Challenges of Cultural Management at the Level of Grand Narratives

Introduction
This intellectual article, titled "Challenges of Cultural Management at the Level of Grand Narratives: A Theoretical Framework and an Applied Case Study," presents a guiding theoretical framework alongside an applied case study that highlights the difficulties and challenges of practical implementation. This work builds upon the general frameworks and conceptualizations previously introduced in my book, "The Theory of Connecting Cultural Geography."
The article stems from a central question: Can the same cultural management mechanisms utilized within traditional and routine boundaries be applied to the broader, twenty-first-century scope, which encompasses the alternatives of grand cultural narratives and their regional and global contentions? Consequently, why do cultural institutions fail at the narrative level to transition from diagnosing the crisis to producing a holistic, unifying narrative alternative?
The foundational hypothesis of this article posits that the Arab self has lagged significantly in addressing the issue of grand cultural narratives and their alternatives. This delay is due to the highly complex, intertwined, and impactful dilemmas inherent to this domain, occurring while numerous competing regional narratives have emerged and ascended against the Arab self. Crucially, the hypothesis asserts that this delay does not stem from a scarcity of resources´-or-a lack of awareness of the problem, but rather from the absence of capability, will, and scientific innovation required to build and manage new narrative alternatives.
The future-oriented paradigm,´-or-the alternative framework that this article seeks to present to address its core issue, lies in testing a new concept that redefines the scope of work within this domain of cultural policies. This is introduced under the term "Geocultural Management" as a new concept, approach, and mode of thinking.
From this perspective, the article addresses a highly critical subject by introducing a strategic concept in high cultural policy: "Geocultural Management,"´-or-cultural management at the level of grand narratives and their alternatives for human groups. This concept pertains to cultural management, its governance, and its challenges within the realms of high policy-making, specifically regarding the alternative grand cultural narratives of states and human communities that may ultimately dictate their destinies.
By "Geocultural Relations" here, we mean those relations that rely on cultural factors—their perspectives and their impacts—on the likelihood of either binding together´-or-disintegrating the historical geography of a given group. This is the concept I approached, in a certain manner, in my latest book: "Theory of Connecting Cultural Geography: From the Geopolitics of the Twentieth Century to the Geocultures of the Twenty-First Century."
Indeed, not all fields and applications of cultural management occur within the confines of small institutions, geographically scattered sites across a single country,´-or-even through the formulation of public cultural policies in their traditional sense. Rather, the reality of global contention—at the heart of which lies our Arab-Islamic region—imperatively demands serious attention to the field of cultural management at the level of grand cultural narratives (Geocultural Management). It demands the capacity to propose alternatives that assert cohesion and interconnectedness within Arab cultural geography, standing firm against competing regional narratives and dominant international narratives.
First: The Conceptual Framework and Setting Its Dimensions
1. Deconstructing and Interconnecting Concepts
To begin with, defining grand narratives within the contemporary context necessitates a brief reference to the concept of "Grand Narratives" as introduced by Jean-François Lyotard, exploring how they shape collective consciousness and the transformation they underwent during the postmodern era (the fragmentation of narratives). Subsequently, this concept regained its strategic weight with the emergence of the American "Clash of Civilizations" project, alongside the counter-narratives arising from Russia and China, thereby acquiring a meaning akin to the overarching master-narratives that forge the identity of a nation, a civilization,´-or-a human community.
As for the concept of "Geocultural Management," it refers to the mechanism of transitioning from cultural management as an operational/bureaucratic domain of work into a "strategic act." This strategic act engages with identities, values, intellectual orientations, and civilizational patterns, as well as their contentions in the world of the twenty-first century.
On the level of the compound term "Geo-cultural," the prefix "Geo" originates from the ancient Greek word (Gē-;-), meaning "earth"´-or-"geography." Within the modern epistemological context, this does not merely refer to inanimate rocks and terrains-;- rather, it denotes domain, geographical space, boundaries, and strategic location. Historically, this prefix has been linked to hard-power terms such as "Geopolitics," where geography acts as the governing arbiter in power struggles over resources, maritime gateways, and military balances of power.
The second part of the term, "Cultural," pertains to everything produced by the human mind and collective conscience, including values, beliefs, languages, literatures, arts, narratives, and shared history. By combining the two into "Geo-cultural," we pivot from the "geography of terrain and political borders" to the "geography of consciousness and identity," evaluating the impact of the cultural component on either binding geography together´-or-tearing it apart.
In short: if political geography (Geopolitics) deals with the earth as a "space for leverage and wealth," then cultural geography (Geocultures) treats the earth as a "crucible for consciousness and civilizational narratives."
