The ‘Glocal’ Community of Matera 2019: Participative Processes and Re-Signification of Cultural Heritage

Abstract

The ‘local’ community of Matera has been studied in a pioneering work by Lidia De Rita, who focused on the unique configuration of its neighborly relations, defining “psycho-groups”, featured by their not codified laws and affected by topographical defects in the formation of normal groups. In the second half of the 20th century, Matera radically changed its status: from a “national shame”, it was declared a “World Heritage Site” by UNESCO; in addition, it was definitively crowned in the hearth of the European scenario, thanks to the European Capital of Culture program (ECoC). In this rapidly evolving background, this work aims to investigate the re-signification of this ‘glocal’ community by means of three crucial variables—culture, participation, and sense of community and identity—as experienced across the complex pathway leading to Matera 19 (M19). In order to analyze the psychosocial value of the Cultural Heritage of the Mega Event M19, as it was socially constructed and perceived, both “front stage” (opening and closing ceremonies) and “backstage” (through interviews with key actors) positioning were analyzed by means of critical discourse analysis. The emerging social-epistemic rhetoric revealed a kaleidoscope of meanings, where the opportunities offered by M19 dealt with a missed fulfillment of needs and with the fact that the unicity of Matera still has to deal with its unresolved fragilities.

1. Introduction

Even if it is unknown to many people, Matera is one of the oldest settlements in the world, even older than Damasco, Jerusalem, Atene, and Rome. Its territory shows cultural traces of communities dating from the Neolithic Age. Therefore, although sometimes late, an intercultural and interdisciplinary attention has been devoted to this city.

The relation between Matera and the psychology of community is really long-standing. In 1954, the landmark work “Controllo sociometrico di vicinati in una comunità lucana” (“Sociometric control of neighborhoods in a Lucanian community”—translation by the authors), proposed by the psychologist Lidia De Rita [1], focused on a prototypical issue, neighborly relations, which were found in Matera in a unique configuration. Her psycho-anthropological work, mainly acted through the sociometric tool of Moreno, was aimed to understand the role of neighborhood in local community, especially referring to cohesion as a potential source for the construction of “psycho-groups”. The serendipity of this investigation led De Rita to revise the presumed institutional and social function of neighborhood, meant as informal groups with a spatial pressure, in the background of a collective deprivation, that could hinder the habitual group constitution.

The importance of the insights proposed by de Rita accompanied a more general attention surrounding Matera since the 1950s, implying a significant cultural and political activity, as testified to by the presence of Togliatti and De Gasperi (central political figures at the time) as well as by the literary work of Carlo Levi, which raised a certain awareness in public opinion. In such a cultural climate, the Sassi were defined as a source of “national shame” and, as a consequence, the residing farmers were forced to leave them. In the space of four decades, the identity of Matera and its community were heavily re-significated, so that in 1993 the Sassi were declared a “World Heritage Site” by UNESCO. The renewal of its identity was also supported by the choice of Matera as a movie setting by very popular filmmakers (such as Pasolini and Gibson).

About 70 years had passed, and new reasons for excitement accompanied Matera’s life. A new challenge for the psychology of community was launched in line with a different perspective of neighborhood, not meant as a factual condition but, instead, related to the metaphorical construct of “connection”: for 2019, Matera was chosen as the European Capital of Culture. This very important achievement shed a new light on Matera, since its territory could experience unprecedented opportunities and benefits from cultural resources, under the magnifying gaze of international and local stakeholders.

The “European Capital of Culture” program (ECoC) originated with the aim to promote the awareness about the richness and diversity of European cultures, “having both common elements and a richness born of diversity” [2] and a feeling of closeness among their members. These events, deriving from a complex organization, can play an essential role for urban regeneration, cultural change, tourist attractiveness and entertainment [3], economic impacts, and sustainable development, as well as for the social impact on the hosting community; in addition, they contribute to consolidate the feeling of belonging and to construct the long-term legacy of the program [4]. This process of “value creation” can be promoted thanks to a holistic involvement concerning cognitive, emotional, and sensorial levels [5].

Since some of the core concepts of the ECoC are “citizen engagement” [6] and “co-creation” [7], the shift from “government”, meant as the “predominance of public actors and a top-down decision-making process” [8] (p. 164), to “governance”, where the public entities and “target organizations” promote the “participation of private bodies and citizens in creating, defining, and implementing public policies” [8], can be considered as a key process of this program.

