Conviviality is one of the fundamental elements in any human society: from the smallest groups (family, friends, school or work colleagues, neighbours) to the largest groups (business, political, religious, and social organisations in general), conviviality is both essential and necessary. However, what we see most today is the instability of associations and the inconstancy of meetings, of groups that form and break up in short periods of time. In general, groups emerge around objectives, positions, demands, and issues that are in vogue at certain times, and they disperse as quickly as they are formed. This process is accelerating today, generating dissatisfaction and questions about the reasons for this impermanence, about the presuppositions of this instability that covers countless modern societies in all their spheres.

Interconnections, like groupings, can constitute levels of coexistence responsible for creating platforms and networks from which the most diverse encounters, bonds, and friendship groups, or the confluence of common objectives, are structured. One of the most obvious examples of this today is coexistence in the digital environment. The obstacles to coexistence are made explicit by clashes, impediments, and enticements, while the solution aspects are characterised by participatory, supportive, and liberating actions.

Coexistence is not always peaceful. Tension and conflict occur when the factors responsible for relationships between individuals and also between groups are arbitrated according to objectives other than those of the individuals and their respective groups. We often see people organizing themselves and coexisting based on demands that are alien to their group structures. These adherences constantly and subtly undermine the immanence of the groups.

The weaker or more inconsistent the group cohesion, the less coexistence. Even in families, this is what characterises disagreements and arguments, that is to say, coexistence maintained and instigated by other interests. When the objectives and motivations of the group extend beyond its own boundaries, there are always weak points, or dead zones, that constitute conflictive areas because, due to the fragmentation of existing interests, there is no group autonomy.

Groups are weak or strong depending on their structural consistency - and this consistency defines the group, regardless of the similarity between the different elements that make it up. Deciding on actions and objectives based on the similarity between the elements of the group polarizes and breaks unity, since it mainly polarizes the aspects involved in this search for conformity. Prioritizing similarity, i.e., prioritizing the identity of the members of the group, fragments and sidelines all other elements that effectively structure the group. It is this aspect that allows us, for example, to understand how the mother's attitude, which favours looking after the weaker or stronger children, fragments the whole group, in this case, the family.

To coexist is to participate. It is not deciding because you agree or disagree. Participation requires common motivations and structures; in other words, structures that are in line with each other. When coexistence is manufactured according to adherent, diverse, parallel objectives, it is invaded by other orders and thus deprived of its fundamental coordinates.

The objective, what you set out to achieve, can never be the structuring factor of coexistence; otherwise, the process and the structuring of continuity will be contingent. This observation also explains the volatility of most digital groups when they aim to bring people together, as well as the fragility of any group created from circumstantial objectives to coexist.

Moved by equivalents of slogans (words that command) and immediate objectives, everything can coexist, although nothing is structured outside of these explicit objectives. This ephemeral character is by definition a coexistence only as participation that captures and expresses objective demands and claims around circumstances. Consequently, they are responsible for solutions, for results linked to yes or no, which become values that polarize and create division. As a result of this process, groups emerge that coexist according to results, and therefore have no character, no characteristics of their own.

Coexisting in this way becomes the tool that brings groups together according to a previously decided and established objective, an a priori and evaluative objective. This is what the structural reality of these groupings depends on, and what we see is that today's groups are unable to continue tomorrow, because they are made up of the empire of contingencies, which takes everything by storm, but which don't know where to anchor themselves.

What is ephemeral is obviously unstable and transitory, and this characteristic soon becomes an obstacle, turning coexistence into a synonym for co-opting, involving, seducing, and attracting to be part of. This change stems from how the antitheses to the processes are structured. In the family, in emotional relationships, in societies, in various groups, in schools, in political parties, in religions, as well as in individuals' relationships with themselves (synonymous with the first group), this process of transforming coexistence into co-optation is a constant.