Difference is a common feature in today's societies. The first thing that comes to mind is that globalization has led to the mixing of origins in cities and countries. But we must also bear in mind that the individuals born in them do not share ideas and beliefs in a homogeneous way and, therefore, it is not so easy to justify a confrontation between "them" and "us".

Is it possible to live together in such complex contexts? Margaret Archer has offered some clues on the occasion of her visit al Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Navarra. There she has offered the subject 'Social ontology and epistemology of Social Sciences' in the Master's Degree at research in Social Sciences.

Margaret Archer is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick (UK) and a founding member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. She was also the first woman president of association International Sociology.

Why can't we talk about 'the Culture' of a place as something homogeneous?
When we talk about 'the Culture' of a place, it seems that all the people who come from it have the same beliefs, knowledge, identity, the same literary resources and the same resources in terms of ideas, whether they are political, religious, ethnic...

From a methodological point of view, if this were true, cultures would not work. I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'the Culture' of a place, and not only because of the current multiculturalism, why should we think that it is homogeneous, that we all absorb it in the same way and show it in our actions, beliefs...?

You will not see a single civilization at any time of mankind in which everyone was in perfect agreement and in which 'Culture' - as a system of beliefs, theories and explanations - worked for everyone equally. In fact, it is rather the opposite, we have always seen differences and technicalities based on ideas because the ideas themselves are not consistent.

So, are we doomed to confrontation?
Yes, almost always. Some things have taken centuries to be accepted. We have agreed on agreement that gravity exists, for example, but other ideas have been around for longer to reach a consensus. For example, the disease tuberculosis. In English, at first it was called wasting disease because the body was wearing out and getting very thin. Later, it became known as 'consumption' because the body was being consumed by 'something'. A agreement was not reached until the finding of bacteria. What were intended to be opposing explanations turned out to be false descriptions. This exemplifies that there always seem to be conflicts of ideas in any topic.

Are there cultural systems that are more open to each other, not so challenging?
When different ideas are put together, several things can happen: the two ideas may be perfectly compatible; they may be irrelevant to each other, so there would be no confrontation either; and they may be in direct conflict, so logically they cannot both be maintained.

When we are in conflict, we cannot speak of something like 'the Culture', as there are many cultures and they are reflected in different practices. The optional wearing of the veil for devout Muslims, for example, becomes source of a great social divide.

Does globalization mitigate or favor confrontation?
Theoretically, the more we mix, the better we get to know each other and people from other places. This should mitigate confrontation. Personally, I think most hostilities are not about ideas, it's not about cultural ways of living, whether you wear a burqa, veil or whatever... It's about economic reasons.

How does this apply to immigrants?
Sometimes immigrants and refugees are seen as people who do not contribute anything economically, although this is not true. In this case, the differences are economic and not always objective. We think that asylum seekers contribute nothing to the host country and benefit from social services in the same way as the local population. Many people ask themselves: "Why should we support these people?", as if they were no longer receiving benefits.

Has this happened in Europe?
Angela Merkel planned for each region to absorb a issue of refugees according to its population density and capacities. This proposal has made her suffer politically in the elections. The idea of absorbing people economically and guaranteeing them social benefits, housing, health services... These economic issues generate rejection. Thus, the Economics is more powerful than skin color or cultural beliefs.

However, it is difficult to convert these objections into objective factors. It is not true that asylum seekers contribute nothing. The best example is care for the elderly. The European population is aging demographically as we live longer and longer and a large part of this population will need more care and many people are not willing to do this, while many immigrants are.

What is the core topic to overcome possible conflicts that may arise?
Not all individuals are identical products of the system into which they are born, not even within a high school, a neighborhood or even the same family. So we should not be surprised to meet a person from a different background and see that we are concerned about the same things, such as justice or equality.

This subject of higher ideas underlying cultural systems can be the basis on which to build coexistence. Let us take the case of religions. For different people, God may be one or the other, but in most cases he is a benevolent God. Underlying this are common virtues such as tolerance: they have their customs, we have ours, but that does not imply that there should be animosity between us.