Why it is wrong to reduce everything to closers vs. openers. The example of culture

Even among those involved in culture there is perceived, in these hours, a strong hostility to the April 26 reopenings, seen from many quarters as a cession of the government to the “aperturist right” (I quote Tomaso Montanari). I believe that to reduce the issue in the terms of the clash between an alleged “openurist right” and a hypothetical “closurist left” is a way of excessively trivializing an extremely complex problem, which is not so clear-cut, and which above all must be evaluated in a balanced way, with attention to the different components acting on the “reasoned risk” that the government took on last Friday. It is true that parties representing the demands of business and the self-employed tend to be more in favor of openness, but it is also true that beyond the Alps the situation is much more nuanced: in France, for example, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France insoumise party, which has similar political positions to those in Italy who wish for all-out closures, has for weeks been calling for alternatives to confinement; in Germany, the Green group leader in the Bundestag who has criticized the curfew saying it should be a last resort if the rest doesn’t work; in Belgium, the Workers’ Party has presented a bill to abolish the curfew; and so on (the shrewdest politicians don’t argue about openings versus closures: if anything, they put it on the level of necessary versus exaggerated measures). And in any case, if there are political parties in Italy that ride the protest, I think it is also because those who should protect the demands of those who are now having a hard time have left wide prairies to ride (personally, I have a hard time seeing, in the hairdresser down the street or the beautician next door or the small village barkeeper, a dangerous political opponent).

But beyond positions, the issue of reopenings must take into account multiple factors: the health crisis is but one component of the issue. For a more comprehensive assessment of “reasoned risk” (a “political decision” as many scientists have been quick to point out, and it would be missed: science provides opinions and advice to politics, but it is the latter that decides, based on several other elements that affect our lives, and which cannot and should not be neglected if the goal is to make choices that have an impact on everyone’s existence), one could take as an example what happens in our sector, where there is a very strong precariat: that of workers in museum concessionaires, that of intermittent workers in the performing arts, that of workers in educational cooperatives. To this now structural precariat must then be added the work of so many self-employed (tour guides, for example) or VAT workers who have seen their jobs almost completely reduced to zero. A microcosm that nonetheless constitutes the fundamental backbone of the culture sector: data released two weeks ago by Mi Riconosci, which submitted a questionnaire to a base of a thousand culture workers, shows that only 30 out of 100 have kept their jobs exactly as before, and that there is a 67% of those who, among those who have kept their jobs in part, consider the subsidies insufficient (a percentage that rises to 79.5% if we take into account those who have instead lost their jobs). I have no idea what the proportions are in other areas, but I don’t think the situation is that different. Add to that the fact that we had been warned for months about the risk of strong social tensions, which are punctually appearing.

Visitors to the Borghese Gallery on May 18, 2020, the first day of reopening after the first lockdown

The issues that perhaps need to be discussed, and in the most united and balanced way possible, I think are essentially three. First, how much, what, and how long we can open without doing damage (and therefore, also how much and what we can reopen in relation to the progress of the vaccination campaign). Second, how much further closures we can afford. Third, what models we intend to pursue for the post-pandemic: the horizon of many, unfortunately, is the day after, but at this point, especially in the culture, a moment of discussion about what will happen after Covid is increasingly irrimandable.

On the first point, it will be necessary to remember that the government has not given the green light to everything, but has simply restored the situation that existed before Easter, when there were still yellow zones, with the added possibility of opening outdoor restaurants and with a series of deadlines that go well beyond April 26. Therefore, frankly, I find it exaggerated to talk about grand openings and assorted “green light”. Then, on our side, we have seasonality (the higher the temperatures rise, the less the virus circulates), and the vaccination campaign that, despite the many known difficulties, continues. Last month, the Corriere della Sera published a nice report by Milena Gabanelli in which she calculated the date of return to something close to normalcy based on the assumption of getting Covid to flu-like lethality levels (i.e., from the current 11 cases per thousand to 1 case per thousand, we learn from the report), continuing to vaccinate at the current rates and hoping that the doses arrive on time. According to these calculations, we will reach the target of 1 case per 1,000 on June 25 (and reaching the target means drastically reducing the burden on hospitals, which, as I understand it, should be the real purpose of the restrictive measures: it is not that we close to eradicate the disease or to get to zero risk, which now seems impossible, but we close to ensure adequate levels of care for all). Consequently, I think there is a basis for calculating that the situation will improve.

