Difference is a common feature in current societies. The first thing that comes to mind is that globalization favors a mixing of backgrounds in cities and countries. But we must also bear in mind that the individuals who were born in them do not necessarily or homogeneously share ideas and beliefs and, therefore, a confrontation between "them" and "us" is not so easily justifiable.

Is coexistence possible in such complex contexts? Margaret Archer offered some keys during her visit to the Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Navarra. Therein, shegave a class on the Social Ontology and Epistemology of the Social Sciences to students enrolled in the Master of Social Science Research.

Margaret Archer is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick (United Kingdom) and a founding member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. She was also the first woman to preside over the International Sociological Association.

Why can’t we talk about a place’s “Culture” as something homogeneous?
When we speak of a place’s culture, it seems that all the people who come from it have the same beliefs, knowledge, identity, the same literary resources and the same means in terms of ideas, be they political, religious or ethnic.

From a methodological point of view, if this were true, cultures would not work. I do not think anything like a place’s “culture” exists and not only because of contemporary multiculturalism. Why should we think that culture is homogeneous, that we all absorb it, act it out and hold beliefs about itin the same way...?

You will not find a single civilization at any time where everyone was in perfect agreement and in which “Culture” –as a system of beliefs, theories and explanations- works for everyone equally. In fact, it is rather the opposite; we have always seen differences and nuances based on ideas because they themselves are not consistent.

Are we doomed for confrontation?
Yes, almost always. Some things have taken centuries to gain acceptance. We have agreed that gravity exists, for example, but other ideas were around for longer until reaching a consensus. For example, the disease of tuberculosis. In English, at the beginning it was called the “wasting disease” because the body wears and thins out. Later, it was known as consumption because the body is consumed by “something.” No agreement was reached until the discovery of the bacteria. What they claimed to be opposed explanations turned out to be false descriptions. This exemplifies that there always seem to be conflicts of ideas on any subject.

Are there cultural systems more open to the other, and not so challenging?
When different ideas are shared, several things can happen: the two ideas are perfectly compatible; they are irrelevant to each other, so no confrontation arises; orthey are in direct conflict, and logically mutually exclusive.

When conflict arises, we cannot talk about something like “Culture” because there are many cultures and are reflected in different practices. The optional use of the veil for devout Muslims, for example, becomes the source of great social division.

Does globalization mitigate or favor confrontation?
Theoretically, the more we mix, the better we know each other and meet people from other places. This should mitigate antagonism. Personally, I think most hostilities are produced based on economic reasons rather than on ideas, cultural ways of living, if you wear a burka, veil or whatever...

How does this materialize in the case of immigrants?
Although not true, immigrants and refugees are sometimes seen as people who do not contribute anything financially. In this case, differences are produced by economic issues that are not always objective. Some think that people who request asylum do not contribute anything to the host country and benefit from social services in the same way as the local population. Many ask, "Why should we keep these people?" as if they were about to stop receiving benefits.

Has this happened in Europe?
Angela Merkel planned for each region to absorb a number of refugees according to their population density and capabilities. This proposal put her under fire in the elections. The idea of ​​absorbing people economically and guaranteeing them social benefits, housing, health services ... These economic issues generate rejection. Thus, the economy is more powerful than skin color or cultural beliefs.

However, it is difficult to turn these objections into objective factors. It is patently false that asylum seekers contribute nothing. The best example is the care of the elderly. The European population ages demographically as we live longer and a lot of this population will need more care. Many people are not willing to do this work, but immigrants are.

What is the key to overcoming the conflicts that may arise?
Not all individuals are identical products of the system in which they were born, not even within a school, a neighborhood or even a family. So it should not surprise us to find a person from a different background and see that we are worried about the same things, like justice or equality.

These kinds of higher ideals that underlie cultural systems can be the basis on which to build coexistence. Let's take the case of religions. For different people, God can take one form or another, but in most cases he is a benevolent God. There we find underlying common virtues such as tolerance: they have their customs, we have ours, but that does not mean that there must be animosity between us.