Culture&Territories#3

CeiED | CULTURE & TERRITORY
404
This is a fact that gives us a highly romanticized view of earthly biocoexistence,
which does not always correspond to reality, but which is, nonetheless, inspiring and
appeals to consciences to create spaces of unity, rather than separation. I refer not
only to the culture of these peoples but also to the relation these social groups
establish with space – it is not a question of the integration of the indigenous
people in public space, but rather of letting ourselves be inspired by their vision and
their relationship with space, i.e., it is more a question of integrating their ancestral
knowledge.
The multidimensionality which underlies the worldview of these social group
sembraces the individual within the community as starting point for the central and
integrating balance; the dialogue between cultures in the public space stems
precisely from acknowledging epistemic and cultural diversity as practice of an
actual interculturality in which public space becomes an articulating axis.
The dialectical relationship established between the different rational esmust not be
called utopian vision, as is so often the case. This must be the condition for a humane
instruction at social level, among living beings that share a common global space
from a perspective of interdependence and complementarity. Identifying and
understanding theother from within one’s own geopolitical context is crucial to
acknowledging him/her as a complementary and supplementary part of our culture
of origin, thus giving rise to the understanding of other ways of feeling, thinking and
living.
Just as Lefebvre (2001) defends the idea of an experimental utopia inspace, so Paulo
Freire, through his “untested feasibility”, creates a vision of the future in the shape
of an achievable utopia – in social and human relations – which the notes of Ana
Maria Araújo Freire seek to define as: “(…) ultimately, something that the utopian
dream knows that exists but which will only be achieved through the liberating praxis which
involves the theory of Freire’s dialogical action or, evidently, because it does not necessarily
involve only his, involving another that pursues the same goals” (2006: 206). Public space,
as mediating space, can play precisely that fundamental and essential role: it can be a
liberating, experimental space for an imagined citizenship.
CONCLUSION
Public space is a possible and sensitive concept of intercultural mediation, it crosses
the geographical space to become the experimental utopia (Lefebvre, 2001: 110)
of the imagined community (Borja, 2003). Intercultural mediation is expected to
contribute toweave the ties of integration and social cohesion, so that an effective
contemporary citizenship can emerge, vibrant and enlightened, in the respect for the
SELF and for the OTHER. We must not rest until public space can be an arena of
democratic freedom, preventing all forms of discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization
or confinement, byfostering a metalanguage to bring all the parties together. If, on
the one hand, the challenge involves enhancing the historical heritage as essential