To abandon the atrium of the western magister and share the stage of people who co-learn with other people. We are not talking about a change of method, nor of a mere horizontalization (although it would be a notable advance), but of the ecological expansion of knowledge, the opening (not libertinism) to non-verifiable knowledge (from the neopositivist machinery), to distance culture from utilitarianism; from spectacle; from protocols; from bureaucracy… to revitalize its critical properties, its temperament and personality, its filiation to dissent, its passion for the forbidden and its inability to submit to norms. But what defines the pedagogies of the hallway, is its cordiality with death, not feeling like hosts of the world, of any space of the worlds, as guests, they invite it to the marriage, to the conversation, they make it participate and thus, they discover themselves during life, as authentic protagonists of the plot. Not as an audience. Novoa, A., “Pedagogies of the Hallway”, Debate Conference: Problems of Hermeneutics, Faculty of Philosophy of the ULL, 2014.

In any order of things, the constitution of lines of thought that generate a critical attitude is almost a normalized fact. Thus, the constructions of discourses and metanarratives are crossed by a multitude of trenches in which the defenders of each of the ideas are hidden from the eventual attacks of those who think differently. Even in most cases, one can observe the phenomenon that the best defence is the attack, and these people launch themselves at their adversaries in order to gain in quantity the fight for the hegemony of their speculation as a paradigm. In this fight we frequently find a multitude of groups, small groups, communities and even societies. The difficult thing, because it is not typical, is to find the self-critical visions of each of these movements.

And it is difficult for two almost obvious reasons. The first is because those who represent the self- critical vision of each group tend to be convinced of the negative nature of their position for the group, the feeling of belonging is usually used for this; to make them see how wrong the opposite is by refuting these ideas from what is “agreed” within the group; there is a tendency not to let them speak or to silence them directly. The second is something simpler. It is the idea of distancing those who practice self-criticism from the group in which they are found. It is the perpetration of the betrayal of the group towards one of its members under the premise that it was said person who betrayed a belonging that must be considered positive without any ambiguity.

Self-criticism is seen as an act of disloyalty that should lead to desertion, whether it is on one’s own initiative or if it is driven by those who do belong to the group. What must be understood is always that, greater value is given to militant loyalty to the group than to the apostate action of those who are closer to heterodoxy. Thus, constancy and loyalty are validated, and the value of identity emerges with respect to a vital situation, not as a fact but as a positive quality inherent to one’s own being. The concept of identity refers to an experience of continuity and sameness of being oneself, as something that maintains its essence, its immobilized permanence amid processes of change and crisis. Uniting identity and change imply a certain paradox given that rethinking our being as phases of an itinerary that is exhausted by sections to re-emerge again being the same but with new features is one of those pieces of knowledge that never seem to be put into fashion. And this becomes more pressing at a historical moment where there has been a predominance of discourses that announce the death, not of God, if we go back to Nietzsche’s announcement, but of man and his utopias, and with them, the end of history, emptiness, futility and disenchantment. This work suggests that we must open the dynamic conceptualization because identity is precisely that experience of continuity through the transformations of time and circumstances.

Identity politics today promotes corporatism under the headings of ethnicity, gender or nation. In these cases, strategies of “purity” are required to mobilize “some” in order to exclude “others.” It is the myth of internal consistency that largely fuels the current multiculturalist discourse, assuming that each culture is harmonious, self-sufficient, compact and homogeneous. Although this fallacy has its roots in the repeated attacks of Western hegemonic culture, we do not believe that it allows the configuration of new forms of development that are more open and constantly changing because:

Many of the apparent apologies for difference and the right to identity end up contributing to the spread of racist attitudes —although less aggressive than in the past—, a racism with a friendly, folkloric, low-intensity face, but racism, nonetheless. Paternalism and confusion are the consequences that flow from the misuse and abuse of the inauthenticity of these assumptions, which must be reconceptualized from another semantic and experiential order and range (González Luis, 2001: 16).

In contrast, reality shows that it is becoming increasingly difficult for each person to define themselves in reference to a nation, a language, a religion or a specific and ethnic group. It is ignored that identity is multiple or, if you prefer, is made up of multiple components, although “it is not a juxtaposition of autonomous belongings, it is not a mosaic: it is a drawing on a taut skin; it is enough to touch just one of these belongings for the whole person to vibrate” (Maalouf, 1999, p. 38).

But not all the components that make up an identity, whether individual or collective, have the same intensity when it comes to defining it. Following the proposal made by Marjorie Ferguson, there are superficial components or identities that are closely related to consumer objects; for example, ways of dressing or eating. And there are deep components or identities such as religion, beliefs, race, gender, class, the image of the past and future or the rights and obligations of its members. As an example, we will point out that the Quechua people have a very different conception from that of the West. For them, the future is “behind” us because it is not known, nor can it be glimpsed; on the other hand, the past is “in front” because it is known and is in fact the only one that can guide our steps. This conception of the past and the future greatly conditions the identity of the Quechua people. But there is also another type of deep identity that is too often forgotten, and that is the one concerning the form of productive organization of a cultural group in which a subject is immersed. To clarify the importance of this identity component, we will point out some characteristics of the Aymara people that, without a doubt, are part of their own culture. For example, ‘minka’ is the joint work destined for sowing or hunting and also for the construction of houses, corrals, temples; ‘umaraqa’ is the collective rotating work; ‘sataqa’ is a solidarity way of giving access to some land in usufruct to those who do not have it; ‘aynoqas’ are lands that belong to the community and are destined for cultivation in a rotating manner. In the case of indigenous communities, it is extremely clear how their culture is rooted in their models of productive organization, since it has a lot to do with their way of thinking and their way of conceiving life.