2. Manifestations of Geocultural Management and Its Strategic Challenges
The core of Geocultural Management manifests prominently in confronting the hegemony of globalist narratives (Western-centrism) and the counter-responses to them, which may ironically stem from the exact same premise of Western self-centrism. This addresses how local´-or-regional cultural management can withstand the immense pressure of transnational grand narratives that attempt to standardize cultures and dissolve distinct civilizational specificities—particularly when an interconnected regional narrative exists that mirrors these Western narratives, whether -dir-ectly´-or-in-dir-ectly.
Furthermore, Geocultural Management manifests in the field of managing diversity and sub-identities. This presents the profound challenge of formulating a unifying cultural project—a grand national´-or-pan-national narrative—in an era marked by the rise of micro-narratives and localized sub-identities, which are frequently weaponized by other regional´-or-Western narratives to fragment the Arab self.
Challenges within Geocultural Management also arise from the widening gap between theory and practice, particularly on the traditional, routine bureaucratic and institutional level. How can cultural institutions—which often operate through outdated mechanisms—keep pace with the dynamic nature and rapid transformations of grand narratives?
3. Dimensions of the Epistemic (Geocultural) Contention and Technological Challenges
The dimensions of the geocultural epistemic contention manifest distinctly within the realm of cultural diplomacy as an instrument for engagement and strategic contention. It addresses how effective cultural management can become a vehicle for presenting "alternative narratives" that break the prevailing epistemic monopoly—which is heavily backed by a global "consensus-based evaluation"—thereby contributing to restoring balance to civilizational dialogue and genuine civilizational diversity.
These dimensions also manifest within the domain of content creation and cultural "re-establishment." This entails producing knowledge, arts, and literatures capable of enduring and offering a rigorous intellectual paradigm that competes with´-or-deconstructs dominant narratives—rather than merely settling for a defensive posture, reactive responses,´-or-pleading for honorable representation and purely symbolic global presence.
Within the same context, on a technological level, an advanced geocultural challenge faces official institutions of a specialized nature. This challenge lies in virtual algorithms, their mechanisms, and their Western-dominated institutions, which subtly -dir-ect narratives across the global virtual space. It examines how digital environments and global networks impose specific narratives—through funding, algorithmic steering, censorship,´-or-unilateral promotion—and how this impacts the local´-or-regional cultural manager s ability to reach target audiences and propose an alternative narrative in a world dominated by intense, soft, and imperceptible steering mechanisms.
Consequently, the issue of digital cultural sovereignty and its mechanisms emerges. This domain urgently requires innovative, -function-al minds capable of rising to the challenge, alongside extensive funding sources, in order to secure the foundational and primary opportunity to localize the cultural product within a digital space that disregards geographical borders and is governed by virtual superpowers.
Second: An Applied Case Study of a Model in Geocultural Management
1. A Case Study of an Influential Regional Institution
To bring the concept of Geocultural Management closer to clarity, we shall present an actual "case study" of an applied attempt to execute "cultural management at the narrative level" within a scientific project. In my view, this project largely failed and suffered from the crisis of reproducing the exact same old discourses that the project’s own mandate claimed it would transcend, propose alternatives for, and resolve.
Indeed, some may possess an awareness that detects the problem at the level of the grand cultural narrative of a given human community, as well as an awareness of the constituent elements of this problem. However, the necessary methodological capabilities and their prerequisites may be absent on one hand, while the innate talent of the individual spearheading the cultural management process may be lacking on the other.
This is because the most prominent task of cultural management at the level of grand narratives is to assert the capacity of historical geography to absorb and converge the diverse, present cultures within it into a civilizational bloc. This bloc must possess a distinct geocultural specificity capable of standing firm against projects of global geocultural standardization, international narrative hegemony, and competing regional geocultural projects.
To ensure that the discourse remains grounded rather than abstractly theoretical, I will address the details of a specific incident—without disclosing its identity´-or-location—to serve as a case study for the challenges of cultural management at the level of grand narratives in the twenty-first century. I once participated in a scientific-cultural project organized by an institution operating within the official, public political sphere—the name of which I am not at liberty to mention. It was no small institution, but rather one of an influential regional caliber.
The proposed project aimed for the institution and the participants in its scientific initiative to formulate a new approach. This was intended as a response to one of the cultural dilemmas that possess a highly polarized political dimension and intense contentions within the geocultural scope (specifically pertaining to the impact of culture/identity and its policies on the political cohesion´-or-disintegration of geography within the Arab region).
