Antonio Ariño is a full professor of Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, with a degree in Geography and History, and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Valencia (UV). He received the National Research Award for La ciudad ritual in 1992, with which he moved from History to Sociology. He was director of the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, as well as vice-rector of different areas. In his career, he has combined university management with teaching and research, focusing on the field of Sociology of Culture, Welfare Policies and Sociological Theory, and has four six-year research periods recognised.
In this interview, Antonio Ariño takes a tour of his distinguished career at the University and analyses the significant changes he has witnessed in the academic field. Ariño will talk to us about the importance of cultural participation and creating policies that promote it. Finally, it will expose the relationship between culture and collective identity, as well as the effects of new technologies and globalisation.
How has your time at the University as vice-rector been?
When I was appointed Vice-Rector of Studies and Academic Organisation, the European Convergence Process began and I became very involved in understanding what the Bologna plan consisted of. At that time, me and other colleagues saw the need for a change and an improvement in teaching methodologies and we had just designed the first Educational Innovation Project recognised by the University. We decided that we wanted to teach our subjects in a less indulged way and with less guidelines than the one that the subject division had.
Unfortunately, what we had learned about what European Convergence was supposed to mean had very little to do with what was being done. Institutionally, a very uniform model was imposed when it comes to teaching, many assignments were included that saturate the students’ study time and did not facilitate their learning process. It was a totally different dynamic from our vision and we were overwhelmed.
I had the opportunity to change to the Vice-Rectorate for Culture, which combined my scientific specialty, sociology of culture, with the management of the University’s cultural spaces, especially La Nau, the Residence Hall, the Cervelló Palace and also the Botanical Garden. From here we coordinated different cultural activities that took place in these spaces, in addition to their main function as a residence, garden or research institutes. It was a period of great creativity, around a group of people with a lot of enthusiasm for the project.
What did this first Educational Innovation Project consist of?
The Project was designed in a context where it was palpable that new technologies would change everything, even though at that time, around the 90s, the Internet was only used to send mail. It was framed within the so-called European Convergence Process, although our idea was very different. We considered that our structure of three courses, which constituted the diploma, and two more courses, which were the degree, was already adapted to Europe and should not be modified, but that the changes should be directed towards the methodologies and resources for education.
What were those changes you wanted to make?
The changes we wanted to introduce in this Educational Innovation project were focused on two issues that worried us: dropout and the different student profiles. First of all, we decided to study the dropout problem. A percentage of students enrolled in different degres, especially some more than others, and then dropped out. The dropout rate in the first year was very high and I think it remains so in many degrees.
At the same time, we proposed to the Ministry to study what we would call a change in the student profile. A change was taking place in the way of approaching the commitment to university studies, increasingly "flexible". For example, people enrolled in a percentage of subjects for which they were not examined, took subjects in the third year suspended from the first year, etc. In other words, we wanted to understand these curricula and, especially, their combination with the other part of the student body that wanted to make work and study compatible. We could not offer a homogeneous academic curriculum for profiles that were so different. This became the first investigation of many and led to the creation of an observatory of living conditions and commitment to the study of university students, where we have continued to investigate these issues until today.
"T here continues to be inequality and segregation in the university by sex and gender, by age, by type of degrees that are chosen, but above all, most importantly, by family origin"
"The students used to protest against Bologna and against the policies that I myself was carrying out. N ow, on the contrary, the students do not mobilise themselves"
Quins són els principals descobriments que heu fet sobre l’estudiantat universitari? What are the main discoveries you made about university students?
We have seen that the students profile has changed a lot, but above all we have been able to detect and ratify the hypothesis that we set out at the beginning: there continues to be inequality and segregation in the university by sex and gender, by age, by type of degrees that are chosen, but above all, most importantly, by family origin ; and scholarships do not solve this problem of inequality. This observation has been transmitted both to the universities and to the different authorities of the Autonomous Communities because they are trying to improve the scholarship system.
What have been the changes that the University has experienced during your career at an institutional level?
The University as an institution has changed a lot, for example, in the area of research. Research institutes, research support spaces, society’s demand for research, as well as the offers and opportunities for those interested in research have grown.
Within the university itself, we could differentiate between the degrees and the institution or university governance. The degrees increasingly seem to have become more closed in on themselves , when there should be transversality between all Social Sciences careers. The subjects in the first years should be common, in order to have a greater capacity for student circulation in the first years, as well as greater training and understanding between the different careers. Which, therefore, have been very closed in their specialisation.
