university exchange programme, was accepted. 23 But neither could we dispense with valorizing criteria, as proposed by the postmodern relativism that these northernist voices use to legitimate their ethnocentrism. On the contrary, we collectively constructed criticisms of the ethnocentric academic literary criticism that rendered hegemonic dominant interpretations of literature and classified as deficient those that came from the south or from those with a 'low academic level', such as the participants in the literary circle.
We believe that the European university exchange programmes have much to learn from these situations generated by popular culture. We think that we would learn much if we were to forego the teleological action in the service of ethnocentrism favoured by northernist voices (and frequently legitimated by postmodern relativism) in favour of egalitarian communicative action among all cultures. The intellectual quality of all participating universities would be strengthened if the exchange were based on a dialogue guided by the best arguments and not by the prestige and material power of the originating institution or country. We do not believe it would be possible to transfer a communicative, popular-culture model such as that of the literary circle into the current European interuniversity dynamic. But we do believe that it is necessary to develop practices of resistance and transformation within these programmes, fomented by the utopian motivation of creating situations such as those achieved in the literary circle, where voices such as those of Carmen and Julio are not from the outset considered inferior to those of any professor or literary critic, where people from the north and south, gypsies and nongypsies, are considered not only different but also equal.