World Geostrategic Insights interview with Edoardo Crisafulli on the significance of soft power, cultural diplomacy and ethnocultural empathy in diplomacy. The interview also includes an overview of cultural projects between Kazakhstan and Italy.
Edoardo Crisafulli is the Director of the Italian Cultural Institute in Almaty and cultural attaché of the Italian Embassy in Kazakhstan.
Q1 – Could you provide your definition of cultural diplomacy and discuss its significance in international relations, particularly during this period of geopolitical instability?
A1 – I believe that autoethnography is an especially fitting research method for a practitioner like myself: I have been striving to identify a suitable framework that bridges the gap between theory and practice. And now I have discovered the framework I was seeking. Autoethnography regards the researcher’s – specifically in my case, the diplomat’s – personal experiences and critical reflections as the primary source of data for exploring the field under investigation. Accordingly, I will begin with a few key concepts before delving into my practical expertise.
Any definition of cultural diplomacy must encompass respect for cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, human rights, peace, and stability. Scholars and practitioners often start by highlighting that “soft” or “smart” power is the foundational concept of cultural diplomacy. Joseph Nye’s theory is undeniably sophisticated. Diplomacy, by avoiding violence and coercion to achieve its goals, is the ideal domain for soft power. However, Nye developed his theory of soft power in the late 1980s, as the Iron Curtain was about to fall, and continued to refine it in the 1990s and beyond, during a transitional period when the full consequences of the Soviet Union’s collapse were yet to be realized. Is soft power particularly relevant to the Westphalian order based on nation states and its associated modes of thinking? Is it particularly suited to a Cold War mentality, where opposing blocs were defined by competing ideologies and clear boundaries?
The world has changed rapidly in recent years, and the power of traditional nation states is diminishing. Paul Kennedy, author of the influential The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, has recently argued that “the world of the nation states and national economies has not altered, just the nation states.” (“Paul Kennedy in conversation on the rise of the new era of great power competition”, 27/3/2025, ENGELSBERG IDEA).
According to Kennedy, nation states have not abandoned the conviction that the use of force might be necessary to advance their interests, from time to time. It is not clear, however, to what extent democracies will differ from illiberal/autocratic nations in this respect. I am not an expert on international relations. What I observe resembles a scene of turmoil – a disordered world where imbalances dominate and contradictions are pervasive. Nye, for instance, could not foresee the digital revolution and the empowering role of social media at the grassroots level.
We now live in a highly interconnected world where a growing plurality of actors and constituencies vie for attention, compete, promote their political agendas (including noble ones like human rights), and pursue conflicting economic interests. Our intricate multipolar reality encompasses a multitude of dimensions. Consider, for example, how many manufacturers in the West take into account the views of progressive consumers who cannot tolerate any form of exploitation in developing countries. Progressive consumers in democracies are voters, hence their opinions count, no matter how powerful the nation state or its government is.
It stands to reason that Westphalian nation states – that is, communities of people with a shared culture and heritage who are bound by a common form of government in a defined area limited by clear and stable frontiers – will continue to maximize their influence for various legitimate reasons (political, commercial interests, etc.). Yet the nation states that will be wielding huge economic power on the world stage – possibly only three or four in total – will have to pursue their policies in a very different context from the one defined by the Westphalian order. A caveat, therefore, is in order: although the opposition hard power vs. soft power will retain its significance for quite some time, new theories and notions are needed to make sense of the 21st century and beyond.
Soft power evokes a noble and peaceful type of confrontation, or regulated competition, between self-standing Westphalian states, akin to medieval knights in shining armour preferring negotiation and parley to combat—a very noble pursuit! The alternative—God forbid! —was coercion or even outright war. But even in its most civilized form, soft or smart power still carries a connotation of dominance or advantage by one country over others, as if international relations were primarily about making deals between two or three actors, namely states or governments.
However, there’s always a catch if one does not think strategically in a multipolar world. If, for instance, a nation state gains the upper hand in commerce in the short term, thereby creating some sort of imbalance, a trade war could still ensue at some point in the future. Whatever deal was negotiated, it cannot have been very smart if it ended in serious conflict, misunderstanding and mistrust. This is why national commerce should align itself seamlessly with cultural diplomacy, which not only epitomizes the essence of soft power but also embodies broader dynamics. Nation branding is an excellent tool in this regard. Italy has been very successful in nation branding. But this should be the object of another interview.