The overall aim of this work is to investigate how these complex processes were meant and experienced in the adventure of Matera 2019: the organizational dynamics of this mega event [9] involved core constructs from the psychology of community and represented a unique opportunity to promote cultural heritage in the resulting “glocal” community. As a consequence, this work seems particularly fitting within the FARO Convention framework, a great project recognizing the distinctive value of cultural heritage, not in objects or places but in the meanings and uses attached to them by people [10]. A preliminary version of this work was proposed at the Naples FARO Convention 2021, a context offering a multidisciplinary perspective on cultural heritage as related to society, participation, and well-being.

2. Theoretical Background

As experienced across the last decades, the “cultural heritage” of the ECoC is intrinsically related to the story, the sociocultural background, and the commitment of the communities involved in each Capital of Culture project [11]. We believe that the configuration of the specific cultural heritage of Matera 2019 is set at the intersection of three constructs having a deep psychological origin and impact: “culture”, “identity”, and “participation”.

Since its origins, and especially in its social, cultural, and community domains, psychology has emphasized the importance of culture and the essential function of cultural dynamics in the construction and regulation of psychic processes [12]. A wide and complex conception of culture—encompassing worldviews, ways of thinking and communicating, values, ideologies, and more local and situated dimensions [13]—warns against any attempt to consider persons as decontextualized and abstract “individuals”. On the contrary, culture offers both artifacts and an interpretative lens, supporting the construction of individual and collective identities; therefore, cultural assets are simultaneously concurring to develop and developed by communities, for far-reaching benefits.

Beyond its constitutional function for social life, culture also acts as an economically effective, socially sustainable factor of development. “To invest in cultural resources means contributing to improvements in quality of life, and forging new economic, financial, and human resources” [14] (p. 2). Acting together with the definition of the social and economic objectives of a region [15], the moral anchorage to principle and values enables culture to promote practices, norms, and systemic equity [14].

The deep constructs of “culture” and “identity” meet each other in several ways. In the ECoC, a specific fit between those items can be found in the profile of the “cultural citizen”.

“The citizens of Matera and Basilicata, men and women, elderly and children, want the city and the region to take part in the competition because they wish to open up to Europe, link up with other cultural inhabitants and, with them, look forward to a better future for our communities” [16] (p. 2).

Some features of the cultural citizenship can be found in this definition, which was part of the application report submitted to MiBACT (on the 19th of September 2013): (a) being not connoted by age and sex; (b) claiming their will (‘want’ and ‘wish’); and (c) connecting with each other and aiming to extend these connections. Other more explicit features can be found, in the same document, just below, where the cultural citizen is defined as

“a responsible, informed resident who understands that culture is a fundamental resource, actively contributes to the collaboration and co-creation of cultural and creative initiatives, and attends to the town’s cultural patrimony” (p. 48).

In other words, the European Commission fully embraces the active involvement of citizens in cultural and creative public initiatives as a significant topic in its cultural heritage policies [17].

The proactivity of the “cultural citizens” can occur and be reinforced by taking into account the role of the two main constructs of community psychology, which are participative processes and the citizens’ psychological sense of community. Participation can be defined as the engagement of individuals as group members, in order to improve their conditions; therefore, both social nets and trust toward community and institutions are essential [18]. From this perspective, participation can also lead toward individual benefits, since it is a shared and conscious action for pursuing the common good, founded on critical thinking and conscientization [19] (p. 457). Critical thinking can be developed through sharing knowledge, ideas, and practices inside a participating community. Conscientization [20] derives from dialogue and problematic issues; at their turn, dialogical practices oppose homologation, search for scientifically valid descriptions, and construct shared knowledge from social reality problems [19].

