O. NIGLIO
of transmission operate in completely fortuitous ways although
unlike the slowness of genetics, the transmission of cultural
inheritance, and the ways in which it evolves, take place very
quickly. We find the earliest major scientific reference to the
concept of the transmission of cultural inheritance in Luigi
Cavalli-Sforza and Marcus W. Feldman, Cultural Transmission
and Evolution (Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 1981) in which,
introducing the concept of “cultural evolution” for the first time,
Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman write that it is also possible to
identify “social” manifestations in the analysis of human ge-
netics. But thanks to the power of language first, and then of
writing, humanity has been the only species that developed a
conscious interest in cultural transmission and evolution.
Unlike evolution in genetics, human language in fact became so
powerful that it was able to transmit information even to de-
scendants not directly biologically related, and to do so in ways
that were able to bring about changes that made possible dif-
ferent forms of “cultural evolution”. Whilst this might lead us
to suppose that the transmission of cultural information is a
wholly positive consequence of human evolution, it is not dif-
ficult to see that it could also become negative, should its pur-
pose be to forcibly transmit information that could lead to cul-
tural involution or the coerced adoption of alien cultural identi-
ties.
In our present-day reality it is not difficult to see how these
processes of transmitting cultural information have enormously
accelerated. Formerly, our tools for transmission operated in
one direction “from the one to the many”, for example in the
case of an author who transmitted information to potential
readers in the form of a book; but now in the digital era it has
become possible to disseminate cultural information “from the
many to the many ” (a s we now do via the Internet).
If we analyse this new reality in terms of its ability to inter-
cept the values of cultural heritage passed down from earlier
generations, it is not difficult to understand the concern that a
process of worldwide communication, incorrectly managed,
might lead to a degradation of specific local identities, and
spark off a process of globalisation that might even put an end
to all forms of cultural evolution and transmission. On the other
hand, global communication also gives us a setting in which
interdisciplinary synergies can take place between different
fields of study, for instance between pure science and the hu-
manities, that only rarely used to come into contact with each
other. Seen in this more positive light, it enables us to investi-
gate new issues that touch on cultural heritage and its value;
indeed it is entirely to be hoped that a confluence of different
disciplines can now cement close new relationships whose in-
tersections will open up interesting new cultural opportunities
and developments, enabling new models for interpreting reality
to be discovered.
Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize
in Physics, wrote that:
[...] it is probably true quite generally that in the history of
human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take
place at those points where two different lines of thought meet.
These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of hu-
man culture, in different times or different cultural environ-
ments or different religious traditions: hence if they actually
meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other
that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that
new and interesting developments may follow.
For our present purposes, the interdisciplinarity to which
Heisenberg alludes is reflected in our consideration of cultural
heritage in terms of how its host community evolves. This nec-
essarily connects to its environment, and to the ecology that
constitutes the setting in which cultural evolution takes place;
in fact when we discuss human cultural adaptation to a specific
environment, the only factors that can determine different iden-
tities in different places are the interactions between a specific
environment and a specific culture (Facchini, 2006).
Moreover, the idea of cultural identity i s closely linked to an
idea of social equity, since the value that enables cultural herit-
age to go beyond mere material significance, and be enjoyed as
an inherited asset, is an opportunity for the well-being of a
community as a whole (Sen, 1980). In considering the impor-
tance of seeing cultural heritage as more than merely an accu-
mulation of tangible assets it will be of interest here, as a way
of taking us beyond utilitarianism, to recall the Indian econo-
mist Amartya Sen’s theory of the Capability Approach (Sen,
2006). Looking beyond the obvious economic benefits, it is
important to analyse Sen’s theory as fundamental for under-
standing the significance of the value each person can recognise
in their own cultural heritage. Sen has a particular interest in
this relationship between the individual and the inherited asset,
and in the cultural benefits that can derive from that relation-
ship. For example, when he analyses the value of an asset in
order to assess the benefits that can be obtained from it, he
compares different variables that intervene within different so-
cial realities. But these assessments are of an ethical type that pla-
ces the emphasis on the importance of equity within diversity.
The recognition of human diversity, analysed both in terms
of personal characteristics such as age, specific abilities and
talents, gender, cultural level and so on, and in terms of other
components, particularly environmental factors such as social
origin, climatic factors, urban context, etc. is fundamentally
important, according to Sen, for gaining knowledge of, and
respect for, the single values (of non-economic type) that can
be identified within each reality, and these are factors which, on
the other hand, do not emerge in socio-economic studies whose
principal variables are identified as income level and material
possessions. Further, Sen also re-examines the concept of col-
lective identity and the possible negative consequences that can
result when it is not correctly interpreted.
All the same, the need to identify and deepen these concepts
derives from an analysis that takes account of the complexity of
individual realities. In addressing this topic it is fundamentally
important to also consider the cultural conflictualities that in
more than one instance have not allowed individual communi-
ties to orientate their own value choices.
These conflictualities have manifested themselves above all
when economically advanced peoples have superimposed their
own models of development on emerging countries. In reality,
the choice of models cannot be generalised but should be as-
sessed in relation to the actual needs to be met and in respect of
the cultural identity of each individual people. The automatic
transfer of cultural models from countries of ancient civilisation
to others whose ancient civilisations they do not understand (as
in some countries of the African continent) can bring about
very dangerous consequences, as has alas been perpetrated in
past times, above all in Latin America (Sen, 2006a).
The Differing Identities of Cultural Value
It is fundamentally important to know and analyse individual
cultural identities, and therefore the heritage bequeathed to
them, not identifying this heritage in relation to principles of
utilitarianism or consumerism, that is, according to laws we
OPEN ACCESS
2