Let’s get back to soft power which, in my opinion, captures only one of the many dimensions of contemporary international politics. Unfortunately (if Paul Kennedy is correct), in the 21st century certain nations will persist in advancing their interests through the application of sheer force. Yet I hold the belief – or the hope? – that democracies will act guided by libertarian values and humanitarian principles, fostering freedom and equality in their policies. The democracies that face economic and political challenges in competing with the dominant (hopefully democratic) nation states of the future should strive to persuade these powers – who, at the end of the day, are their brethren – that the relentless quest for dominance in the Westphalian sense is a relic of the past, even though it will continue to play a role in international relations for quite some time.
One can sense the birth pangs of a new world order. A radically new way of thinking is necessary. We should reflect more deeply on the manifold manifestations of “power of influence” in our times, advocating instead for a cooperative and sustainable global order. It won’t be easy. Politicians and diplomats, like everyone else, resist change.
Today’s leaders and senior diplomats grew up, studied, and spent their formative years when soft power was crucial to counter hard or brutal power. While acknowledging the enduring relevance of power, political scientists and experts in international relations should aim to theorize a more nuanced vision, one that fosters cooperation above everything else. Cultural diplomacy should be based on a theoretical framework that captures the polyphony of our current world, that is, multilateralism in all directions and spheres, including all actors on the present international scene, such as NGOs.
I believe a useful starting point is the term glocalization, which “refers to the twin process whereby, firstly, institutional/regulatory arrangements shift from the national scale both upwards to supra-national or global scales and downwards to the scale of the individual body or to local, urban, or regional configurations and, secondly, economic activities and inter-firm networks are becoming simultaneously more localized/regionalized and transnational” (Erik Swyngedouw, 2004, “Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17:1, 25-48).
Q2 – Will glocalization affect the way we define culture in international relations?
A2 – Glocalization brings to the fore a new, multi-faceted, and multi-layered notion of culture(s). Let’s assume that cultural diplomacy is primarily about knowing and understanding foreign cultures and peoples. I’m deliberately placing the pragmatic goals of diplomacy (such as the pursuit of economic interests) on the backburner. Knowing and understanding are near synonyms, but I detect a subtle difference between them: the former refers to the initial stage of one’s acquaintance with the ‘significant other,’ namely collecting facts, data, and all relevant background information. The latter occurs only if one delves deeper into the subject at hand, to the point of almost identifying with the ‘significant other.’ Knowledge in the narrow sense I have outlined is just a starting point on a long journey.
Anyone with a good university education is perfectly capable of acquiring the basics of a foreign culture. This type of knowledge tends to be abstract (being about concepts, ideas, historical facts, sociological laws, etc.). Real understanding in cultural diplomacy can only be triggered by developing or enhancing our psychological skills and global/local sensitivities. Perhaps “comprehend” comes closer to the mark: understanding here means reaching out to someone who is out there, a flesh-and-blood human being, not an avatar in a computer game. Real comprehension entails some kind of mutuality, stemming from fruitful engagement in dialogue. Psychology matters: the diplomat will encounter real people in real life. Individuals are not just bearers of social and cultural meanings!
Unless a diplomat makes real efforts to comprehend a foreigner and his/her culture in this specific sense, there is little hope that any strategy devised in the cultural field will succeed entirely—or bear fruit, if you like. So let us first dispel a common assumption, which I think is detrimental to cultural diplomacy, namely that diplomats pursue their agendas in a polite, low-key, respectful way. Let’s smooth the rough edges in any argument or issue, that will do the trick. This attitude will not scrape the surface of things.
Dialogue is not simply a polite exchange of pleasantries. To start with, politeness and respect can be rather cold, unemotional: “I refrain from showing disrespect to you, but I retain the right to criticize your way of life privately. After our chance encounter, we will go our separate ways. Perhaps one day we shall resume some kind of mutually beneficial business.” This is a superficial attitude that does not require a deep awareness of other people’s predicaments, desires, dreams, and visions. One can hide one’s feelings behind a stone-cold face, but sooner or later they will bubble up. The all-pervasive reality of glocalization requires diplomats to acquire and constantly fine-tune a special mindset, that is, ‘ethno-cultural empathy.’
