Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • 2013 - Volum Conf Brasov-Studii Comunicare Interculturala PDF

    Caricato da

    sorindragan
    24 visualizzazioni270 pagine

    Titolo originale

    2013_volum conf Brasov-Studii Comunicare Interculturala.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    24 visualizzazioni270 pagine

    2013 - Volum Conf Brasov-Studii Comunicare Interculturala PDF

    Caricato da

    sorindragan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 270
    Redefining Community in Intercultural Context Brasov vol.2, not/2013 © tne, 208 “Ves Conn Air Fre Acday Pabiing Hoe 160, Mia caus Bo, 50188 Phone: 026 ah, a ab 268 22008 ‘ma gaat ator tri aniant ‘Coonine BEACHICY iors Dania NAGY ‘Ass CODREANU ‘ig BOREAN Raila LEVONIAN ‘Camen URSOWU Printing Bani BREA ‘Seti ara ‘abel oe MOISESCU Seige tate &NTONIO ene BUA ria Flomens CAPLCHO Don CARRICK Baan cISWARU a CIUPERCA ‘Aber FOBNASARI Comin ian L501 Ind SUNGHARE. dud KiAKIMOW Vase MAcovietuc ‘An RALUY ALONSO odes SZLAGYE Bia TOSKA ‘Nevandn 25UCHEA, Iss ass.2009 INL Basa ote Coan Air rece Aca, oy Koma "Vers Cound Ar Foe Aca, Brsv, Romana ‘Vere Cams Air Fre Academy, Bros, Roma “Te Regional Deprnen of Df Reanrces Mange, ra, Rais “Transiesa’ Univrty of Bg, Bao, Rowena. aly eters Unie of Bch, Romana / Dipset i Sa Unanutt Uiveneh dah Su ells Casbn, Cosa aly “Vos Caan Air Foe Acadon, Bre, Ros “Pte Cann’ Ae Fors Academy, Br, Roma “Bete Couns’ Al Fore Azden, rt, Roman Univesidde de Snob (UNISO) Seach, Brac Foul of eters, “rata Usiversy of gor, Roxana Conde Bio de Comnieagiog Cat Universe Cation Porwpus, Vseu, Perugal Inst of Aplied Eas, The Univer of Kul Gra Bein ul of Communication and Pi Reasons National Sooo of lie Se snd anh Ads, che, Roma ‘ital ntligece Aca, Boras Romani erst of nrelara egos, Als Mar! Laverty of Ba ay Fao Clue sed Soca Niners Unters, Seen Papen Solety {ee Tres an ntrsptay Dios (ESTIDIA) Depart 0 MitayScesea Management, Henn Coad i Foe Inte igus, Coleg of Libra Ans, University of Mines, Minos MN, USA Odour St Ue, ak Rai Deparment of Piso and Soc Hananies,Aesdemy of zonomle Stes Bushes, Romane Instr de Conmitetn Universe ‘Lanier’ Lyon 2 Equipe de Rehr 1 Leo ep Scenes de Taforaton « Communica Lyon Face Froulutd Bcc, du | Ces Hara, Unies VIC, Baro, Spin NivLaning roflne nu, Tel Avy Unies, sae Europea at or Caf Como, Lion, Poul Deparment of Foreign Langues, Universi of Vn, Ania asl of Manegen, Nai! Stet of Pile Ste nd PS ‘mission, Bachan, Raani — it cove: Clay Hues, om Cute sue abet 3700-2500 BC), Enel. Thi doaing of pte ‘gure rpmeeton sibel roman nd common SUMMARY ‘Summary. Plenary Session ‘The Conflienal Bases of Eshncity and Plaraism (Marisela Tessaoio) “Music, Social Cohesion and Citizenship: Ons Civitas Contra Se Divisa Non Sabit ‘(Maria de Sao José Corte-Real) ‘Communion and Diversity in a Global World From Agora to Pandora: The Unprecedented Case ofthe Simple Skopie Square (vale ‘Muhig,Alcksandat Takovai) ‘Communion: A Way to Reconsider Communication in Community and Society (lon- “Teofi Ce) ‘Community and Identity A Glocal Approach Intercaltral Communication and the New images of lenity. Steps toward “The New Cultural History (Grigre Georgi, Lucan Pricop) . Interaction and Intercultural Communication Paster within the Romanian Village (Adrian Lesencine) From Hellas to France: The Linguistic onion ‘ofthe Romanian Principals in the 19 Century (Virgil Brean 0. (Cultures and Communities Preservation (Oa Some Migration Related Policies (Maria Stoicavic = “Eniepreseuril Units Invelvement inthe Community Welfare (lla Magdalena Cioperd, Cis Ciupere) ‘Vietual Communities, Virtual Society ‘Will he Internet give the Death Blow to Literature? (Monica lirgan) |Web Generation 2.0. The Net and the Cosmopolitan Education (Alberto Fors. Downloading the Downloaders. The Moral and the Soia Issues of Intemet Piracy Acconing to Greek University Students Argyris Kyril, Dims Papadopoulos, (Christos Zapkos) Facets of Intercultural Communication Rethinking Experience of Studens' Linguistic Club within the Cultual-Historical Psychology (Eduard Khakimoy, Marina Sige¥a) x0. . Profesional Communication ina Globalized World (Pericles