Starting from these ideological assumptions, several social intervention models were proposed, emphasizing the active role of persons and the importance of the political dimension in the social construction of knowledge. As a matter of fact, civic social participation is founded on the psychosocial dimensions of trust and mutual support acted by community members; the deriving positive social identity as well as the feelings of solidarity and equality generate a proactive impulse toward social well-being and problem resolution, implying an active citizens’ involvement and sense of community [20,21,22]. A recent perspective [23] individuated in civic engagement a key element in creating social relationships and developing a sense of responsible togetherness, since it promotes prosocial values and increases active citizenship and a sense of community. At its turn, a responsible style of togetherness can foster changes in community: its core features (common values and rules, shared spaces for collective actions, and support among community members and with its leaders) are well-fitting with a community-building framework [24], which aims to promote community welfare through community resources.

These elements are strictly related to the psychological sense of community, meant as a feeling of belonging to a common space and way of life, which improves the willingness to participate in order to solve common problems. This is especially true when the subdimensions of membership, that is influence, integration of needs, and emotional connection, are active. In particular, McMillan and Chavis [25] defined (a) membership as the sense of belonging to a community, accompanied by the perception of shared boundaries, histories, and symbols as well as by the feeling of emotional safety, usually related to personal investment in community life; (b) influence as the feeling of mutual influence whereby not only the actions of individuals can influence the community, but also the community can affect individual choices and decisions; (c) integration and satisfaction of needs as the security of being able to fulfill personal and community needs thanks to positive interpersonal and social relationships; and (d) emotional connection as the awareness of a common repertoire—made of common histories, places, and significant experiences. This feeling of sharing a common good can strengthen the quality of social ties.

In the frame of the ECoC, participation is one of the preconditions for accepting the application of a town: civic engagement is considered as a key value for creating and sharing cultural projects, events, and experiences. In their co-constructive nature, individual contributions can strengthen the feeling of being socially connected with one another [26], and community participation can prompt local development, social justice, and population health. Therefore, in line with other international bodies, the European Commission promotes the active participation of citizens in cultural and creative initiatives, due to the positive impact these initiatives can have on the well-being and development of local communities (see SDG 11, [27]) [8].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Aims and Research Questions

In line with the exposed theoretical background, the overall aim of this work is to investigate the psychosocial value of the cultural heritage of the mega event “Matera European Capital of Culture 2019” (M19), as it was socially constructed and perceived.

In particular, we set three research questions connecting the variables of “culture”, “identity”, and “participation”:

(a)

How is “culture” signified and valued through the extraordinary cultural events of M19?

(b)

How are participation and sense of community experienced in the proposal and implementation of the cultural program?

(c)

How can cultural identity be defined and promoted in such a scenario?

3.2. Procedure

We collected discursive data, enabling us to focus on both socially constructed and more subjectively perceived features of the whole experience of M19. Specifically, recalling Goffman’s theatrical metaphor of social life as a continuous interplay between the “front stage” and “backstage” scenarios [28], we tried to explore the “public” and “private” dimensions of M19’s cultural heritage through two different pathways.

(1)

The qualitative analysis of two media events, the opening and closing ceremony, respectively aiming to “launch the challenge” and to “value the outcomes” of the whole experience and having, therefore, a high and deep symbolic impact.

(2)

The qualitative analysis of two interviews with key actors having active roles in Matera public life and representing two main categories: the Foundation Matera-Basilicata 2019 (a female architect having an active role in the foundation) and the world of Civic Local Associations (a retired male architect, president of the local association “Carlo Levi”). In line with the pinnacles of qualitative inquiry as well as with the specific role of key actors played by the respondents, the number of interviews had a secondary relevance.

In line with the literary precedent about the European Capital of Cultural Program (ECoC), this double pathway enabled us to work with both secondary and primary sources [8] as well as to investigate the proposed issues in more comprehensive ways.

With respect to COVID-19 safety measures, the interviews were realized through Skype and were recorded. After having presented the research aims and procedures, the interviewees signed an informed content. The sessions followed a semi-structured draft, where the main points were oriented to deepen the investigated psychosocial constructs; each interview lasted for about one hour.

Both media events—respectively broadcasted on 19th January and 20th December the 2019—and the interviews were transcribed and analyzed.

3.3. Data Analysis

Discursive data were analyzed by means of a particular kind of critical discourse analysis, known as diatextual analysis [29]. As “critical” and “discursive”, this kind of analysis aims to understand the sense-making practices that actually animate human life and shape individual and collective identities through discourses. The peculiarities of diatextual analysis are related to the prefix ‘dia-’, implying both a dynamic and reciprocal relation between texts and their enunciators and an open and mutual relation between texts and contexts. This means that persons and communities can meet in the texts as active constructors of worlds of reference.