When I started thinking about this interview, I did an online search and stumbled upon a very interesting book by Lala Muradova, Empathy and Political Reasoning, wherein I found a useful starting point: “when individuals are encouraged to imagine the world from different others’ vantage points and feel empathy for the other side, they are motivated to move beyond their egocentric political thinking and engage in more reflective political reasoning.” Hidden egocentrism can turn into narcissism or, worse, sociopathy. A narcissist or sociopath is perfectly capable of knowing you, but s/he will never actually understand you in the full sense of the word. To avoid the narcissist’s trap, diplomats must tap into their emotional intelligence and harness it in the service of their mission. It is necessary to stimulate and harbour positive feelings; it is imperative we believe in what we say and do. I doubt AI will ever be able to conduct cultural diplomacy effectively!
Only ethno-cultural empathy leads to the type of mutual understanding that is essential to diplomacy. Empathy leads you to embrace the other while maintaining your own identity. It does not force you to submit to the demands of extreme cultural relativism. I cannot escape my origins; I was not born in a vacuum: I am an Italian citizen who loves his Constitution and form of government, and I’m a proud citizen of the European Union as well. I am also a baby boomer steeped in post-war European culture, which promotes universal values such as freedom of speech, equality, human rights, respect for minorities, and diversity—just to mention the most significant ones. If you’re a diplomat on foreign soil, you will have to find a way of promoting these values even in countries that have a very different approach from ours. The point is that dialogue, being based on empathy, is supposed to change us. Dialogue, therefore, is tough in certain situations.
Q3 – And now I’m eager to know about your experience in the field.
A3 – My first experience in cultural diplomacy was in Saudi Arabia some 27 years ago. Having been born and raised in a secular society shaped by the legacy of the Enlightenment, it was difficult for me to come to terms with societies where religion still holds sway. I tended to conflate fundamentalism/radicalism with orthodox piety, which is a scientific mistake. For a Westerner with my background, it is easy to fall prey to secularism: “traditional societies where religion is all-powerful are a breeding ground for fanaticism.” This is a no-goer. Initially, I did not question my assumptions. I tended to interpret Islamic piety as zealotry, even backwardness. I did not reflect on the fact that secular people can be equally fanatical in their beliefs or attitudes.
Ethno-cultural empathy, the leaven of diplomacy, was instrumental in my awakening. I soon decided to react to my cultural shock in a positive way: “I should know and understand Arab Muslims before passing any hasty judgment.” I started to study Arabic and the Quran with an open mind. This attitude helped me to cast off some baggage I was unconsciously carrying with me. I slowly awakened to the beauty of Arab-Islamic civilization. Instead of focusing on our ‘differences,’ I learned to emphasize what we had in common. I realized that many Muslim scholars are correct: religion can be a great instrument of social peace, harmony, and justice.
I had been blinded by the notion that religion caused holy wars in Europe, which it did. But there is a lot more to religion than that! Crucial to my new realization was the constant encounter with normal folks. Arab hospitality really captivated me. I was a guest in Saudi Arabia, hence I was highly respected. No one ever tried to convert me. Before I opened the first book on Arabic, it was my Arab colleagues and neighbours who had paved the way for mutual understanding: we had already bonded as human beings.
If I had not adopted the perspective of cultural empathy towards Islam, my strategy as a cultural diplomat, at a pragmatic level, would have been a lot less effective. I would have been (and seen as) paying lip service to the notion of mutual respect by using the usual clichés diplomats seem compelled to use, and then…what? Deep in my heart, I would have remained aloof, perhaps even hostile to a non-secular perspective. My Italian background proved invaluable. I delved into the reception of Dante’s Comedy into Arabic. Instead of condemning the fact that existing versions of Dante in Arabic censor certain verses (those that are unpalatable to a Muslim audience), I tried to understand the rationale behind them.
The genius Dante, after all, was trapped in the standpoint of an intellectual of the Middle Ages who was bound to be influenced by the stereotypes on Islam circulating at the time. But Dante being a genius…he showed tremendous respect for the great philosophers Averroes and Avicenna, a fact which speaks volumes about his incredible open-mindedness and admiration of Arab civilization. My years toiling away at Translation Studies proved to be a boon. If one digs deeper into the matter, in fact, one will find that Dante’s anticlerical invectives were also censored by the nineteenth-century Catholic Church!
Q4 – The concept of a “clash of civilizations” seems relevant in this context. It evokes the notion of fundamental (and irreconcilable) religious and cultural differences between societies, inevitably leading to major conflicts on a global scale. What is your take on this?