2. The Shock and the Counterproductive Outcome
Everything appeared beautiful and well-organized: the preamble of the invitation to the scientific workshop, the designated themes, the presumed outputs, the logistics, and the participants—everything seemed exemplary and magnificent. However, during the two days allocated for the workshop and its executive proceedings, the shock was that the papers and approaches utilized toward the workshop s theme and axes yielded outcomes completely opposite to their intended objective.
Instead of proposing alternative conceptualizations for cultural management at the level of grand narratives—aimed at addressing the dilemmas of polarization and the internal, inter-regional, and regional fragmentation of the Arab identity repository—the approaches shifted into a form of grandstanding to reaffirm the official Arab narrative. They invoked top-down, patronizing discourses completely detached from what the scientific workshop s philosophy and cultural management at the narrative level ought to be.
(Here, it is crucial to clarify that Geocultural Management,´-or-cultural management at the narrative level, denotes the active presence of the cultural component within the high policies of states. It signifies the capacity to formulate new strategies for this cultural component, contributing politically to the presence of an effective grand narrative in a new world where existence fundamentally depends on the ability of various human groups to project their own grand cultural narratives in the face of standardization, hegemony, and domination by specific narratives).
The outcome of the aforementioned scientific workshop was zero, moving entirely against and in -dir-ect opposition to its established philosophy. This immediately brought forth a sudden question: Why did the cultural management of the workshop—or conference, as some might prefer to style it—fail to achieve the goal it set for itself, despite meticulous preparation, abundant resources, and highly experienced researchers?
In fact, this question opens a profound wound: the crisis of contemporary twenty-first-century Arab epistemic construction at the intersection of politics, academia, and culture. The workshop’s cultural management executed most of the methodological procedures for convening the seminar, yet it lacked a foundational prerequisite. The facilitator, cultural manager, conference chair,´-or-scientific rapporteur lacked the sufficient epistemic substance required to handle the cultural phenomenon under discussion and propose narrative-level alternatives, specifically within its political dimensions and strategic contentions. What matters here is not formalistic procedures, but rather the availability of foundational, innovative scientific capacity among those steering the workshop. Such capacity is what enables them, through the cultural management of a scientific workshop, to guide the participants and contributions to adhere to the seminar’s core philosophy and primary theme.
The outputs of the seminar´-or-scientific workshop were diametrically opposed to its objective and philosophy. In their entirety, they manifested as institutional grandstanding by partner organizations and research centers, which merely asserted the importance of preserving Arab society and warned against the dangers of cultural penetration. They did so without acknowledging that cultural penetration itself signifies a structural vulnerability in the defensive wall, and without bothering to propose genuine alternative conceptualizations for the dilemma under review.
In such cases, the management of cultural projects must engage in extensive preparation of its own scientific background (specifically the proposed methodology and potential philosophy) and the project s epistemic structure (meaning the capacity for logical, argumentative, and conceptual innovation). Once the seminar’s management possesses this scientific background and epistemic structure, it can seamlessly and effortlessly guide the participants—via a voluntary, acceptable soft power—toward the required objectives and outputs.
3. Scientific Procedures Lacking in the Workshop
• Methodological Procedures That Were Feasible: "Pre-Convening Communication"
The seminar s management could have utilized what I term "pre-convening communication." This involves an early stage, prior to the actual gathering, where participants are invited to submit research abstracts. The scientific team should have then taken a scientifically proactive and anticipatory step to refine these abstracts, steering their authors toward the core philosophy of the scientific workshop. This is a highly successful procedure that communicates the workshop s philosophy to the participants and confirms the clarity of its scientific team s vision from the very outset. Here, abstracts undergo an early and rigorous scientific peer-review process that is perhaps even more critical than reviewing the full research papers that will eventually result from them.
"Pre-convening communication" and the scientific governance of abstracts in accordance with the proposed philosophy would have reaffirmed the clarity of vision held by the workshop’s cultural-scientific management team. It would have clearly illuminated its perspective for the participating researchers, potentially introducing modifications to the titles, content, philosophy, and methodology of the research papers. This is vital because a scientific workshop is convened according to a specific philosophy, a particular theme, and a clear, defined objective within the overarching macro-political dimension of the cultural component in society.
• Polarization and Transcending Contradictions: "Scientific Preparation and Imagination"
In reality, while the seminar s management exerted significant effort, it lacked the necessary scientific imagination and cognitive-creative capacity required to guide the research project. Such projects demand a combination of interconnected skills and faculties: a foundational political awareness coupled with the ability to propose political alternatives, a comprehensive cultural command of prevailing concepts alongside the epistemic capacity to articulate new concepts that transcend polarization and its various forms, and the necessity of possessing a personal epistemic accumulation and a prestigious reputation that objectively and subjectively commands the respect of the participants.