In its efforts to catch the sense of a discourse, diatextual analysis proceeds by answering three basic questions: Who is saying that? Why do they say it? How do they say it? These questions organize the interpretative pathway identified as “SAM Model” [30], looking for a series of markers which identify Subjectivity, Argumentation, and Modality of discourses. The first question tries to specify the way in which the text talks about its characters as well as the images that the enunciators elaborate about themselves. The second question aims to point out the ways to articulate arguments and organizing “meanings why”, that is, to identify the “enjeu” (what is at stake in the communicative event), which underlies a specific discursive practice. The third question focuses on the coordination between ‘‘dictum’’ and ‘‘modus’’ of discourse, according to which meaning is shaped.

These psycholinguistic markers were accompanied by a broader framework of reference that we have adopted for understanding the psychosocial constructs, identified as “social-epistemic rhetoric” [31]. This interpretative tool incorporates references both the sociological tradition of the analysis of “ideologies” and the semiotic investigation of “sign systems”, allowing to organize the complex variability of the identified markers in some patterns of global interpretation. As a matter of fact, the reference to “rhetoric” involves connotations of functional “tools” for the specific purposes of the argumentation.

4. Results

Both analyzed media events and interviews reveal “thick descriptions” and reflections about the assumed psychosocial constructs, in line with the different “enjeu” related to the discursive genres. We organized the results in three main sections, reciprocally interrelated, each of them including a comparison among the different sources.

4.1. Value of “Culture” in M19

In answering the first research question, we tried to define what is signified and valued as “culture” in the M19 program. Different social-epistemic rhetoric about culture were found in the corpus under analysis:

(a)

culture as “contamination” characterized the opening ceremony. The whole ceremony, lasting for several hours, included both explicit and implicit references to this concept: in the first part, local and international music bands succeeded each other to propose a human and musical medley. In the following parts, both common people and institutional/popular figures concurred to animate the ceremony. The linguistic and discursive markers contributing to this rhetoric were:

(i)

use of vocabulary inspiring the values of closeness and hospitality (e.g., brothers, cousins, welcome, friends, sister city);

(ii)

metaphors (“what a wonderful hug [...] culture is the glue for populations”) and emphatic expressions (“let’s have a big hand”);

(iii)

extended indexicality, founded not only in the here-and-now (e.g., “here everything is live […] we are European Capital of Culture for 1 h and 14 min”), but also in the here-and-there (“let’s go now in the South of Finland”) and now-and-then (“in a little while it should begin […] what we are going to live in this year”) references, as well as in the connection between the mega event and the media event (“Here the cousins are hugging each other’s, while we are live on tv”);

(b)

culture as “opportunity” characterized the closing ceremony. This event was animated by several reflections, which were proposed by public figures and politicians, activating this repertoire through two main discursive strategies:

(i)

culture as an antidote against “death” (“in coming years you have to be the Mediterranean capital of culture […] this ‘death-sea’ must be turned into a sea of opportunities through culture too”);

(ii)

culture as accompanied by the great and universal values of freedom, solidarity and inclusiveness, with a strength that opposes and overcomes war, hate, and nationalism (“What sense would it make our cultural heritage if not useful to strengthen our humanity?”);

(c)

culture as “evolution” emerged from the foundation’s positioning. During the interview, the foundation’s intentions to promote the idea of culture as smart, open, and future-oriented came up. As a matter of fact, the interviewee often referred to the need for rise, acceleration, awareness, deepening, and learning animating the different activities (“[…] people thought to find events suggested for 30 years… no, the Capital of Culture is really a future projection”); in addition, the need for openness as an opportunity to empower the “local” reality was emphasized (“we are tiny, we are not strong, so let’s open to the world, let’s draw talented and curious artists, helping us to re-significate us”);

(d)

culture as “synergism” emerged from the voice of the associations. In the interview, a complementary position emerged with reference to the rhetoric of (c): the metaphor of the “roots” was strong enough to describe culture as an embedded and organized process, since it cannot manifest without considering its background (“Culture is a stratification of events, facts, realizations creating a background which gradually enables our community to grow […] without these roots, the program was just a series of events”). This synergy represents a pinnacle of culture and differentiates culture from a set of events.