A4 – It is so easy for a Westerner to be enticed by a toxic myth: the inevitability of the clash of civilizations. Political and religious conflicts or rivalries do not have to pit one civilization against another. This is a key point of cultural diplomacy: a foreign or distant civilization can, and should, be appreciated and respected even if (some of) its people clash with us on momentous issues. I think we all agree on a proposition, namely that civilizations are far greater than the sum of their parts.
Aristotle is considered to be the first major western philosopher to reflect on the subtle relationship between the whole and its parts. Of course one always runs the risk of sweeping generalizations and over-simplified formulas (does Western civilization include slavery, fanaticism, wars of religion, dictatorships, genocide? Or is Western civilization primarily the encounter and merging of Judaism, Latin culture and Hellenism?). I suggest we focus on spirituality. All civilizations encompass such a vast array and breadth of spiritual experiences, from religion to art, music and poetry. And of course, from the perspective of Abrahamic religions, which is particularly relevant to Westerners, all human beings anywhere on earth were created in the image of God.
A useful method in cultural diplomacy consists in highlighting and showcasing positive historical realities. I am aware that this method throws up another complex issue fraught with political implications, namely the public use of history (to what extent is this use methodological sound? How does it differ from scholarly research?) This issue, again, should be the object of another interview. Suffice it to say that Italy can boast quite a few significant instances of successful narratives.
Federico II di Svevia, also known as Stupor Mundi (Wonder of the World), possibly the most remarkable of all medieval rulers, was a highly-educated patron of art and culture. He spoke several languages, Arabic among them, a fact which proved invaluable at a time in which Christian and Muslim kingdoms clashed violently. Moreover, Federico II actively promoted religious tolerance and respect for cultural diversity in his reign (in Southern Italy Christian Greeks and Latins, Christian Normans, Arab Muslims and Jews coexisted). This serves as a compelling example in the context of diplomats engaging with interfaith dialogue. In the distant past, Western societies witnessed intolerance among established religions accompanied by the persecution of minority groups; secular and liberal societies may risk fostering intolerance toward any organized religion, with traditional expressions of piety being disparaged in certain intellectual circles.
Knowledge and understanding were crucial in my approach to cultural diplomacy in other Arab countries (I worked in Syria and Lebanon as well). Each country has its own nuances, peculiarities, even if they are seen as belonging to a bloc. I wish to reiterate a point: abstract knowledge and reasoning are necessary when one tries to grasp works such as Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Unless abstract knowledge is paired with empathy, its application risks being devoid of humanity. One will feel like an extraterrestrial being in the real world, which is where diplomats strive to achieve their goals. Among these, I believe, is personal growth and increased awareness of one’s emotional intelligence. Ethno-cultural empathy, then, represents the ethical foundation of dialogue.
This is why I have doubts about soft power as an overarching concept: why can’t we be open to a mutuality where the ‘significant other’ simultaneously seduces and influences us? Let me quote another example. When I set out for Israel, I assumed my mission would be very different. It was going to be easy to befriend secular-minded Israelis, which proved to be true. But… religious Jews are part of the Israeli landscape, and I found it very difficult to accept, let alone remotely understand them. Having experienced a very traditional society, Saudi Arabia, I was astounded to find out that Israel presented me with a greater challenge. How could Israelis tolerate religious orthodoxy? Wasn’t Israel a secular society, a liberal democracy like our own?
I did a lot of background reading to shake off my uneasiness; I still felt uneasy in the presence of religious Jews, as if they were relics of a bygone age. Why wasn’t the empathy I had conjured up in Saudi Arabia ‘kicking in’? I learned that ethno-cultural empathy isn’t a quick fix: it is slowly released in your consciousness, like an antidepressant. Israel was a very new reality for me, a fascinating country where secular and religious coexist, and sometimes clash. And yet the fabric of society is never torn apart… It takes time and genuine efforts to activate empathy in this type of contradictory reality.
The epiphany that opened my eyes happened one day when I expressed all my concerns (relating to women’s rights, for instance) to an Israeli intellectual, who asked me: “What troubles you the most?” I replied, “Well, this strict adherence to the Sabbath. Don’t we live in a modern world, here in Israel?” He paused and pondered, so did I. I soon realized that some heavy baggage on my conscience was getting in the way of empathy/comprehension, namely a certain Christian interpretation of the Sabbath that was lingering in my mind (I was raised as a Roman Catholic). The Israeli intellectual then threw a lifeline at me: “I know where you are coming from. We are all victims of some kind of prejudice, aren’t we? Well, I am deeply secular and very much in favour of workers’ rights, just like you…Edoardo, have you ever considered the fact that the Jewish Sabbath was the first historical instance of protection of workers’ rights? Not even a king had the right to ask a commoner to toil on a Sabbath.”
