Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Me gustaría que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto y que cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad con libertad. - I would like there to always be more respect in our society and for every friendship to be able to express its identity freely.

Me gustaría is the conditional form of gustar and is used to express a wish, something you would like to be true but that is not (or not yet) reality.

Me gusta = I like (a real, current fact)
- Me gusta nuestra sociedad. = I like our society.
Me gustaría = I would like / I wish (a desire, hypothetical)
- Me gustaría que hubiera más respeto. = I would like there to be more respect.

So here the speaker is not saying “I like that there is more respect” (which isn’t even true yet) but “I would like there to be more respect” → me gustaría.

Why do we need que after me gustaría?

In Spanish, when you say you want/would like something to happen (a whole situation, not a simple noun), you typically use:

[verb of desire] + que + [subjunctive clause]

Examples:

Quiero que vengas. = I want you to come.
Me gustaría que hubiera más respeto. = I would like there to be more respect.

So que introduces the subordinate clause that contains what you’re wishing for:

Main clause: Me gustaría
Subordinate clause: que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto y que cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad con libertad

Why is hubiera used, and not hay, haya, or habría?

Hubiera is the imperfect subjunctive of haber, used here because:

Me gustaría que… (conditional with a wish) normally triggers imperfect subjunctive.
We’re talking about a desired/hypothetical situation, not a real one.

Rough pattern:

Me gustaría que + imperfect subjunctive
→ Me gustaría que hubiera más respeto.

Other forms:

hay: present indicative (real fact) – there is/are
haya: present subjunctive – often used with quiero que…, es posible que…
habría: conditional – there would be, but it doesn’t fit this structure (Me gustaría que habría is incorrect).

So, with me gustaría que…, the natural choice is hubiera.

What exactly is hubiera doing here? Why haber and not another verb like ser?

Here haber is the impersonal verb used to talk about the existence of something:

haber (impersonal) → there is / there are / there was / there would be
- hay más respeto = there is more respect
- había más respeto = there was more respect
- hubiera más respeto = there were (hypothetically) more respect

Using ser or estar would change the meaning:

fuera más respetuosa = were more respectful (about society itself, its quality)
hubiera más respeto = there were more respect (about the amount/level of respect that exists).

The sentence is about having more respect existing in society, so haber is correct.

Why is hubiera in the imperfect subjunctive and not haya in the present subjunctive?

Both are subjunctive, but the choice depends on the main verb:

With quiero que… (present, more immediate wish), you normally use present subjunctive:
- Quiero que haya más respeto.
With me gustaría que… (conditional, more hypothetical, polite, less direct), Spanish prefers imperfect subjunctive:
- Me gustaría que hubiera más respeto.

It’s a pattern:

Quiero que vengas.
Me gustaría que vinieras.

So me gustaría pairs naturally with hubiera / pudiera (imperfect subjunctive).

Why do we say en nuestra sociedad and not en la sociedad or de nuestra sociedad?

All are possible but have slightly different nuances:

en nuestra sociedad = in our society
Focus: the society we belong to (our country, culture, community).
en la sociedad = in society (more general, not necessarily “ours”)
More abstract / general.
de nuestra sociedad would more likely appear in phrases like
los problemas de nuestra sociedad (the problems of our society).
With haber, en (place) is more natural: que en nuestra sociedad hubiera más respeto.

So en nuestra sociedad stresses the idea “in the society we live in”.

Can siempre go in a different position, like que siempre hubiera más respeto? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, it can move:

que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto
que en nuestra sociedad siempre hubiera más respeto

Both are grammatical and essentially mean the same: that in our society there would always be more respect.

Subtlety:

hubiera siempre is slightly more neutral.
siempre hubiera can sound a bit more emphatic on “always”.

Spanish word order is flexible; the key is that siempre clearly modifies the verb idea “there would be more respect”.

Why is cada amistad used instead of cada amigo or cada persona?

Amistad means friendship (the relationship), not “friend” (the person):

amigo / amiga = friend (person)
amistad = friendship (the bond/relationship)

Saying cada amistad focuses on each friendship as a relationship, not on each individual friend. It sounds a bit more abstract and inclusive, emphasizing relationships rather than individuals:

cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad
≈ each friendship / each relationship could express its own identity.

In many contexts you could also say:

cada persona (each person)
cada amigo (each friend)

It’s a stylistic choice; cada amistad sounds a bit more conceptual.

Why is it cada amistad pudiera (singular verb) and not pudieran (plural)?

Because cada always takes a singular noun and a singular verb in Spanish, even though its meaning is “each (one of many)”:

cada persona es diferente (not son)
cada amigo tiene su historia (not tienen)
cada amistad pudiera expresar… (not pudieran)

So the subject is grammatically singular: amistad. Therefore the verb must be pudiera (3rd person singular).

Why is pudiera used instead of pueda or puede?

For the same reason as with hubiera: it matches the pattern me gustaría que + imperfect subjunctive.

Compare:

More direct / present wish:
- Quiero que cada amistad pueda expresar su identidad.
More hypothetical / polite:
- Me gustaría que cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad.

Structure:

Main: Me gustaría
Subordinate 1: que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto
Subordinate 2: y que cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad con libertad

Both subordinate verbs (hubiera, pudiera) are in the imperfect subjunctive for parallelism and because of me gustaría.

Do we really need to repeat que before cada amistad? Could we say …hubiera siempre más respeto y cada amistad pudiera…?

The second que is optional here.

With que repeated (more explicit, a bit more formal/clear):
- Me gustaría que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto y que cada amistad pudiera expresar…
Without repeating que (also correct, more compact):
- Me gustaría que en nuestra sociedad hubiera siempre más respeto y cada amistad pudiera expresar…

In the second version, Spanish “understands” that que also applies to the second clause. Both are grammatical; repeating que just makes the structure very clear.

Why is it expresar su identidad and not expresarse su identidad?

Here expresar is a transitive verb that takes a direct object:

expresar [algo] = to express [something]
- expresar su identidad = to express their/its identity

If you used expresarse, that is reflexive and normally means “to express oneself (in general)”:

Cada persona puede expresarse. = Each person can express themself.

You could say:

pudiera expresarse con libertad = could express themself freely (no direct object) but in the given sentence the focus is specifically on their identity as the thing being expressed, so we use expresar su identidad (non-reflexive).

Why su identidad (singular) and not sus identidades?

The noun identidad is usually treated as an abstract, singular concept for each person or each relationship:

mi identidad = my identity
tu identidad = your identity
su identidad = his/her/their/its identity

In cada amistad pudiera expresar su identidad, su refers back to cada amistad (each friendship/relationship), seen as having one identity of its own. Even if that friendship involves more than one person, the phrase discusses the identity of the relationship as a single unit, so identidad stays singular.

What’s the difference between con libertad and libremente? Could we say expresar su identidad libremente?

Both are possible and very natural:

con libertad = with freedom (literally “with liberty”)
libremente = freely (adverb)

So:

expresar su identidad con libertad
expresar su identidad libremente

In everyday speech, libremente might sound slightly more direct/neutral, while con libertad can feel a bit more formal or “written”. But there is no big difference in meaning here; both mean “freely”.