The square, divided by Knesebeckstraße, was more than simply a location on the Berlin map. It represented a particular atmosphere of Berlin: cafés filled with conversation, bookshops beneath the railway arches, restaurants where discussions continued long after the working day had ended, and a feeling that ideas, culture, and everyday life naturally belonged together.

After long days of work, walking to Savignyplatz for dinner often created a special feeling. The pace of the city seemed to slow. The surrounding streets carried memories of earlier generations of writers, thinkers, artists, and scholars who had gathered there. It was a place where intellectual curiosity and everyday life existed side by side.

The poet Mascha Kaléko, one of the most distinctive literary voices of Weimar Berlin, captured this emotional connection when she wrote that her homesickness had a name: Savignyplatz. For Kaléko, who was forced into exile after the rise of National Socialism, the square represented far more than a physical location. It symbolised belonging, memory, and the deep connection between people and the places that shape their identity.

Yet this feeling is changing.

Savignyplatz remains beautiful. The cafés remain, the gardens remain, and the name remains. But the cultural atmosphere that once created a strong sense of shared experience appears increasingly difficult to preserve. The transformation of this small Berlin square reflects a much larger transformation taking place across societies.

This brings us to the person whose name the square carries: Friedrich Carl von Savigny.

The jurist who believed societies cannot be designed from above

Savigny, born in Frankfurt in 1779 and later one of Berlin's most influential legal thinkers, transformed European understanding of law and institutions.

At a time when many believed that societies could be reshaped through rational planning and political decisions, Savigny offered a different perspective. He argued that laws do not simply emerge from governments or intellectual theories. They develop gradually from the history, traditions, language, and experiences of the communities they serve.

This idea became known as Volksgeist, the "spirit of the people."

For Savigny, Volksgeist was not a political slogan. It described the cultural foundations that influence how a society understands justice, responsibility, authority, and social order.

He compared the development of law to the development of language. No government creates a living language. It develops naturally through generations of human interaction. Savigny believed that law follows a similar process.

A society creates institutions, but institutions must also reflect the society that created them.

The return of an old question

Two hundred years later, Savigny's question has returned with new urgency:

What happens when institutions created for one historical era encounter societies that have fundamentally changed?

Many of the political and international institutions that shape the modern world were created in a very different period.

Modern parliamentary systems developed during the nineteenth century. Many international organisations emerged after the Second World War. Economic, political, and legal structures were designed for societies with different forms of communication, identity, and social organisation.

The world that created these institutions was characterised by stronger national communities, slower communication, clearer social structures, and more stable cultural identities.

The world today is fundamentally different.

Societies are shaped by digital communication, global mobility, migration, multicultural communities, rapidly changing social values, and new forms of political participation.

The question facing modern societies is therefore not whether institutions remain necessary. They remain essential.

The question is whether they continue to reflect the societies they are intended to serve.

A growing distance between people and institutions

Across many democracies, one of the defining challenges of our time is a growing distance between citizens and institutions.

Many people feel that political systems have become disconnected from everyday experiences. Others believe that international organisations and bureaucratic structures operate according to their own logic, separated from the communities they represent.

This creates a challenge of legitimacy.

Institutions depend not only on laws and procedures. They depend on trust.

Savigny's insight was that legitimacy comes from a connection between institutions and the cultural foundations of society.

When this connection weakens, dissatisfaction grows.

This can be seen in debates about democracy, globalisation, national sovereignty, migration, international cooperation, and technological change.

The issue is not simply political disagreement. It is a deeper question about belonging.

Is there still a Volksgeist today?

The answer is complex.

The nineteenth-century idea of a single, unified Volksgeist is difficult to apply to modern societies. Contemporary nations are more diverse, more interconnected, and more complex than the societies Savigny knew.

There is rarely one single identity.

Instead, modern societies contain many identities and experiences. People may define themselves through their city, region, nation, culture, profession, language, or global connections.

The challenge today is therefore different from Savigny's era.

The question is no longer:

What is the single spirit of a people?

The question is:

How can diverse groups create a shared sense of belonging?

A modern Volksgeist may no longer be based on one common ancestry or one historical narrative. It may instead be built around shared civic principles, democratic values, common institutions, and a commitment to a common future.

The challenge for international institutions

The same question applies beyond national borders.

International institutions were created to address the challenges of their time. Many have achieved remarkable successes. However, the global environment has transformed.

The United Nations, regional organisations, and international legal structures now face a world shaped by new geopolitical realities, technological disruption, climate challenges, changing economic relationships, and demands for broader representation.

The challenge is not to abandon these institutions. The challenge is to renew their connection with the societies of today.

Savigny would perhaps remind us that institutions survive when they evolve with the people around them.

From Savignyplatz to the future

The story of Savignyplatz offers a symbolic lesson.

A place remains alive because each generation continues to give it meaning. Its identity is preserved not by freezing it in the past, but by allowing it to develop.

Institutions face the same challenge.

Tradition without adaptation becomes a museum.

Change without connection creates instability.

The future requires a balance between memory and renewal, between inherited institutions and evolving societies.

Friedrich Carl von Savigny believed that the strength of law came from its connection to the life of a people. Two centuries later, his question remains one of the central questions of our time:

How can institutions designed for the past continue to serve societies that are creating the future?

Perhaps the answer lies in rediscovering the deeper meaning behind Savigny's idea of Volksgeist: not a fixed identity, but a living relationship between people, culture, and the institutions they build together.

Cultural Diplomacy and the Search for a New Connection

This question lies at the heart of cultural diplomacy.

If Savigny's central insight was that institutions must remain connected to the cultural foundations of society, then cultural diplomacy represents one of the ways societies can rebuild that connection. It recognises that international relations are shaped not only by governments and formal agreements, but also by history, identity, values, traditions, and human relationships.

In an increasingly interconnected world, diplomacy cannot focus only on negotiations between states. It must also engage with societies themselves. Understanding another country requires more than knowledge of its political system; it requires an appreciation of its historical experiences, cultural expressions, and collective memories.

Cultural diplomacy therefore provides a bridge between different Volksgeister. It does not seek to erase differences or create a single global identity. Instead, it creates spaces where different societies can understand each other, exchange ideas, and discover common interests.

In this sense, cultural diplomacy offers a contemporary response to Savigny's question. If institutions gain legitimacy through their connection to society, then international cooperation becomes stronger when it is rooted in cultural understanding and mutual respect.

The challenge of the twenty-first century is not to create a world without differences. It is to build institutions and relationships capable of bringing diverse societies together.

• Independent