From labelling to social aid for immigrants in the 21st Century

Migration is as old as humanity, but since the 1990s migration flows in Western Europe have led to societies that are not just multicultural but so-called «super-diverse». As a result, Western towns now have very complex social structures, with amongst others large amounts of small immigrant communities that are in constant change. In this paper we argue that for social workers to be able to offer adequate professional help to non-native residents in town, they will need balanced view of ‘culture’ and of the role culture plays in social aid. Culture is never static, but is continually changing. By teaching social workers about how to look at cultural backgrounds of immigrant groups and about the limitations of then role that culture plays in communication, they will be better equipped to provide adequate aid and will contribute to making various groups grow towards each other and to avoid people thinking in terms of ‘out-group-homogeneity’. Nowadays, inclusion is a priority in social work that almost every social worker supports. Social workers should have an open attitude to allow them to approach every individual as a unique person. They will see the other person as the person they are, and not as a part of a specific cultural group. Knowledge about the others makes them see the cultural heterogeneity in every group. The social sector, though, must be aware not to fall into the trap of the ‘inclusion mania’! This will cause the social deprivation of a particular group to be forgotten. An inclusive policy requires an inclusive society. Otherwise, this could result in even more deprivation of other groups, already discriminated against. Emancipation of deprived people demands a certain target-group policymaking. Categorized aid will raise efficiency of working with immigrants and of acknowledging the cultural identity of the non-natives group. It will also create the possibility to work on fighting social deprivation, in which most immigrants can be found.

La inevitable inconsistencia del Zeus/Júpiter épico

Durante años la investigación literaria ha encontrado fruición en buscar y encontrar inconsistencias narrativas en la Tebaida de Estacio. Concretamente, hay cierto grado de consenso respecto a que las incongruencias en que incurre Júpiter son debidas a negligencia o incuria por parte del poeta. De hecho, no se puede negar que el soberano del cielo se contradice en las ocasiones en que alude a su relación con el Destino. No obstante, no será únicamente el poeta flavio el objeto de mi atención en este artículo. Hoy día se continúa acudiendo a la autoridad filosófica de Séneca (fundamentalmente a Dial. 1.5.8) siempre que el Zeus/Júpiter poshomérico (también el virgiliano) incurre en lo que hemos dado en considerar «incoherencias». Sin embargo, excepción hecha de las composiciones hesiódicas, el estatuto teológico de Zeus/Júpiter es altamente inestable en toda la tradición literaria griega y romana. Quizá deberíamos aceptar, entonces, que durante siglos los que estudiamos literatura antigua hemos tendido a prescindir de la voz autorial y de su autoridad omnímoda para manipular el material literario preexistente con el objeto de generar nuevos significados y nuevas cosmovisiones. En definitiva, nos hemos mostrado proclives a calificar de inconsistencias todo aquello que no se adecua a nuestras expectativas o prejuicios.