4.2. Participation and the Sense of Community in M19

In relation to the second research question, we focused on the perceptions and feelings related to participation and the sense of community. Even if these issues represent really critical dimensions in the European Capital of Culture program, their connotations are declined in accordance with the different “enjeu” of the analyzed discourses. We can relate the emerging definitions and meanings to the classical dimensions of the sense of community, as proposed by McMillan and Chavis [25].

Specifically, in the opening ceremony, the sense of participation was proposed by invoking the co-construction of the event by means of citizens’ direct involvement. The repertoire of “membership” was emphasized through the perception of shared boundaries, common symbols, and personal involvement, as emerges in the following excerpt:

Ex. 1: “When the bells will ring, every citizen will light a lamp, what a wonderful show, these candle-lights represent the stars in the sky which reproduce the constellations set by God […] never before I felt and we felt to belong to the one and same big constellation, we all are under the same sky, under the same moon.”

In the closing ceremony, the sense of community was expressed by recalling the dimensions of “shared emotional connections” and “influence”: after the experiences of M19, common and natural belonging typical of “membership” became a unique and extraordinary feeling, since sharing significant events strengthened the quality of social ties (ex. 2). In addition, several opportunities of reciprocal influence between the internal community and the external world were experienced (ex. 3).

Ex. 2: “We won’t cry, as we will keep working here in Matera for beauty, for culture, with Europe all together, because a big revolution starts from the South.”

Ex. 3: “The glory, my friends, is gained through incredible feats; we realized an incredible feat nobody could believe about.”

Interestingly, both interviews emphasized the sense of community as “fulfilment of needs”, having a common starting point but a different end. In early phases of planning, while writing the dossier, wide participation and inclusive needs emerged, which were related to the general organization as well as to the main aims to be pursued (“The dossier was written through participated laboratories with several cultural actors and citizens who could freely present their ideas about the pillars to work about”). This shared perception took different directions in relation to the successive steps: in the foundation representative’s words, broad participation “naturally” evolved in a stricter activity. This issue is argued “literally” through an explanation of terms as well as through the opposition between concepts, as in the following excerpt:

Ex. 4: “participation doesn’t literally mean that everybody participates […] communities are never homogeneous entities, rather they are absolutely heterogeneous […] ‘everybody’ means ‘nothing’, as this word will never portray people’s complexity.”

The associations’ representative proposed an opposite viewpoint: from their perspective, this “shift” resulted in a “missed chance”, discursively constructed through the opposition between the expression “it could be” and several words enhancing novelty and progress (ex. 5):

Ex. 5: “It could be a showcase giving prominence to the process and adding innovative inputs, new contents and new kinds of participation […] an opportunity to make a further qualitative leap to the process constructed in the previous decades.”

4.3. Socio-Cultural Identity in M19

Concerning the third research question, we tried to depict the different features attributed to Matera and its citizens. Both the opening and closing ceremony focused on a shared social-epistemic rhetoric, that is, the “unicity” of Matera. In the opening ceremony, this feature, mainly constructed through expressions such as “the first…”, “the unique…”, “the most…”, and so on, accompanied the focus on the “glocal” identity [30], including the following local–global identity dimensions:

(a)

Matera and nearby: in this case local traditions, products, and habits are valued (“a really typical product of our land is the crusco pepper”);

(b)

Italian, European, and international belonging, considered as interconnected and reciprocally empowering (“today, to be European is part of our national identities”);

(c)

a cross-sectional historical identity, connecting space and time as a whole (“nowadays, Matera is the Italian city showing Europe that history, even the oldest one, can open the doors for a better future”).

On the contrary, both interviews focused on the opposite social-epistemic rhetoric of “plurality”, when talking about Matera and its citizens. The sociocultural identity of Matera is characterized by a wide range of definitions, swinging in the opposite poles of “potentiality” and “fragility”.

Ex. 6: Matera was selected because it had the highest growth potential. This is a nice thing, even if this potentiality is weak, because a strong substrate and a business community are really missing, thus failing to boost and to economically hold other actions.