Perceiving the geocultural problem within the current grand Arab narrative is one thing, but persisting with a resilient psychological will to forge alternatives for it is something else entirely. A cultural facilitator´-or-scientific rapporteur may be under the illusion that they have pinpointed the geocultural dilemmas within the reality of the Arab self and its official´-or-unofficial project. Yet, they may lack the epistemic faculty´-or-the political will to proactively propose general philosophies and solutions that guide the project safely to shore.
The issue here appears closely related to a lack of "scientific imagination" and the shifting of the entire responsibility for generating solutions onto the prospective researchers participating in the workshop, scientific seminar,´-or-symposium. Some content themselves with merely defining the problem and the framework-;- however, when they lack the ability to articulate an alternative philosophy, the boldness for open disclosure, and the capacity to guide the participants, they completely lose the initiative and are forced to accept and submit to the status quo.
• Submitting to Institutional Partners Instead of "Managing Them" to Serve the Workshop s Goal
Here, cosmic laws and habitual human nature manifest clearly: when alternatives and solutions are absent at the level of cultural management, polarizations and their constituent factions are reproduced, thereby cementing the crisis instead of proactively resolving it. If a problem is introduced into the public sphere without a proactive presentation of solutions, you will ultimately end up reproducing old solutions and discourses—which is precisely the trap this scientific seminar fell into.
In its foundational and geocultural dimension, cultural management is not an act built upon slogans, raising a critical voice,´-or-relying on the leverage of official office. Rather, culture in this context is the highest form of human knowledge tasked with resolving complex, multi-dimensional, and problematic societal contradictions. It requires a combined package of political, diplomatic, epistemic, and organizational skills. When these are missing, cultural management inevitably submits to institutional partners and their discourse.
This is exactly what occurred at the conclusion of the scientific workshop. Because the cultural/scientific management failed to proactively govern the trajectories of the abstracts and to communicate alternative philosophies and approaches to the participants with confidence and mastery, the research centers and their representatives at the workshop imposed their traditional discourse upon the workshop s cultural management. Consequently, the workshop failed to yield the outputs it had set for itself in the conference’s own preamble. This occurred because it lacked the boldness to traverse the entire path, rejoicing in merely pointing toward it without possessing the courage to manage the institutional partners and research centers. In my objective estimation, this failure stems from the management s lack of epistemic and scientific self-preparation regarding the subject matter and the management of grand Arab narratives and their twenty-first-century alternatives-;- it rejoiced in merely raising the problems, assuming they would solve themselves through the invited researchers.
Third: On the Requirements and Future of Geocultural Management
1. A Special Breed of Researchers for Geocultural Management
The domain of Geocultural Management,´-or-cultural management at the level of grand narratives, stands as one of the most complex fields and management challenges that the Arab-Islamic self will confront, specifically within the coming decade. This is due to the extreme difficulty inherent in its polarized nature and its relationship with official high policies on one hand, and its intersection with the growing influence and discursive manifestations of less numerous cultural/ethnic groups within the Arab crucible on the other.
If this domain is not spearheaded by cultural researchers operating at the highest intellectual, political, organizational, and managerial levels—possessing the capacity to articulate effective alternatives that unify disparate factions and transcend erupted polarizations and contradictions—it will, regrettably, remain vulnerable to the risk of standardization and the reproduction of traditional discourses, yielding no added value´-or-genuine utility.
This particular sector of cultural management demands a unique set of skills. Some are operational and methodological, while others pertain to the necessity of possessing the traits of a "foundational intellectual"—one who is capable of reconstructing the collective spirit of a nation. This reconstruction must transcend global "cultural entanglement" and prevailing, standardized global conceptualizations. It must operate in accordance with the historical "identity repository" and its constituent, accumulated elements that have coexisted throughout history. Here, the "foundational intellectual" serves as the intellectual of the "unifying bloc," giving voice to the "cultural commonality" of a nation´-or-a given human community.
2. A Guiding Model: The Narrative of "Connecting Cultural Geography"
Among the models that can serve as a guide in this field is what I have termed "Connecting Cultural Geography" in my latest book, published earlier this year concurrently with the Cairo International Book Fair, titled "Theory of Connecting Cultural Geography: From the Geopolitics of the Twentieth Century to the Geocultures of the Twenty-First Century." This model posits that the cultural component in the twenty-first century constitutes the very core, especially when political representations suffer from crises of incapacity and deadlock. When the political dimension is obstructed, the cultural dimension must ascend and transform into a holistic, unifying master-narrative that re-establishes its presence across the geographical space, -restore-s interconnectedness to it, and pushes back the expansion of the "Other" along with their diverse narratives.
