33 is a mutual pedagogy rather than the typical attitude of the classical left-wing leadership that leaves people out of the decisionmaking process. Concerning the question of safeguarding heritage, these aspects are fundamental. It both surprises me and does not surprise me, from a certain point of view, that the first version of the European Green Deal did not include culture, while culture is central and fundamental. If we want to use only scientific categories, we are all still inside modernity, inside the capitalism of modernity. So, then, what do we want to achieve? That is, what do we want to change? This is my fundamental question, being in contact with artists of different origins and latitudes. And, when talking about the European Green Deal, we know very well that this undoubtedly involves a mutual interdependence on a global scale, but whose are the responsibilities, and how should they be treated? This really seems fundamental to me. Working with indigenous Australians rather than with Indians from hot areas of the planet (and with other so-called “disadvantaged” realities) helps us understand what culture is and what the preservation of culture is: I believe it is far more useful to avoid talking about the decentralisation of human beings, while it is crucial to engage with the decentralisation of the West. production systems, which are never abstract but always the effects of history. Therefore, on the one hand, I think that before the question of “collective responsibility, individual responsibility and diversified collective responsibility,” we must ask ourselves to what extent a theme such as climate change is not an issue that exceeds individual and community possibilities for intervention both in a spatial and in a temporal sense. But on the other hand, I have the impression that we are faced with something, an unknowable object, a “hyper-object,” as Timothy Morton says, which discourages individual and collective initiative. On the one hand, communication strategies insist on the guilt of individual conduct, making the responsibilities of large multinationals invisible. On the other hand, the catastrophic discourse validates any action that is not technocratic. All this does nothing but subtract any capacity for autonomous bottom-up intervention and legitimises only an authoritarian and top-down administration of the disaster. So, the question that is always asked about how to intervene is purely rhetorical: it is only apparently democratic. Another aspect relates to the notion of “community:” but what kind of community? We focus on the urban community, but the rural community is another fundamental aspect. This is the importance of situated knowledge. On the other hand, a further question arises: if we are to act collectively (I refer to examples of collective artists: Karrabing Film Collective from Australia, Inland by Fernando GarcíaDory from Spain, Navjot Altaf and DIAA from India), we have to deal with situations in which the common thread is what is defined as “devolution” compared to “empowerment” (this is the case of Karrabing Film Collective, in which founding-member Elizabeth A. Povinelli, of Columbia University, works with indigenous people from districts of northern Australia). It * The project has been included in “The Culture/Cultural Heritage and Climate Change Knowledge Base” published on the Fondazione’s website at the following link: < https://www.fondazionescuolapatrimonio.it/innovazionee-sperimentazione/the-culture-cultural-heritage-andclimate-change-knowledge-base/ > accessed 25 October 2022. Publications mentioned by the speakers in this section: H.A. McGhie, Action for Climate Empowerment, a guide for galleries, libraries, archives and museums (Curating Tomorrow, 2022); T. Morton, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World (Posthumanities) (Philadelphia: University of Minnesota Press, 2013).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExODM2NQ==