Training Cultures 

Many contemporary social worlds present themselves as identity-based groups: cultures of belonging, often self-centered, that define "who we are and how we think" without engaging in dialogue with otherness. They reflect the ethnocentric positions of the systems that produce them, and they reappear with a certain arrogance in individual professionals who are often impermeable to the other and to the relational encounter with alterity — at times even to professional alterity — taking refuge behind a supposed science of evidence that resembles a form of fundamentalist religion more than a critical approach to reality.

From a training perspective, this means that accumulating knowledge, simply adding new pieces to one's existing repertoire, is not enough. Professional growth requires acquiring epistemological and methodological competencies in a complementary key: not by abandoning one's specific approach, but rather by making that approach a place of encounter. The training we propose can be understood as "the attempt to move beyond the boundaries of each individual approach in order to understand what can be learned from other perspectives." Complementarism (Devereux, 2014), in this sense, allows multiple fields to be coordinated without one excluding the other.

This analogy — together with other insights drawn from the transcultural lens — represents a non-obvious resource that can foster collaboration among professionals working with complexity. Our training should be understood as a desire to approach new forms of knowledge, diverse singular worlds, unexpected events. These are vital forms of knowledge, meaningful both personally and professionally, that cultivate an eye for detail, for subtle nuances — an eye that makes it possible to observe global reality from new and diverse angles, shaped by expectations, emerging conflicts, particular responsibilities in light of universal rights, impossible choices, and new contexts that are increasingly complex and transcultural.