Taghs) Military Terminology and Discourse ‘The ‘Civilized Word” Facing an Ideology of Terror Romanian Oficial Discourse on Intemational Seurty Isues Raluce-Mikaela Levonian) “The Names of Israci Military Ranks and thet Linguistic Analysis (Asher Shafi). Parcculaites of British Miltary Terms that Have Been Assimilated by the Common “Language (Cosmina Drighici, Dniela Nagy) (Cultural and Linguistic Barriers in Translation ‘Academie Writing Wizard: ANew Web-Based Application for Teaching Academic ‘Wiring Using Lexical Cohesive Tio (Husstin Al Shao .. ‘on te Asqusiton of the Aspe Stops by Romanian Learners of English Ras (Const) on Aspecis of Modality in English ad Romanian, Methodological Issues in Teaching “English Modality to Romanian College Pupils (Oana Ardeleanu Mibalache 103 a 129 2 139 ut Iss ‘61 m roy 182 187 ‘The Extenled Structure of Gradable Adjectives in English and Romanian (Amelia Mole) Lega asians bass Linguisc Pinan rogmatie Content (Lau Adina Beta). LUteratar «Bridge over Caltres ‘The Image of Women in ames Moriers Novels: A Non Verbal Communicative Approach (Elena Bua) ‘The Golden Light in Lcian Blaga's Poe (Cristina Magdalena Calin) Investigating Stcreoypes in the Portrayal of Comminity Divides in Eugene O'Neill's Drama (Adriana Bul). Cross-Cultural Approach of Linguistics denity inthe Naw: A Semiotie Perspective (Amica Pansat) ‘Some Remarks on Cross-Cultural Differences in Illocutions (Bledar Tosa) ‘The Game and the Play of Translation (Elena Gheorghis) ‘Language Learning . “The Importance ofthe Turkish Language: How to Use it How to Teach i (Nilgin Ismail) ‘The Challenges in Teaching the Turkish Language in an Intemational Environment (Sign Ismail, Leyla Sent. Prom Person to Process and Product and Back Cui ase halen Translation Competence (Stefanos Viachopoulos) 197 219 2 27 209 Ds 2a 9 2st 255 259 Plena ry Sesstow INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE RCICTS ae Se 8 B smc nssere sores Mariselda TESSAROLO, Department of Philosophy, Pedagogy, Sociology and Applied Psycholony , Universi of Padua, Kay Abstract Sine! maintains tha the categories without which no society could eit con be Hted at Follows: nt posible 0 wll "understand the oon, ut ony elation othe social eatery Tohichtheother is placed every india luton element of cay bul something mare because iets nt onky socal society ext as ast of diferent elements and evry element ocapls a specie postion. The recognition of diversity Between clare, which ental te praise of oleance, had actually ‘eos strong from he srg ogans despotism. Montesquieu’ angina dea according 0 which “one kgs wall nl the soley of others”. des not lea fo absolute reltviom which would conest it i rtonalom, But etic ofthe despots tha leads acertin pe of saci and cure. Tolerance nits widest sense has become a guarantee for freedom of though, of speech of the ress, ‘which arth mai forms of bert conceived dring he Eiligonmen, Tolerance i asscled with he once of shared daa, of dialogue at constrictive confontalon, and as of the lay of the sae, ‘och har the dy vo guaran al forms of ber Dhe ground on which responsibil forthe ater Flours ehics for wo" the meting wp of nT” anda You” ofthe “Twit the “Other Man” (Only nhs way the huge pablo of set asc, which also includ the question of evel fm bereslved, Keywords etnily, plurlian,muliethole soci, terculural commuication tolerance |1LINTRODUCTION. HOW SOCIETY 1S. ‘POSSIBLE. i manifestations, ie driven by the ft that he ves in a reciprocal teatonship with other inividvals: nothing can be explained by {In its investigations also sociology moves stating onl from man asa single being, ftom secording to a dichotomous thinking, whereas his intellect and from his interests. Man mst infact nn one lives in one ofthese wo distinet_ be understood as a social being. Therefore, positions, but rather participates ina Simmel defines society by seying that it exist fontinsum and accepts to live coundess where soveral individuals enter into a uances of reality. AS a science of modem reciprocal actin, and maintains that sociology ‘society, saciology has developed asa form of must study the ways and forms produced by thinking that helps society