It will then be necessary to reiterate that the scientific community itself is not so clearly aligned in favor of ultra-restrictive measures: in the face of the discontents of a Crisanti or a Galli there are, just to remain in the sphere of the more media-savvy scientists, a Bassetti, a Vaia and even a Burioni who are better disposed on the issue of reopenings (the new decisions of the rest were also made on the basis of scientific studies showing that outdoors it is rare to contract the infection). Indeed: I am pleased that Burioni wrote that, now that it is reopening, it is his intention “to return to museums as they used to be.” There you have it: when openings are being contemplated, one should also ask oneself whether it makes sense to oppose openings altogether, or whether there are areas that can be reopened in peace. Museums and places of culture in general, I believe, are among the places that can be reopened without fear of repentance: it will also be worth remembering that in Spain, where the majority is center-left, culture has closed very little and, indeed, the government has promoted a campaign to encourage Spaniards to go to the museum or theater. In Italy, too, museums could have been kept open all the time: in those few weeks of reopening, between January and February, they were very compliant with protocols and posted admissions at rates less than half of what they were in 2019. Let’s also not forget that in the most serious situations, orange and red zones will still be in effect.

On the second point, we can start with the issue of cultural workers: simplifying, there are 7 out of 10 workers who have partially kept their jobs and who consider the benefits insufficient, and 8 out of 10 who have lost them consider them in turn unsatisfactory. The government that calculated the “reasoned risk” will probably also have considered that the refreshments cannot be infinite, because paying workers (little and unsatisfactorily) to stay at home means greatly increasing the debt that someone in the future will have to pay (regardless of the fact that a serious problem of worker dignity also arises). Refreshments, health insurance and various benefits are currently financed in deficits, and we currently have a public debt that has reached almost 160 percent of GDP (we are at war spending levels) and a deficit that has grown to 11.8 percent. Evidently the government, in calculating “reasoned risk,” will also have considered whether and how much we can afford to go into debt to pay for subsidies that are deemed by most to be unsatisfactory (I give the example of culture but I imagine it is much the same in other areas as well). It is a very unmainstream topic (among the “familiar faces” of the country’s intellectual milieu, only Cacciari, who moreover was already proposing a patrimonial asset to smooth out inequality back in October, and a few others have spoken about it) but it is fundamental in the calculation of risk.

The Bank of Italy let it be known just this morning that Italy’s public debt is still sustainable, but it will be necessary to support the recovery with the interventions planned with the Next Generation EU funds (the plan will be made known in the coming days), and above all it will be necessary for these interventions to be effective. Moreover, said Eugenio Gaiotti, Head of the Economy and Statistics Department at the Bank of Italy, letting public debt remain on very high debts “would leave our country highly exposed to risks from financial market tensions or new economic shocks. To counter these, it is essential that there is an effective stimulus to growth provided by public investment, by interventions that operate the necessary strengthening of the country’s infrastructure, and by reforms that can foster productivity and private investment.” Continuing on the example of the culture sector, there are areas that will still have to rely on subsidies for some time: think, in particular, of those working with international tourism. The situation, however, could be different for those who instead work thanks to domestic consumption: the Bank of Italy itself has noted how Italian household consumption is strongly affected by the epidemiological situation, but at the same time Italians are willing to resume it gradually if the health contingency improves (the impact of the pandemic on incomes, Bank of Italy points out, has been highly heterogeneous).

Finally, on the third theme: are we able to think about alternative development models for culture? On these pages, in the “pandemic” months, we have highlighted some aspects that could benefit the discussion. Meanwhile, it will be necessary to return to the question of what culture is for (the institutes themselves will have to start reflecting on who they are, what they stand for, who they intend to address) and what directions it can provide for city management: as Paola Dubini has suggested here, post-Covid cultural policies will have to “explore more decisively the relationship with research and with health, especially mental health.” And again: it will be appropriate to rethink new models of tourist flows, to think about a culture that is more integrated into the fabrics of our cities, to try to reorganize the sector so that it is closer to the needs of citizens, to find management models that can ensure greater sustainability for institutions. Surely, we can for the time being avoid polarization that serves no one and, on the contrary, is only harmful.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.