The balance between strength and weakness is also expressed by means of several arguments, concerning the relations between Matera and its citizens; these relations are meant as both permanent and temporary ones. The interviewees construct a double profile of citizenship:

(a)

the “enthusiastic” vs. “critical” (permanent) citizens. The first attitude refers to those citizens who experience gratitude and surprise, the second one to dissatisfaction and deception regarding the whole organization. In the foundation representative’s interview, these feelings are well-constructed through two rhetoric figures: the oxymoronic expression “a wonderful shock” and the similitude “just like the elders in front of a construction site”;

(b)

the “consuming” vs. “returning” (temporary) citizens, implying the absence/presence of respect and affiliation. These attitudes should be promoted through a valid cultural proposal, as explained in the following words: “a cultural proposal attracting a qualified public, that is not just ‘consuming’ but ‘returning’ something to the city”.

This last dichotomy is an opportunity to denounce another weakness of the socio-cultural identity of Matera, one that is founded on the core marketing strategy related to tourism. As a matter of fact, the voice of the local associations denounces the emphasis on the “fetishization” of Matera, mainly for commercial aims. In order to impress public opinion and to create a massive tourism industry, the widespread message concerning the identity of Matera defined it as a mere “troglodyte” and “prehistorical” city, just made of caves, as testified by the following excerpt.

Ex. 7: Its facies rupestre is a fragment of the whole story of Matera, whereas it’s just like it is completely riddled with caves… It is not so! A part for the whole has been passed, and this process created a “fetish”.

In this case, the rhetoric of fetishization is discursively proposed by means of the metonymic process (a part for the whole), thus implying a reductive approach to the potential of Matera. On the one side, the creation of a “fetish-city” misrepresents reality, since across the centuries Matera met the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Baroque, each one giving a significative touch to its sociocultural identity; on the other side, Matera becomes a “totem”, implying, at the same time, the opportunity to be “worshipped” and the risk of separation and isolation from its environment. This tendency goes in the opposite direction of the ECoC program, offering the opportunity to propose a more culturally nuanced image, as in the case of Valletta 2018 [3]. An additional collateral effect of neglecting to depict and promote Matera as a “stratified” scenario concerns “selfie” tourism and “trampling” tourism, as examples of superficial attitudes implying damages for the territory as well as for the whole community.

In order to have a complete and synthetic view of the social-epistemic rhetoric as well as of the different positioning about the main features of the cultural heritage of M19, see

Table 1. Main social-epistemic rhetoric and positioning concerning the experience of M19, which emerged from the analyzed discourses.

Topic	Front Stage	Backstage
Culture	Contamination Opportunity	Evolution Synergism
Participation and sense of community	Membership Shared emotional connections	(Missed) fulfillment of needs
Identity	Unicity Glocal identity	Plurality - Potentialities and fragilities - Citizenship

.

5. Discussion

The rationale of this work was set at the intersection of core issues deriving from the disciplinary field of community psychology and the transdisciplinary construct of “cultural heritage”. The analysis of our data enabled us to individuate in “participation” and its meanings the matching point in this wide research space, in line with the overall frame of the FARO Convention and of the specific declination of the Naples FARO Convention 2021. The case study that we proposed supported new definitions of participation, meant as the re-signification of culture as well as the origin of new identity and cultural processes.

These items are valid both in the general history of the ECoC program and in the story of M19. On one side, the diversified experiences of being a European Capital of Culture [11] improved the opportunity to re-signify each territory and the related community and, at the same time, contributed to re-signify the idea of Europe and culture. In its several declinations, culture really represents an opportunity to compensate for eventual economic deficits and disparities in development. Specific evidences of these opportunities come from the “region of culture” created between Timișoara and Novi Sad (ECoC 2021), whose experience testified about the importance of cross-border cooperation [32]. On the other side, Matera could live a new chapter of its fluctuating existence, as testified by the following words:

Ex. 8: “Before, Matera was just ‘Sassi’; now there is the awareness of a different view on the city, we can see things we didn’t get earlier, we didn’t see at all”.

The social and scientific literature about cultural heritage emphasized the concept of “legacy”, meant as “all planned and unplanned, positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and by a culture event that remain longer than the event itself” [33] (p. 86). Thanks to its complex organization and its multifaceted program, Matera can take pride in its uncountable ‘tangible and intangible structures’, but we believe that a little piece of the cultural heritage of M19 is set in the variety of positioning and representing its legacy, which is testified by this work.

