Parallel Campaigns of Cultural Renewal

2021 ◽  
pp. 192-212
Keyword(s):  
Cultura ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Pedro Sargento

2019 ◽  
pp. 177-185
Author(s):  
Nadežda Stojković

In the huge and most diverse discussion on the influence of the English language as a second, international, or bridge language, there are distinctive voices drawing attention to the fact that this language as nowadays so widely used in innumerable contexts, is no longer ‘owned’ by the community of speakers to whom it is mother language, those primarily of the countries from where English language originates. Moreover, the number of people speaking, or rather using English language today either as their second or foreign language, by far outnumbers people to whom it is native. Situation being such, it is further claimed the concept of ‘standard English’ reflects inherent inequality stance, for if it belongs to everyone speaking it, then insisting on the supremacy on only one of its variants means placing all those speakers of it in a subdued position, and this possibly being yet another facet of English an agent of neocolonialism and globalization (Pennycook 1998, Phillipson 1992). The spread of the English language has been much investigated as oppressive to the formation and expression of personal and collective identities, degrading national languages and through globalization diminishing the impact of local cultures (Bhaba 1990), that it challenges cultures and discourses, being the impetus for continuous re-codification and re-colonisation (Foucault 1980). However, equally significant in relevance and number, the opposing views claim English today offers an expanded community of users enabling new ways of expressing, changing, negotiating voices that offer chances for cultural renewal and exchange around the world, that the awareness of this brings “decolonizing of the colonizers mind” (Penycook 2013). Taking the flip side of the situation, English language natives are noted to be in a paradoxical situation of being expatriates from their own language, themselves “co-victims” (Bratlinger 1990). This insurgent knowledge of the status of English language today is certainly to instigate further investigation, ‘writing back’ of what ontology this language now embodies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-28
Author(s):  
T. V. Danylovа ◽  
◽  
V.A. Budegay

An essential feature of the contemporary globalized world is the emergence and active development of a network of interactions between the representatives of the different cultural and civilizational communities that was not typical during the previous historical epochs. Under these conditions, there is a process of restructuring of every culture, every civilization system. If earlier the processes of civilizational and cultural renewal had lasted for centuries and millennia, today they have been taking place over years and decades. Nowadays, there is a conglomeration of cultural-civilizational communities that are different in history, traditions, languages, and religions. They develop, interact and mutually influence each other through cultural and civilizational dialogue. These relatively independent societies have to coexist within common information space, in which intercultural and intercivilizational communication is an important factor in regulating both internal life and relations between countries. G. Hofstede made a great contribution to the development of cultural dimensions theory. The works of G. Hofstede gave rise to an influential research tradition in the field of intercultural interactions. They are actively used by the researchers and consultants in the field of international business and communication. They continue to be a major resource in intercultural research and inspire the study of both cultural values and other aspects of culture. The article aims to highlight Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. The author used an anthropological integrative approach, comparative analysis and interpretive research paradigm.


Karl Barth ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 84-99
Author(s):  
Christiane Tietz

The support of prominent theologians for the First World War made Barth understand that their premises were false. How instead could a pastor rightly speak of God? Barth returned anew to the biblical text, becoming convinced that it can still speak to people today. The result was Barth’s first Epistle to the Romans (1919), a commentary to Paul’s letter. Barth stresses that the kingdom of God comes about solely through God, while all human activities, including religion, belong to the world. Barth’s cultural critique reflects the spiritual situation of the wartime and postwar period, yet without any hope on cultural renewal. In his 1919 Tambach lecture, Barth further developed his insights of the difference between God and religion. For God one can only wait. Jesus Christ’s resurrection is the wholly other. Therefore theology needs to think dialectically. Barth’s new ideas found great resonance, but he was also accused of arbitrary exegesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document