And what changes have you seen in university students?
I find that there has been a loss of capacity to participate in university processes, at all levels, and the period of the pandemic has surely exacerbated it. The students used to protest against Bologna and against the policies that I myself was carrying out. This could be liked more or less, but it was very important for the students to express themselves. Now, on the contrary, the students do not mobilise themselves , do not make demonstrations, or criticize the approaches that should be improved. But I think it is also happening among teachers, who are forced from the beginning to publish articles in certain journals. Consequently, there is a greater concentration of power in the university management, when the university should be a more participatory space at all levels.
Overall, on the one hand, we find a certain closure; on the other one, an individualistic isolation on the part of the teachers; this results in a certain concentration of power in a few hands in the university; and, finally, we move towards an excessively mercantilist mentality, where the important thing is to publish, because this is what will count for their promotion.
" The future depends a lot on our involvement and developing a more active participation"
"To improve cultural participation, the first policy is a policy in childhood"
Whose responsibility is it that these changes have taken place?
Well, it would be easy to say that the fault lies with the mercantilist society we live in, neoliberalism, the rectory, the teachers... No, I think that, ultimately, we all lack a certain capacity to react, both within the University and in society as a whole. The future depends a lot on our involvement and developing a more active participation. In addition, it would be very convenient if more participation was encouraged from above.
Currently, what are your projects or concerns in the university field?
In the university field, I will continue as professor emeritus and I will be able to continue with a project that we started two years ago, which is Social Documents. This one is based on using the phone, which has a camera, or a professional camera as integral learning tools that I understand to be the university, not linked to a program, but that students want to learn more The workshop consists of technical photography classes, but also dynamic, laboratory-type classes, for the development of the practical phase in which the participating student takes photographs around the city, around the towns where social reality is shaped.
And in terms of institutional management?
On the other hand, I am directing the Chair of Valencian Cultural Policies where we are researching audiences, from street festivals to audiences in the city’s facilities, theatres, museums, etc. We are also doing it with sociology majors who have set up a laboratory in the space of institutes and with other people who belong to the world of culture.
And what is he researching?
From the point of view of my research, I am working on the great topic that has always interested me, inequality and culture. I think that little political attention is paid to cultural inequalities. Educational inequalities are very important, but cultural inequalities are even more so, because they are the ones that are at the base, from the beginning of the educational system, of what will be educational inequalities. So if policies are not made that correct cultural inequalities, it is difficult for educational inequalities to be corrected.
In my personal life, I am trying to see how society has evolved, specifically Spanish society, based on the testimony and life of my mother and my family. Describing my mother’s life is a pretext for describing the life of women of her generation, of her era and describing that society marked by two events: the Civil War and the post-war period, as well as the obligation to abandon their village and flee to the city.
"The second policy would be to bring culture closer to the people, but differentiating the different types of audience"
"Culture is a basic dimension of all people, but not everyone has that culture that will help them to enrich themselves as a person"
He spoke about the importance of cultural policies. What measures can be taken to encourage citizen participation in culture?
In this matter we have to differentiate two levels. What I always say is that to improve cultural participation, the first policy is a policy in childhood. Trying to invite adults who go to certain spaces, if they’ve never been in the habit of going, is very difficult, because it’s not about going through a door to enter a museum, it’s about having the skills to know how to interpret what’s inside. And not only the skills, but also your motivations are important to choose which things are worth it or which will bring meaning and meaning to our life, like going to the theatre or the museum. In such a way that there is only a big change in cultural participation in the retirement stage, especially among women. The women who retire or those who do not retire because they have always worked at home, are the audience that has the most participatory innovation at the moment, in Spanish society, in a very clear way.
What would be the second policy to improve cultural participation?
The second policy is about bringing people closer to cultural activity and cultural practices without expecting them to go. In this sense, I think that positive experiences are being made in the neighborhoods, in the towns, but they have a lack of starting point and that is that these people in their childhood, because of the families they lived with, because of the deficiencies they had, have not received and have not been able to internalise this predisposition to enjoy culture. In addition, there is a rift between the lowest socio-cultural levels and a very clear rift between men and women.
The problem is that, in general, people who are involved in cultural policy are not convinced that their role is to reach those who normally do not participate. This means that survey data is not analysed, nor that of cultural participation, audiences are not analysed and, ultimately, policies are not considered to be modified. Therefore, the second policy would be to bring culture closer to the people, but differentiating the different types of audience.