There is currently a “politically correct” discourse that advocates for cultural diversity without further reflection on the matter, and in too many cases it involves “certain rhetoric about diversity (…), soft words, euphemisms that soothe our consciences or create the illusion that we are witnessing profound social and cultural transformations simply because they fit into fashionable words” (Duschatzky and Skliar, 2001, p. 186). But difference does not have to be intrinsically positive and must remain in constant “check”. Not all non-hegemonic cultures can be considered valid because they are silenced; despite their marginal situation, they do not have to have a transformative character in themselves. Unfortunately, we must admit that there are practices or characteristics in all cultures that contribute little to social change for the benefit of all. There are better and worse identities and differences; In Maalouf’s words, murderous identities that encourage cultural segregation and more open identities that assume the risk of acculturation in the face of possible cultural exchanges. For this reason, we cannot give in to an ethnographic cult of cultures, incurring in a cultural relativism that would contribute little to the configuration of more just realities and would lead us to indifference towards differences.

We have not only the right but the duty to know, analyse, and judge all cultures and ask ourselves: What identity claims make social justice, participation, and democracy possible? Which ones harm or limit them? Or better yet, what elements of each culture facilitate socially and culturally just styles? Because we cannot fall into the error of treating cultures as a homogeneous block: “Western culture is…,” “Muslim culture is….” Our analysis will depend on which component of identity and which element of it we are referring to. The analysis and evaluation of cultures are complex and must be approached as such, and even more so if we take into consideration the cultural diversity existing in each cultural group. There will always be the perspective of each person, of each cultural group, which will undoubtedly condition the answers to the questions posed. But that should not be considered as an inconvenience; It is a wealth if we are able to contrast, to confront interpretations and analyses of realities, and attend to the search for a world where all human beings have a place.

Critical and dialectical reflection is only possible if there is the possibility of analysing and assessing other cultures, but not according to our own ethnocentric criteria but rather according to an ethic that gives shelter to diversity. We need to unmask ourselves and commit to a politics of differentiated difference, avoiding delegitimizing but also simply celebrating all identities and differences. The defence of cultural plurality is insufficient in the current situation, which suffers from so much justice in all parts of the world; what is more, it ultimately means giving up the pretensions of culturally and socially just societies. We need to have courage and dare to raise the need for plurality, yes, but not only multicultural or even intercultural, but mixed. A plurality based on multiple exchanges where self-criticism and criticism of the ‘others’ play the main role in exchange relations, and where processes of acculturation and assimilation take place. Because let us remember, mestizaje implies losing cultural elements considered one’s own and incorporating new ones, considered foreign; that is the implicit requirement of cultural competence. Debate, confrontation and reflection must be part of the mestizaje processes. The problem is that it is assumed as a prejudice that every dialectical clash confronts people and not the ideas they propose. This generalized prejudice avoids conflict, but also avoids possibilities of dialogue, exchange and understanding; ultimately, it hinders the possibilities of constant revision of cultures and their enrichment through reflection and analysis, through mestizaje.

Identity, far from being static and immutable, as we are led to believe today, is in a constant process of change. “Identity is not given to us once and for all but is constructed and transformed throughout our existence” (Maalouf, 1999: 35). It is not innate, it is learned and is given by the “others”, the “others” closest to us who teach us which cultural elements should make up our identity and which elements should be rejected. We are in the transition from skills to knowledge to reach cultural awareness. The plastic idea is, as professionals who work in the field of migration and to provide a pedagogy of hospitality, from an ethic of mestizaje, to forge mobile, dynamic identities.

Critical and dialectical reflection with the ‘others’ requires “cultural self-criticism”, the analysis of the limitations of our own culture; without it, it is impossible to consider that we can enrich ourselves and learn something from the ‘others’. And even more so if we consider that “a detailed examination indicates the presence in all cultures of a set of external “imported elements”, although (and this is important) they may end up being perceived as part of the culture itself” (Borofsky, 1998, p. 2). We must take a responsible position with respect to our own cultures, most of which are already hybridized with the hegemonic culture and understand that all of them must ‘lose in order to win’, being constantly revised in the face of an ethic of development that enables the members of all cultures to produce, reproduce and develop. The review of all cultures under an ethic that allows for socially and culturally just societies is a basic principle for achieving cultural fusion. Or what Freire proposes that it is difficult to educate without learning from those who educate themselves by teaching us. It will be difficult for the migrant to trust us if we do not convey an honest feeling of curiosity towards the cultural baggage they carry and above all, if we do not listen to the critical gaze that they can bring to what is “ours.”

“The foreigner (…) begins when the awareness of my difference arises and ends when we all recognize ourselves as foreigners, rebels against ties and communities.” And being a rebel is to feel uncomfortable in this world again, to assume the dissatisfaction of the one who seeks, the curiosity of the one who asks. It is losing sleep over the need to decipher a text, it is recovering the passion for knowledge and, ultimately, for life (Piastro, 1998: 153)

Human beings and cultural groups should be nonconformists with who we are and with our own identity, always keeping it “in check” and looking for ways to improve it every day based on ethical values and principles that lead to mixed, mestizo styles of development. We should always feel like foreigners, strangers in our own skin and live in that constant feeling without conflict.