Vol. 7, Issue 2, Part D (2025)

This article examines the concept of generative culture as a systemic means of overcoming contemporary sociocultural dead-ends associated with rising violence, anxiety, and the erosion of trust. The study’s relevance stems from global crises-from armed conflicts to moral fragmentation-that require a shift from reactive behavioral patterns to proactive, constructive interaction. I propose a theoretical framework that integrates classical sociocultural theories (G. Debord, P. Bourdieu, N. Luhmann, P. Berger and T. Luckmann) with recent findings in neuroscience and behavioral science (R. Sapolsky, A. Damasio, B. Libet, E. Fromm), all of which emphasize how behavior is determined by environmental and neurobiological factors. The article introduces an original “diamond of social problematics” model that distinguishes four interconnected types of environment-physical, social, digital, and biological-and shows their roles in fostering either destructive or generative tendencies.
The empirical base consists of in-depth interviews (n = 15) analyzed thematically, including the use of AI tools for summarization. The analysis identifies supportive and toxic conditions within each environmental type that shape the probability of aggressive versus cooperative responses. The discussion addresses the significance of biorhythms, trust, social triggers, and informational imagery, as well as ethical limits to the model’s applicability.
The conclusion outlines practical steps for implementing generative culture-from urban design and educational programs to reforms of digital platforms-and proposes the development of an International Index of Generative Culture (MIKS) to monitor progress. The central claim is that culture can serve as an architecture of choice, systematically retuning environments and behavior toward creation: creation is treated not as an individual moral decision but as a probabilistic response that can be strengthened through deliberate environmental design.