The preceding case studies present a perspective distinct from that of the second Part of this work, and reinforce the assertion that although religious identity was a “hard” form of social differentiation, it did not present an impenetrable barrier to interaction. Each individual participated simultaneously in a number of communities of different types: religious, “parochial,” commercial, professional, contractual, familial, household, local, municipal, and “national.” In a given set of circumstances one's sense of belonging or the perception of one's self-interest might have lain most heavily in any one of these. Thus, the direction of individual action was determined according to each situation, in response to a complexity of interests, circumstances, and opportunities. Range of action was restricted or channeled according to the social, economic, and administrative structures of the heterogeneous and vertically sectioned, sectarian society of the Crown. In most cases individuals must have reacted without sparing a thought for the processes that led them to make their choice of action, except when they felt the need to rationalize or excuse what might be perceived by themselves or their neighbors as a moral compromise. An accurate assessment of the relationship between the Christian and Muslim communities of the thirteenth-century Crown must take into account both the forces of the community and the caprice of the individual.