In our work, this variety is simplified through the ‘front stage—backstage’ opposition deriving from Goffman’s work [28]. We analyzed these positioning by means of critical discourse analysis—diatextual analysis and social-epistemic rhetoric—in order to emphasize the dialogic/dialectic nature of the discourses and to gain the corresponding “enjeu”. In the front-stage scenario, represented by the opening and closing ceremonies, the main message concerns the overall growth of Matera, becoming the protagonist of a new international scenario. This macro-topic is proposed by several discursive markers and rhetoric strategies, such as (a) neologisms (e.g., “Ba-silicon Valley”); (b) renewed classical quotations (e.g., “a flag-beat in Matera can give rise to a hurricane of culture in all the European corners”); and (c) the agency and modeling of Matera, whose strength, energy and leading role won against fear, resignation and fatalism.

The backstage scenario, represented by the two interviewees with as many key actors from different parts of the population (specifically representing the Foundation Matera-Basilicata 2019 and the world of Civic Local Associations), proposed a more cautious message, related to the need for the consolidation of what has been built. This “enjeu” is discursively constructed through ambivalent feelings, related to the uncertainty about the legacy of Matera (e.g., “Even now, the cultural identity of Matera coincides more with the heritage than with the intangible culture, I mean Matera is cultural heritage because Sassi are cultural heritage”) and expressed through the perception of a “missed chance”.

In our advice, the variety of positioning, emerging both in the comparison between the “public” and “private” dimensions of M19’s cultural heritage and inside the “backstage” scenario, represents a value and can act itself as a “cultural heritage”. The qualitative investigation conducted on the two selected media events and on the two interviews enabled us to better comprehend the reasons for the unicity of this experience as well as to foresee new directions for Matera to address. In particular, the diatextual analysis and the social-epistemic rhetoric were a useful interpretative lens to improve awareness about Matera’s strengths and limitations, which are also related to its perceived sociocultural identity. As a matter of fact, the dialogic and dialectic nature of the analyzed events/discourses can be summarized as follows: on the one hand, a great enthusiasm and a deep openness have been experienced; on the other hand, both temporary and permanent citizens need to be oriented to construct a form of social empowerment [34] and feel a deeper sense of community. A similar ambivalence was found in other experiences set in the ECoC program, such as Pafos 2017, where an “uneven path of community involvement” and “mixed outcomes” were found [35], and Limerick, a “contender” for the ECoC 2020, where tensions and different perspectives in the construction of city narratives arose in the context of a bidding process [36], thus confirming the relevance of community involvement for the organization of mega events and the evaluation of cultural heritage. Even if additional points of view are necessary in order to fully comprehend the cultural heritage of M19, this work is a first effort to propose an “open access” to the meanings of this experience, mainly deriving from the “bottom-up” pathway of discourse analysis.

Therefore, this work has practical implication concerning different domains: firstly, since there are few works offering comparative evaluations of the legacy and impact of the ECoC program in several of the concerned cities [4], it can contribute to outline evaluation indicators, specifically related to the psychosocial and cultural impact. Secondly, the emerging meanings can foster a new awareness about living together, a sense of responsibility, and civic engagement, specifically referring to local communities, in contrast with more individualistic drives [23]. These matters can be especially useful in the scenario following M19, since responsibility, participation, and sense of community can support the definition of new political orientations and the construction of Matera’s sociocultural legacy.

Since this work investigated important but partial stances and took into account the multiplicity of stakeholders, the perception of the permanent citizens and the engagement of an intergenerational sample represent the following steps of this work. In particular, similarly to a study conducted for Wrocław 2016 [37], these issues could be better explained in accordance with the different dimensions of the event experience (affective, cognitive, physical, and novelty).

Seventy years after the founding studies on the neighborhood proposed by De Rita, Matera continues to capture the attention of psychologists and social scholars, again on psychosocial issues related to community, culture, and participation, even if nowadays they have a worldwide scope: in the global scenario of ECoC, the word ‘neighborhood’ gives way to ‘connectedness’. In this light, future perspectives of this work also include the investigation of participation, commitment, and feeling of community through social media [38,39].