governance of the offer, in an attempt to provide guidelines and orientations.

4 New Trends in Enjoying Cultural Heritage in a Service View

The enjoyment of the use system of cultural goods is thus envisaged in terms of service. The parties involved in the event, including the organisers, the target users, and the goods themselves (art, history, places, traditions and so on) through their socio-cultural resonance, all interact while seeking motivations and “consonant” goals to satisfy the needs of all the parties as a whole, providing each party with a sense of belonging to the event, not as an individual but as part of the community. The outcome is that each member is confident regarding the value creation opportunity that the initiative represents.²³

From this fundamental “sentiment” of confidence and trust, the motives of satisfaction spread and the commitment of each individual involved is fully justified. If an example were needed to illustrate the concept, we could imagine the “feelings” of a football fan obliged to bear the heavy costs of following an away game in which his favourite team is playing: for a loyal fan, consonance is so strong that participation is far more important than the final score.

By virtue of bottom-up “consonance” the parties involved are qualified to express their dissatisfaction in a direct, clear cut, constructive manner at expectations that are not met. The organisers, whose context of reference is the players involved in the action, must grasp evident signals to redefine their approaches and commitment.²⁴

The synergic effect known as “resonance” in a viable systems perspective produces a high-level performance outcome, defined in the literature as “high-quality service”.²⁵ The participation of enthusiastic and spontaneous organisers and target users, through their profusion of optimism and energy, overcome scepticism and diffidence in the initiative. Events with such characteristics include humanitarian campaigns or American political conventions.

Such a positive outcome finds its reason for being in the process of creating high-quality service. The constituent phases hinge in the first place on the defining of precise structural and systemic prerequisites. Figure 3 sums up the spiral of phases that distinguish the development of a strongly contextualised virtuous non coded process that is highly contextualised and based on “group” spirit. In this case “group” refers to the various parties involved in the initiative, each with their own characteristics, experiences and needs.

Fig. 3

The dynamic of the role of user in the service process (Barile www.asvsa.org, Figure used with permission of aSvSa)

The concept of “belonging” in the sense of being part of a specific group in a particular context becomes the underlying condition for creating stable relations both in contextual terms and in terms of the others in the group who constitute the community of reference. Consequently, the sense of belonging becomes the pivotal underpinning mindset, behaviour and common attitudes that allow the process of creating identity to take shape, shifting from the sphere of the self (I) towards that of the collective (us), or in other words, a pathway of rebuilding together one’s roots, history and culture, the offshoots of which can be found in the shared values of the group of which one is a part.²⁶

The subsequent concept of “sharing” that naturally presupposes the previous concept of belonging includes the new goal in terms of participation or “being together”. This consists in evaluating a proposal and finding that it intrinsically reflects one’s own way of thinking in terms of basic principles (behavioural patterns). By responding to the binding limits of group membership (the categorical values of reference), the individual is drawn towards sharing such values.

Motivation, intended as a “motivational leaning”, is the expression of the reasons that lead individuals to share the goals of their group and to act in a specific way. By virtue of a cognitive approach, individuals actively create their motivational leaning. This phenomenon is possible because of the representation of the shared goals that individuals seek to achieve or avoid individuals perceive their own means and limits through their sense of self-esteem, which enables their involvement in the shared process. Involvement is envisaged as the search for ways and means of interaction with other individuals belonging to the group and supporting the same objectives. The stage concerns the search for ideal ways of systemic interaction, devising inclusive decision-making processes that presuppose the possibility of reaching potentially agreed-upon solutions; where that is not feasible, individuals must at least find a common platform from which to debate and govern conflicting issues.

The concept of action considered above can be traced to the concept of “social action” envisaged as a series of meaningful social acts put in place by the collectivity or members of the group as a whole. In substance, choices are made on the basis of a previously planned project,²⁷ which motivates involvement and full respect of the laws and norms in force to achieve a common goal.

The representation of the interaction between proposer and target user suggested above in relation to cultural goods is not new in recent service science literature. The concept of “service science” goes even further and suggests that in addition to making proposals, decision makers should assume the onus of seeking fruitful ways to create consonance with the users, to anticipate their needs and to encourage their suggestions. Conversely, this presupposes that users can in fact participate in the governance of the cultural goods system offer by proposing guidelines and courses of action.²⁸

Figure 4 sums up the new trends in the value co-creation process. From the traditional concept of value in exchange, there is a shift to the idea of value in use. The underpinning concept of concerted action is fundamental in this respect. In other words, the service logic paradigm shifts from any act of exchange of goods and services to a process of interaction in which the parties involved become integrators of resources and contribute to the creation of value.²⁹

Fig. 4

From the value of exchange to the value of use (Modified from Wolfson et al. 2010, p 216)

Although the goods or services do not incorporate value in themselves, their potential enhancement is conveyed to the user by means of a value proposition, which finds its expression in the actual moment of interaction in the service. In substance, the user does not receive produced value as such but accepts the value proposition in line with personal expectations, thus co-creating value in the system of use in a contextual and dynamic manner.³⁰

Service science, as has been shown, responds fully to the innovative vision of cultural goods outlined above. Underpinned by a new conceptual framework (viable systems), a meaningful interpretative model³¹ is proposed. In the following chapter the viable systems approach is illustrated more fully to delineate the development of a model that equally suits both the proposers and the target users of the events and manifestations linked to this new conception of cultural goods.

The basic concept illustrated in Fig. 5 highlights the context analysis phase as an essential part of the process established by decision makers (proposers). The object is to pinpoint behavioural trends and stakeholder expectations to devise new methods of enjoyment for target users, albeit taking into account structural limits (the availability of resources, including economic or financial resources), for defining rules that meet user expectations.³² As will be shown in the next chapter, the efficient governance of the cultural heritage system should not be limited to a bottom-up perspective in which decision makers by interpreting emerging trends progressively define new rules. New customs are in the making, and above all, our system of values is gradually changing. This change requires a more efficient, top-down regulatory system which, through incentives to adaptation, favours the emergence of a new viable system.

The wider interpretation of the concept of cultural goods in evolution, which fully grasps the value and recognition of immaterial goods, can be traced to the process described above. It is now up to the decision makers to interpret contextual trends, thereby guiding development and consolidation to favourably govern the emerging viable systems.

Fig. 5

New trends in the system: new rules and consolidated norms (Barile 2012, www.asvsa.org. Figure used with permission of aSvSa)