I was astounded; I had never thought about it this way. I thought I was well-seasoned in diplomacy, yet I had failed to see things in a different light from what I was accustomed to since my youth. “Don’t you think,” I asked my friend, “that this is the authentic meaning of Jesus’ phrase: ‘The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath’?”
Actually, I had always focused on the negative interpretation, as if Jesus had been rebuking the sanctity of that holy day. But this wasn’t the case. The answers seemed so obvious now… My Jewish friend was not done, so he went on: “Do you really think the sanctity of the Sabbath is a worn-out tradition in the Western world, which is driven by an overpowering economic system with its obsessive-compulsive demands? Competition and productivity are encroaching on us from all sides; no wonder we often feel overwhelmed and exhausted.
We live in a burn-out society where human values, friendship, and family take second place, at best. Now, let us imagine for a moment a state of affairs where you have no respite from your boss, from your colleagues, from the system at large because you are not meeting the new Gospel, that is, the deadline, and you’re not worshipping the new God, i.e., productivity. They will keep harassing you, bombarding you with messages—we are hyper-connected today; it is almost sinful to disconnect. Well, the Sabbath allows you to disconnect, hence it is a powerful gift from God to protect our sanity and what makes us truly human: family, friends, feelings.” He was so right! Here again, I became effective in promoting Italian culture in Israel only when I sloughed off a layer of my former self and embraced diversity, which meant embracing Jewishness. Now every Friday afternoon I repeat to myself “Shabbat shalom leculam” and…try not to yield to the demands of incessant productivity.
Q5 – Can we consider Kazakhstan’s culture closely linked with European culture? Or, in other words, is there room for a significant European identity in this country between its traditional Kazakh and Turkish cultures?
A5 – My answer is in the affirmative. Although I have only been here for a year, I perceive a European cultural streak in this country. However, your questions prompts a deeper inquiry. How can we best define European culture? I would need an entire monograph to address such a momentous topic. I shall do my best to summarize my view.
Europe has always had relationships with Turkish and Arab-Islamic cultures, so in a sense, we can say that those cultures are also part of our identity. I am perfectly aware of the pitfall of binary thinking, “us and them,” which often blocks or clouds our reasoning. There have been wars and clashes between Christians and Muslims, true, but also a great deal of cultural exchanges, especially in the Middle Ages, when the Arabic-Islamic civilization was far ahead of us in many fields of endeavour, especially in the sciences.
I am indebted to Federico Chabod’s A History of the Idea of Europe, which the Italian Cultural Institute in Kiev had translated into Ukrainian a few years ago. I was struck by some acute observations therein. European identity goes well beyond the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage. A common trait of Europe is unity in diversity. Fragmentation, turmoil, and constant change have been offset by some sort of harmony. This trait I see in the Kazakh nation, an amazing melting pot where dozens of ethnic groups coexist peacefully. How many different ethnic groups live side by side in Europe?
Kazakhstan has succeeded in forging a thriving community cemented by bilingualism (Russian and Kazakh) and multilingualism (other minority languages are spoken); moreover, religious tolerance is a reality in Kazakhstan, as diversity is highly respected here. Aren’t these European traits? Perhaps the Kazakhs have a greater ability to avoid conflicts that tear societies apart. In European history, we had bloody wars of religion and other conflicts triggered by nationalism and bigotry. Yet, finally, the European Union has blossomed, and we have reached a state of harmony.
Kazakhs are fortunate in that their national intellectual and man of letters, Abaj Qunanbaiuly (also known as Kunanbaev), was a distinguished advocate of the spirit of unity in diversity. He was highly cultivated, mastered several languages, and always encouraged his fellow countrymen to study Russian culture and literature, despite the fact that his country was being colonized by Tsarist Russia. Abaj embodies the spirit of the Italian Renaissance: he was a man of many talents, a poet, an accomplished music composer, a theologian philosopher, and a literary translator!
If you read Abay’s work carefully, you will recognize some features that typify European identity: the fostering of critical inquiry, the respect for one’s traditions coupled with a modicum of self-criticism, the propensity to cultural reform and renovation, the attempt to reconcile the conflicting demands of reason and faith, a deep sense of spirituality, and a great love for culture and literature. A very smart instance of cultural diplomacy is President Tokayev’s decision to have an anthology of Abay’s works translated and published into Italian (Mondadori Publishing House).