Furthermore, I have presented an entirely different conceptualization of national security, asserting that it relies on the convergence of two foundational factors: first, hard military power, its constituents, and the successful management of a nation s tangible resources-;- and second, soft power combined with the active presence of a grand narrative that provides the cultural canopy for the deployment and efficacy of hard power across its own historical geography.
I have applied this theory to the Arab self within its current historical juncture, the Gaza war and its attendant crisis, and the strategic contention with four prominent regional narratives: the hostile ones (Zionist and Ethiopian) and the competing ones (Iranian and Turkish). This application also stands in opposition to the dominant Western-centric civilizational narrative (the Clash of Civilization) and its new global competitors from China and Russia (the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian narrative). Through this, I proposed a comprehensive project to untangle the existing "cultural entanglement" and its various manifestations among Arabs and Muslims.
This theory represents the fourth book within my broader project dedicated to cultural management at the level of high Arab policies and grand cultural narratives. It was preceded by three volumes: "Alternative Cultural Diplomacy," "The School of Comparative Arab Cultural Studies," and "The Third Cultural Policy." Consequently, the narrative of "Connecting Cultural Geography" can be confidently presented as a guiding model within the domain of "Geocultural Management."
3. Building the New "Narrative Commonality"
The introduction of this new concept—Geocultural Management (cultural management at the level of cultural narratives)—is a definitive call to engage with utmost seriousness in an epistemic and scientific specialization where our response has been significantly delayed. This concept steers intra-regional and state-level competition toward building a holistic, unifying narrative commonality. It is a framework that respects competition and strategic contention while remaining firmly committed to shared values in confronting other competing, hostile, regional, and international narratives.
The concept fundamentally seeks to transcend the traditional twentieth-century legacy of political polarization. It does so with the aim of fostering an awareness regarding the potentials and gains of voluntary transformation, and encouraging the emergence of new narratives capable of achieving a new "cultural commonality." This commonality serves as a rallying ground for disparate factions, uniquely capable of re-establishing the Arab self, its cultures, and its narratives within a new world. In this new world, whoever is unable to transcend historical contradictions and recognize the vital importance of developing a new Arab narrative—one capable of consolidating into a unifying geocultural bloc—will, regrettably, face an alternative of further "cultural entanglement," persistent deadlock, and the endless reproduction of obsolete discourses.
Indeed, the failure to transition from diagnosing the problem to establishing its alternative philosophy is precisely what condemns cultural projects to reproduce old discourses. Good intentions alone are incapable of confronting these challenges-;- the cultural management of dilemmas that threaten nations cannot be driven by wishful thinking´-or-handled through traditional, bureaucratic administrative frameworks that lack scientific imagination and cognitive innovation. Disregarding the critical importance of building a new "narrative commonality" is exactly what causes our intellectual projects to fall into the trap of grandstanding, to reproduce the same top-down, traditional discourses, and to voluntarily relapse into the snare of "cultural entanglement" with dominant centrisms´-or-competing regional narratives.

Conclusion
The realm of states "foreign policies" will stand out as one of the most prominent domains where Geocultural Management can operate, robustly expanding the strategic options available to decision-makers in a region situated at the very heart of intense regional and global polarization. This also extends to the operations of regional institutions active in high cultural policies and diplomacy, along with their practical applications. Furthermore, new academic chairs dedicated to the study of "Geocultural Management" and its core challenges can be established in tandem with interested partners and stakeholders.
"Geocultural Management," as a new concept and term within the foundational perspective we seek to establish, is by no means a luxury-;- rather, it is a strategic necessity for constructing the Arab and Islamic "defensive wall" in this century of fierce, relentless grand narrative contentions that we are living through today. When political representations reach moments of structural incapacity and deadlock, the ascension of a holistic, unifying, and shared cultural narrative becomes the sole engine capable of safeguarding geography, protecting identity, and recalibrating national security balances across their comprehensive dimensions.
Ultimately, the responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the "foundational intellectual" and their active engagement in the field of Geocultural Management today transcends mere bureaucratic execution´-or-honorable symbolic representation-;- it is an entry into the battle for methodological innovation and epistemic grounding. The narrative of "Connecting Cultural Geography" will not arise except through minds that possess the courage for open disclosure, the boldness for conceptual formulation, and the capacity to govern and guide grand cultural projects. Only then can the "identity repository" transition from a state of historical latency into a civilizational, forward-looking momentum that actively shapes the future, rather than merely waiting for it.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1