The migration of people from poor countries to countries with a higher economic level is a clear symptom that the globalization of productive systems and resources is not enjoyed equally by everyone, since the vast majority of people are not direct beneficiaries of the same (Trujillo, 2008).
Inequality can be understood as the fact that differences between people are the result of power relations and that disadvantageous situations are generated in order to get out of these situations.
An immigrant does not live in a democracy, since they do not have control over their destiny, nor do they have access to the same channels of participation as citizens (those who have the nationality of a certain country). It is paradoxical that there are people who live within our territory permanently and who cannot benefit from the benefits of democracy like any other citizen. In this sense, being an immigrant is equivalent to not having power (referring to the power of the let's give, of democracy).
We can affirm, without any doubt, that a society in which the people who live do not have the same opportunities for public action and access to public services cannot be considered democratic for reasons that do not depend on their will.
The fact that people with the same system of rights are not treated equally, nor can they access, nor do they feel fully represented in the different public spheres for reasons that do not strictly depend on their will, but due to causes, traits and properties of birth, is contrary to a true system of plural and democratic values.
Prejudices can be understood as the set of beliefs and implicits that accompanies a certain conception of the world and that has an explanatory function on the interpretations we give to things. Hence, facing prejudices, preconceptions and stereotypes is a risky activity, since it can provoke emotional reactions and come to question, in some way, an integral part of the person, the one that helps him to have a conception. coherent of his life.
Within our context of interpretation, the prejudices that occur around the multiculturalism process are not an obstacle, but rather an indication that the process itself is taking place and that it is putting pressure on the basic and hegemonic structure.
There are two types of explanatory arguments: from the social level and from the structural level. The first argument tells us that the origin of stereotypes is eminently social, while the second would locate the production of stereotypes in the same institutional structures. With this second, there would be a tendency to structurally legitimize many of the social stereotypes that are based on premises such as that the immigrant is seen as a source of insecurity (ugly, dirty, suspicious, delinquent... guilty).
Alternative discourses must accompany the processes of change produced by multiculturalism and not make useless calls for resistance to change, from which stereotypes are nourished. These discourses must be articulated with the intention of promoting not only a pluralistic vision of cultures, but also a cultural vision of the different religions that exist and publicly denouncing the discourses that maintain the same structure in sectors as important as education, such as the vision historical refusal of “Moors and Christians”, to give an important symbolic example.
Mean, that The media are the main channels of mediation between institutional racism and social racism. The media simply feeds back the stereotypes. They not only promote its creation, but directly contribute to its consolidation and maintenance over time. Subjected to the logic of the news market, they tend to generalize the process of multiculturalism itself and only particularize the negative effects for citizens and established structures.
The media should constitute a discourse that influences socializing citizens about this process and contributes to generating multicultural minds. Follow a discourse that favors the accommodation of immigrants and citizens in the different public spheres, instead of providing arguments that justify conflict zones and that interpret them as a source of instability, insecurity and threat to our social order and political (Zapata, 2004; Trujillo, 2008).
Multiculturalism is not a design reality that can be built from above, by decisions of the political elite or academia, but from below, by the citizens themselves and the different actors who work daily in managing the process. Multiculturalism is evidence, because reality shows us the coexistence, not coexistence, of different cultures, languages, customs, religions (Laghrich, 2004).
The purpose of interculturality is to achieve a society in which human rights are not violated and progress is made towards a peaceful and harmonious coexistence between all human beings.
Interculturality is the positive interaction in the relationship between the native and the foreigner, it is approaching the other without fear, it is mutual adaptation, it is not assimilation, as was proposed in some European countries (with disastrous results for coexistence). Thus, we will have a peaceful, free, supportive and respectful society, in short an intercultural society: if we are together and mixed, if we are willing to listen to each other, if we all make an effort to question the absolute truths about this or that culture (Laghrich, 2004). Hence the importance of the mediator to help build multicultural minds.
A multicultural mind is one that has a pluralistic vision of the world, that rejects unilateral and ethnocentric conceptions, that stops thinking in universal terms and that in almost all of its reasoning there is always a context and the actions it entails are localized.
The intercultural mediator must, therefore, be a bridge between two or more cultures., a bridge with a starting point and an arrival point; You must know both points perfectly, your job is to make the journey in a prudent and equitable manner to achieve the objective of the journey: unite, bring closer, dilute tensions and ensure that there is real communication between both parties.
In the International Mediation School, we promote this area in order to facilitate rapprochement between different socio-cultural and ethnic groups. With our specialized course in intercultural mediation We train future mediators to foster a better relationship and integration between members of different cultures.
Learn more about the intercultural mediation pressing here.
Supporting bibliography:
Laghrich, S. (2004). Reflections on intercultural mediation. Electronic Journal of Philological Studies, 8. Recovered from https://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum8/estudios/11-Salou.htm
Trujillo, JJ (2008). Multiculturalism: a perspective from the conflict. Magazine of Citizenship, Migrations and Cooperation, 5, 11-23. Recovered from http://ibdigital.uib.es/greenstone/collect/cd2/import/fainmigrantesbaleares/faib0003.pdf
Zapata, R. (2004) Multiculturalism and immigration. Madrid: Synthesis.