Could you clarify the term culture and the relationship it has with science and society?
I understand culture in the anthropological sense which means that all people have culture, there are no "uneducated" people. What happens is that the culture that people have does not serve exactly the same to develop a life of growth and personal enrichment, but sometimes has a function of conformity or resignation.
What I think we need to pass on is a critical culture, a culture that emphasises people and pushes them to look for new things. Critical culture is against conformity, manipulation, domination, etc., it is a culture that knows how to differentiate what is positive for one’s own existence, from what will contribute nothing. She is critical because she knows how to differentiate a rumour and a lie from the truth. Another aspect is the open culture, in the sense of respect and understanding towards others, but it is also not present in all people, as we can witness, for example, in the racist scenes at football matches.
In short, culture is a basic dimension of all people, but not everyone has that culture that will help them to enrich themselves as a person and develop as a citizen. This culture is the one that political leaders, political parties or political associations have the obligation to transmit, because it is the one that is unequally distributed.
How does culture influence the construction of collective identity and social cohesion?
If there is a collective identity, it is because there are shared cultural traits, be it language, be it a certain way of seeing the world, be it having the same economic activity, be it certain moral principles or certain values. Wherever there is a group that feels united, it is absolutely necessary that they share cultural traits because identity always has a cultural basis. There are no identities that do not have a cultural basis. From the moment the individual is born, certain expectations are attributed to him, certain values are instilled in him which later, with his life experience, he may or may not clash with them.
How do globalisation and new technologies affect local culture and cultural diversity?
The impact they have is ambivalent. Through new technologies and their global impact, things that had an absolutely very local scope can be made known. A typical case would be gastronomy where, through the media, you can find an immensity of recipes from anywhere in the world. We can also find that in certain places the gastronomy is made in such a unique way that you have to go to that place to consume it, which is a commercialisation of local identity elements. Globalisation has commoditised everything and, through tourism, they have turned into merchandise what were distinctive elements of certain localities, festivals, architecture, ways of working, etc.
We could say that all this is part of an economy of enrichment in a double sense. On the one hand, the objects, projects, the past and the identity traits of a town are now being claimed, but before there was no need to say that this belonged to this town. And on the other hand, this issue is taken advantage of for business and local development.
"Through new technologies and their global impact, things that had an absolutely very local scope can be made known"
"Globalisation has a first effect which is to bring out the local; a second effect which is to turn it into a commodity for those who are not local; and a third effect of homogenisation"
So, what would its effects be?
Globalisation has a first effect which is to bring out the local; a second effect which is to turn it into a commodity for those who are not local; and a third effect of homogenisation , in the sense that traits considered more vulgar are polished when we project them into the global universe. It’s ambivalent, but from my point of view it has two negative effects: everything is now commoditised and anything is part of an "experiential package", whether it’s gathering acorns in the forest or having a gastronomic experience with the locals. Everything is part of a commercialised package that, many times, has a destructive effect on the places visited. And the other negative effect is that, even if it doesn’t seem like it, globalisation also produces formal homogenisation among the subjects that now try to be singular.
Finally, what is your vision for the future of culture in our society?
We are at a time when it is very difficult. We can say, first of all, that wherever there is a human being there will be culture, because culture is precisely that process of learning, of skills, of dispositions, of competences that is not given by genetics but by socialisation. In this sense, culture will always be part of the process of socialisation and, consequently, of the creation of humanity, personality and identity.
On the contrary, what is happening with the participatory, critical and open culture is that more rumours, fake news, lies or cynicism are circulating on the Internet than content that helps to grow personally. The global expansion and the impact of new technologies is of a brutality that did not exist before and we must relearn how to use them. What we are experiencing now with artificial intelligence, trust that we will know how to regulate it from possible threats and that it is not fundamentally used to control people and reduce their autonomy.
How should these new technologies be used?
We must use them creatively, because people have the creative capacity. Creativity does not mean that it will last over time, but we experiment and try new things, we like to get out of the routine on certain occasions. I also hope that the participative and cooperative part of these technologies can be highlighted. For me, the most innovative thing about technologies is that they allow us to organise in a very effective way. They are technologies of organisation and cooperation, but they can be used both to provoke a war and to generate vaccines, as has happened with COVID. We must ensure from the Academy and from the responsibility we have as citizens that what lasts is creativity, participation, the ability to organise ourselves and a critical sense.
Antonio Ariño: ’If policies are not made that correct cultural inequalities, it is difficult for educational inequalities to be solved’
