The cultural diversity of memories and communities. (I)
Using the tools of heritage education to encourage community participation, in what Hannah Arendt has called the political ontology of the community, requires attention to the processes at play in space and time, the role of actors and different organizations.
The field of historical memory of the State is therefore a space of analysis relevant to understand the points of convergence and rupture. Convergence because from the different positions of actors and institutions where they act, it is possible to analyze the production of hegemonic narratives; at the same time, that the processes of emancipation tend to value the narratives produced by subaltern groups who seek to affirm their rights to historical memory, and can constitute themselves as breaking points, from which new hegemonic memories can be reconstructed, respecting the cultural diversity, or, maintaining the denial of the emerging alternatives, thus maintaining the tension in old quarrels, without which narrative innovation arises.
In the latter case we are faced with blocked memories.
How to avoid this sterility trap?
Some answers have been proposed, such as developing dialogic methodological procedures. This implies, for example, that work in communities is no longer done from the “hegemonic” methodological perspectives of specialists. It is necessary to create bridges and connect different interpretive universes.
One of the questions that has been placed with the work of the communities is the perception of their interpretive pluriversity around the understanding of the conflicts and the social processes.
 Pluriversality is an epistemic proposal centered on the diversity of the world and that opposes the Eurocentric “universalist” model, taken as hegemonic by the processes of globalization.
By pluriversity is a process of knowledge production open to epistemic diversity, which does not necessarily deny the idea of universal knowledge,. but which has to be produced through a horizontal strategy, built in the dialogue between different epistemic traditions. To decolonize the university is, therefore, to reform it with the aim of creating a critical cosmopolitan pluriversalism less monoprodutor of hegemonic practices and that involves the radical refoundation of our modes of thinking and the transcendence of our disciplinary divisions. See Achile Membo in Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive.