My mother used to tell me, "You're old with the old and young with the young," meaning that I blended in quickly and effortlessly with both the elderly and children. Perhaps my generation, those born in the 1980s, often possess this ability to adapt easily to different generations, or at least they are aware of these differences and can deal with them because of the era they lived in. The 1980s was a remarkable period, a time of intense contrasts, characterized by the struggle between these dichotomies: old and new, conservative and modern, pre-oil boom and post-oil boom, stone or mud houses and modern reinforced concrete and steel houses. So many such dichotomies marked that era with the tumultuous process of change that gave rise to what followed.

Well, putting all that aside, many intellectuals today are seriously concerned about the state of culture and its future. They raise fears such as the transformation of culture into another consumer commodity, controlled by capital to be manipulated as it sees fit. To begin with, it's essential to understand that any turning point in time, like the one we are currently experiencing, inevitably brings with it profound changes to the structure of everything, and culture is no exception. However, like any other field, culture will inevitably lose some things and gain others. The shift in the landscape of cultural activity will have both positive and negative consequences.

Undoubtedly, the cultural meaning has expanded considerably since the past, when culture was limited to the public sphere and publications. Culture was confined to literary clubs, a few pages in newspapers, and perhaps a few scattered cultural salons, later echoed by internet forums. Consequently, a generation, perhaps even generations, of intellectuals emerged from this limited framework, their understanding shaped by what we might call "hard culture"—a culture characterized by intellectual and cognitive depth, seriously striving to bring about a deeper intellectual, cultural, and developmental transformation within the social consciousness. While no concrete, ready-made project existed, many hopes were publicly voiced by this elite, which later gave rise to various forms of intellectual and ideological conflict that perhaps permeated the depths of society, taking on numerous manifestations beyond the scope of this discussion, though their stories remain etched in our collective memory.

Today, the cultural meaning has become more expansive, encompassing the definition and framing of the spirit of identity. Many things that were previously neglected are now practically included within the definition of cultural activity and its fields, such as fashion, cuisine, architecture, folk dance, etc. This sudden expansion of the Saudi cultural scene has necessitated the introduction of many new concepts, including investment in culture. By its very nature, any investment tends towards what is easy, attractive, and widespread. As a natural consequence, the traditional cultural structure has suddenly fragmented, giving rise to "soft culture"—a light, accessible, and fast-paced culture, thus facilitating its dissemination and expansion. This means it has transcended the formality of the pulpit and the printed word to become community events that take on an attractive and entertaining form, conveying the same message (the spirit of identity), but targeting broader segments that extend beyond the intellectual class that once constituted what was called the "intelligentsia," the educated class in society.

The key to understanding the underlying dynamics of the Kingdom's cultural landscape is to embrace the logic of change without apprehension or anxiety. What has actually transpired is a shift in culture from a patronage-based model to diverse forms of production. This means that the state, through various forms of support, including the Cultural Fund, generous funding of literary partner cafes, and cultural awards, has sought to create an environment conducive to investment in the cultural sector. In my view, this approach is far more beneficial in the long run than the previous patronage-based model, which treated culture as a purely internal developmental matter. The difference is vast between a sector that is constantly being managed and one that is self-regulating, organically growing, and governed by the rules of competition, like any market.

The concern and apprehension expressed by some intellectuals regarding the shift in Saudi Arabia's cultural structure from "hard" to "soft" is understandable, stemming from the desire and hope for a general intellectual, cognitive, and cultural renaissance in the country. However, such a renaissance cannot materialize suddenly simply through cultural activity; rather, it is formed through a long-term, cumulative process involving numerous factors. Culture, however widespread and supported, is but a small part of this process. Consequently, the ongoing transformation of cultural activity from its intense, substantial form, directly addressing societal ideas, to a more modern, lighter, and more marketable form, will have further accumulation and expansion, indirectly broadening the message of culture, which embodies the "spirit of identity." In other words, the hopes of intellectuals who believe in the concept of "hard culture" will be realized, but over a much longer period, as a logical outcome of the cumulative cognitive development currently underway, in conjunction with a host of influential factors shaping the societal mindset. This approach of building from the grassroots level of society is the most effective and impactful, but at the same time, the gains of cultural activity accumulated over past decades must be preserved. This allows the current era to unfold naturally and expand further, while simultaneously safeguarding the cultural heritage and achievements that the Kingdom's cultural landscape has attained. Therefore, the Ministry of Culture must avoid severing culture from its cumulative (solid) foundation, and instead leverage this foundation and its extension through various forms, programs, and initiatives. Finally, in my view, combining the old and new forms in cultural work, in multiple directions, is not a difficult process, but it may require drawing up more practical strategies to reshape the contours of the cultural scene, in a way that reconciles the two contexts together, without the need for the intellectual to be forced to carry feelings of apprehension and anxiety about the features of a cultural stage whose tools he has not known before, so that he disappears and withdraws, and consequently, cognitive and intellectual energies are wasted under the weight of neglect and marginalization, and abandon their supposed role in any society, so that the country is deprived of serious intellectual and cultural contributions to development and shaping the future.