Kultūra ir Gerovės valstybė
Socialinis ugdymas ir saviugda yra neįmanomi be atitinkamo kultūrinio proceso. Šiuo metu Lietuvos kultūros politika yra reguliuojama dviem teisės aktais: „Lietuvos valstybės strategija 2050“ ir „Lietuvos kultūros politikos pagrindų“ įstatymu, o formuojama ir visuomenės iniciatyvomis. Deja, šie abu svarbūs dokumentai nestokoja spragų, o strategija pasižymi kultūros sampratos vartosenos daugiaprasmiškumu ir chaotiškumu. Lietuvoje tebėra gajus siauras, tačiau atgyvenęs kultūros prilyginimas menams ir paveldui. Tai atspindi tradiciją, kilusią iš aristokratijos poreikių. Jos vietą turėtų užimti pažangios kultūros, nukreiptos į bendros gerovės, teisingumo, saugumo, laisvių ir tam reikalingos tvarkos didinimą visuomenėje samprata.
The strategy Lithuania’s vision of the future “Lithuania 2050” occupies an important place in Lithuanian cultural policy. Unfortunately, the creators of the strategy chose only two classical political dimensions spanning centuries: from the Age of Enlightenment – the panacea of education, which seems all-powerful to them, and the democracy of the roots of British parliament. Yes, the modern theories of the Welfare State – the possible third necessary dimension- remained ignored in the strategy, which also shows the basic disregard for the citizens’ will express in the two presidential elections in the self-proclaimed democratic state of Lithuania. The “Lithuania 2050” strategy ignores one of modern society’s most important goals – the creation of an advanced, high-quality Welfare State or even a Union of Welfare States based on a modern scientific concept familiar to all major political ideologies and contributing to the formation of an advanced culture both objectively and subjectively. The philosophical category of culture is inseparable from well-being precisely because advanced culture is associated with the main goals of all societies discovered and named by great thinkers: well-being, justice, security, freedom, and the necessary order. Namely, the new – advanced cultural policy should cover the entire complex of fields: work and recreation, business, legal, political, management, media, science, education, family, behavior, youth, “underground”, language, body, ecological and finally artistic, sacred, heritage and other cultures. The strategy lacks essential strategic projects stuck in the media of bureaucracy and politicians: “National Risk Report”, “Cultural Book of the Year”, which would cover the listed spheres from an academic point of view, “Visa Lietuva” e-university dedicated to that lifelong learning. The creators of the strategy, having chosen the slippery path of visionaries, did not harmonize the definition of culture with the definition of culture provided in the law on the Basics of Lithuanian Cultural Policy. Not only that, in the text of the strategy, culture not only sparkles with many meanings and contexts but sometimes also goes beyond elementary logic, and the indicators characterizing the culture process presented in the appendix are not concentrated in one place. In today’s global world, with the worsening of many crisis phenomena and the failure of the 17 goals of the United Nations to be achieved by 2030, adequate control of the situation with an advanced culture requires, first of all, huge financial resources accumulated through global tax rates. Having demonstrated a low political culture, the creators of the strategy bypassed this important matter in the sphere of foreign policy. Hence, the provision of the approach, which emphasizes Lithuania’s becoming an influential player in foreign policy, loses a moment of realism. In addition, the law on the foundations of Lithuanian cultural policy lacked the definition of cultural policy itself, allowing it to be oriented towards creating new values and all kinds of progress.