Q6 – Could you tell us about your aims and projects, including Kazakhstan’s participation in the 60th International Exhibition of Contemporary Art (Biennale) in Venice?
A6 – We are currently in the process of organizing a few exhibitions combined with interactive moments (presentations, seminars, etc.) together with Danagul Tolepbay, the curator of the Kazakhstan Pavilion in Venice. The exhibitions will take place both in Almaty and Astana. They will showcase Kazakh artists who exhibited in Venice. The Italian Cultural Institute in Almaty is the cultural office of the Italian Embassy, and our goal is to contribute to strengthening cultural ties between our countries, under the supervision of our Ambassador. Our main ongoing projects are:
1. Spazio-D: The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, in fact, every year supports and promotes Italian Design Day worldwide. This is why we have designated a dedicated space for Italian design at our premises, Abylai-Khan 53, Arbat, Almaty. Spazio-D is the result of a fruitful synergy between the Italian Embassy and the Italian Cultural Institute, for which I would like to thank Ambassador Marco Alberti. Italian companies showcase their creations, highlighting their craftsmanship and innovation. We’re not an outlet, of course. Our emphasis lies in exploring and promoting cultural narratives, a task we pursue, for example, with educational Masterclasses for university students. This is why we are working in cooperation with Gazgasa University in Almaty, an university that holds a reputation for excellence and distinction, and various local creative hubs.
2. The Art Gallery: We have launched an art gallery at our premises. Both Italian and Kazakh artists are welcome. We’ve hosted Sarra Yessenbay’s wonderful artistic photographs and an exhibition devoted to the communities trying to rebuild their lives around the Aral Lake, curated by Gaukhar Satpayeva and Daniyar Shabdukorinov. On the Italian side, Francesca Fabbri Fellini, niece of director Federico Fellini, an author and journalist in her own right, curated a successful photo exhibition devoted to Marcello Mastroianni on the centenary of his birth.
3. The Italian Institute as a creative hub in Almaty: We’ve set up a creative hub designed to share moments of creativity with our esteemed Kazakh friends (Masterclasses, seminars). The focus is on design, craftsmanship, ceramics, and art. One of the formats will be as follows: from the idea to the project (including the search for sponsors), from the search on materials or digital means of production to the final product: a work of art, a designer’s product, an artistic production, quality ceramics or mosaics, etc. One of the achievements of our creative hub is a sculpture by artist Vera Belikova, “Le Immagini della Memoria” (“The Images of Memory”), crafted with the eco-compatible, premium-quality ceramics of GRANITI FIANDRE, exemplifying sustainability and artistic excellence.
4. Children’s literature in the Kazakh language: We are promoting two books we recently had translated with the publishing house “Steppe and World”, A Thousand Wonders and Marco Polo, by the renowned author Elisabetta Dami. Both books were published thanks to the financial support of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. Our deep respect for Kazakhstan is shown primarily by our appreciation of their beautiful language.
As a final remark, I would like to say that I am deeply influenced by a seminal book by Andrea Balzola and Paolo Rosa, L’arte fuori da sé. The authors, distinguished art critics and curators to whom I’m really indebted, emphasize the importance of a progressive, libertarian, person-centered approach whereby new technologies are employed in such a way as to elicit meaningful interaction and participation, which are forms of respect for the audience. The individual and his/her community should be encouraged to build a harmonious whole.
Artists must avoid narcissism, the malaise of our troubled times, and resist shaping their creative decisions solely based on market dictates, striving instead for authenticity and the pursuit of genuine connections with their communities. Along the same lines, cultural diplomats, I believe, ought to play a role in a process that is dialogical and community-based in nature. Ultimately, creativity in all walks of life partakes of spirituality.
Edoardo Crisafulli (Rimini, 26.04.1964) studied at the universities of Urbino, Birmingham and earned a doctorate from University College Dublin (N.U.I.). He has published in the fields of Italian politics and translation studies. He taught Italian language and culture at the universities of Jeddah, Manchester and University College Dublin. In 2001 he attained the rank of cultural attaché at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. In that capacity he served in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Japan, Ukraine. He’s currently the Director of the Italian Cultural Institute in Almaty and cultural attaché of the Italian Embassy in Kazakhstan.
The views expressed in this interview belong to the author alone, and do not necessarily represent the position of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cultural Cooperation.
Image Credit: East Kazakhstan University.