ABSTRACT
This paper reflects on foundations of integration in our differentiated and globalized society from a sociological point of view, and links this reflection to most recent scientific acquisitions of the New Systems Theory or Complexity Science about how all systems, natural as well as social systems, work and evolve. Incorporating the sociological tradition on differentiation processes as rule of social functioning, the contemporary sociology accepted emergent, far from equilibrium (entropy), self-organization, unpredictable and surprising organizational change processes, operative closure and autopoiesis concepts, as particularly adapting concepts to represent social systems and, above all, our contemporary society characterized by an increase of complexity due to differentiation, individualization and globalization processes. In this regard, strong and permanent migratory waves, due to economic and digital globalization processes, and increasing cultural differentiation processes, have led contemporary western societies to face a serious social organizational problem: how the recognition of cultural difference and the instance of social integration can be reconciled? In this regard, the characterization of all systems as able to adapt to environmental perturbations and survive by self-organizing, balancing organization integrative constraints and emergencies, that is, far from complete differentiation, without being even minimal connection (far from equilibrium or in the edge of the chaos), can constitute a valid point of reference for sociologically reflecting, starting from here, on current integration policies of cultural differences in our complex society (pluralism, multiculturalism, interculturalism) and their implications for social integration. About it, the paper accepts the perspective of those sociological and political theories according to which, from a theoretical and empirical point of view, the sufficiency of procedural foundations seems to show serious limits as integrative constraint. Therefore, the Complexity language can justify the caution with which the normative multiculturalism—which implies it—is believed that should be considered, by anchoring it to the vision of a society conceived so as to dangerously visit that range of maximum differentiation which should be avoided, being identified as the range of ungovernability. Islamic radicalism and nationalistic rejection signs in the West show that this is no a mere theoretical possibility. How to bridge this relationality deficit that normative multiculturalism seems to institute and avoid the risk of a society unable to regain order with coherence? The Complexity framework is where the entire debate must be kept. Here, the integration proposal of interculturalism can gain greater meaning, avoiding the risks of mono-culturalism, on the one hand, and social balkanization, on the other hand.