Transculturalismul și interculturalismul, itinerare social-economice (ne)viabile pentru egocentrism?

Transculturalism and interculturalism, (un)viable social-economic itineraries for egocentrism?

Abstract

We live in a world where economic and social change often becomes routine, and restoring social order is increasingly difficult. It is a world that is constantly changing – and yet, as humanity, we seem to have limits about always evolving in the right and / or correct direction. Why? Such a question (only seemingly simple) requires nuanced answers: (i) As time passes (as strange as it may seem), we become more selfish, and we want much more than we need. It is not just about the relationship between resources and current consumerism, but also about the fact that we consider ourselves more entitled than others. In other words, we forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that, although a dose of selfishness is necessary for everyone, its dosage must be reasonable. (ii) We are not satisfied with that. To achieve our goal, we sometimes act for ourselves, but to the detriment of the communities we belong to. (iii) The general interest becomes secondary. (iv) In such conditions, the individual risks becoming a puppet actor, who particularises an ‘era’ of personal interest: he becomes more curious and courageous, but not necessarily wiser and assertive. The ‘door’ through which he identifies the values of others seems to be an increasingly visible sign of the individual’s adaptation not only to the schematization and simplification of everything, but also to mystification and / or isolation. Detailing the previous contents, this paper insists on positive economic and social change (we refer here to transculturalism and interculturalism), which social groups can generate in the current global context, so turbulent and harsh. The motivation behind our theme is relatively simple: if the obstruction implied by egocentrism marks the gesture of an authority to punish people for their own mistakes, the acceptance signifies the attention with which we treat the correction of errors. Our text views the world with spirit of introspection (more brutal or more subtle, as the case may be), with varying degrees of risk, depending on the selective ‘pattern’ of society and its limits. We refer here to the everyday importance of education, of community spirit, and of utilitarianism, which – in the end – can constitute multiple ‘doors’ to social acceptance (but to overcome inner fear, the three previous landmarks require a suitable key for each ‘door’). Under these circumstances, the main landmark of our work is formulated as a question: Could transculturalism and interculturalism formulate (in their combined complexity) a compass for the modern world? Hard to imagine such a commitment, though perhaps not impossible. To reach this social-economic and cultural level, individuals and communities would have to overcome human selfishness, i.e. to stop being self-centered. In essence, we are talking about the management of social-economic acceptance policies and those on diversity. From this perspective, modern societies are oscillating: they either seem to be spinning on the Ferris wheel, on the Tilt-A-Whirl or on the Roller-Coaster, or either seem to make Scrambling. But seem to do whatever it takes to win – and that doesn't mean promoting egalitarianism. No doubt their purpose is to evolve, but their dynamic architecture supports their national identity in different ways. Finally, for all social-economic entities, the most important test of sustainability is called dialog (universally valid deadline for acceptance).