Rachele FalchiCulture Minister Alessandro Giuli delivered a philosophically dense monologue, misquoting Hegel and filling his parliamentary address with empty jargon. Amidst the abstract rhetoric, a clear vision for Italy’s cultural future is nowhere to be found.
Alessandro Giuli, Italy’s Culture Minister, delivered a speech packed with philosophical jargon, confusing Hegel and filling the parliamentary committee with empty phrases. Between misquotes and abstract concepts, there’s a glaring lack of a real vision for Italian culture.
Giuli’s speech to the Chamber of Deputies’ Culture Committee quickly stirred controversy, not only for its lofty and philosophical tone but also for its clumsy use of intellectual references. He opened with a nod to Hegel, stating that “knowledge is the reflection of its own time through thought,” intending to evoke German idealism and give his speech an intellectual veneer. However, even this quote, meant to anchor his argument, fell flat, as scholars quickly pointed out his unintentional distortion of Hegelian thought.
Hegel, known for his complexity and dialectical view of history, is likely “rolling in his grave” due to Giuli’s reductive approach. Condensing Hegelian philosophy into a context-free slogan diminishes not only the philosopher himself but the entire intellectual tradition he represents. This philosophical blunder only adds to the speech’s already confusing tone, filled with vague terms like “global infosphere” and “defensive apocalypticism,” which only serve to mask the absence of any meaningful cultural proposal.
Why would a Culture Minister mishandle a thinker of such significance? The result is an incomprehensible monologue, unable to address the real challenges facing Italian culture. Instead, it risks turning cultural policy into a stage for intellectual self-indulgence. Rather than inspiring concrete actions to support Italy’s artists, museums, libraries, and theaters, poor Hegel was reduced to an intellectual prop, misused more to impress than to communicate anything substantive.
Giuli’s approach was so abstract that even the few who tried to defend his performance struggled to find any practical meaning in his words. His use of terms like “defensive apocalypticism” and “passive enthusiasm” to describe the challenges of culture in the digital age felt disconnected from the everyday struggles of cultural workers, who face economic crises and funding cuts, not abstract philosophies.
In short, Giuli’s speech was received as a display of erudition lacking in practical substance. It leaves the impression of a minister more interested in showcasing his academic knowledge than in offering solutions to the real difficulties plaguing Italy’s cultural sector.
The speech’s incomprehensibility and aloof tone were immediately criticized, with many comparing Giuli’s performance to a “supercazzola” (nonsense speech). Between misquotes and inflated theoretical concepts, a real vision for the future of Italian culture remains elusive.
This kind of communication not only risks alienating the public but also diminishes the very role of culture, which should be inclusive and accessible, not cryptic and elitist.