reflect on itself. such ction. Society is bom only. when ‘Such teflestion started as individual reciprocal elaionships, excited by particular reflecviy and tends to reach a collective reasons and. interests, Decome operative. reflectivity that can be seen in consrting & Society is never static, but rather always on the ‘socil memory” understood 38 a container in go, it ia siructue mado up of uncven which eich one of us can find something to elements. Even when equality is pursued tis share. Reflectivity goes fiom individual to always rated 0 the value of individuas, of colleciv= and from such sharing a more performances, of stances whereas equality of ‘modem contemporary (also in the sense that it qualities, of vital contents, and of destinies happens a the same time) human approach is smong. individuals eznnot even begin to be born. When Simmel (1989) addresses the issie considered. Thus, society is possible because: OF what i the real object of soeology, he = saistes the principle of typeation observes that man, in all his essence and in all ofthe Other: everyone knows the other, albeit 7 Maru TESSAROLO always in sa incomplete way, because to recognize the other some sort of distance is redd that can allow to “distinguish, even if it makes knowledge incomplete (extancity allows an individual o be a member of society ‘without obliterating themselves ini sae rngnive sais 8 “beings” pe se paradoxically such an experience ean be ‘ade only within a relationship (Cassirer the T exits Beene there isa You), “ian recognizes society as an onfely system of contents and performances related 10 fone another 26 regards time, space, concepis and values. However, speaking of the enlightened philosophers of his times, Rowssoa otserved. that "they mistake the natural man with the man they have under theit eyes. They know very well what a bourgeois is in London ot in Paris, but they will never kaow what aman is" (quoted in Galimbert, 2309:361), 1 at itt man eslly possessed the rights implicit in his nature, we would all lve in a ‘utopian sciay in which every individual ‘would be bom with the same opportinitis as evenbody ese, IF sucha situation were possible, the personal and social life of an Individual would be at the same level, and cach and evary man would enjoy the same rights. Paradoxically, every man could five ‘without any contacts with the rest of mankind In theory, everyone agrees on the arche (principles), but itis realy wopian to think fey can be cealized, Their realization cannot tbe applied given that subjective. wellbeing comes before that of cial. ‘Man is bem a man, but equality snot bom with him, The public aspect rests on recognition (Taylor, 2003): being recognized is enough to define one’s ovm identity, but oes not make people equal The law is based fon recognition, not on the relationship that exists between men, Tocqueville maintains ‘hat “among the Tas tat rule human society ‘here is one that appears clearer and more precise than all the otbers: so that men can femmin or become civiized the art of associating must develop and refine in them in the sime vay as equality, of conditions develops" Tocqueville, 1992:662). The demand for recognition becomes pressing 4 ‘because in the modem world ther is @ bond ‘berween recognition and identity. Each of us must be recognized in onder (0 “be” what hpfsbe is. It is not cnough that a mans fundamental characteristics actually exist in fonder to exist they have to be recognized ‘Thus, st can be sald that when the bond bberween identity ‘and recognition is very strong, the human condition “shows” its character, which is esvenfolly dinlogie and removed: fiom a utopian “natural right ‘According to some philosophers (Hobbes and Spinoza) in the state of nature no laws exist (hoir existenco would make n0 sense). In efining the “natural right of peoples", thats, the sil fom state of nature to state of society, Vieo talks of quaneliome society and of reciprocity principle, Before becoming a member of society, man is born as an individual with righ that donot proceed from society but are indeed original in other words ‘paul attrbutes of the human species. Modern thinking believes, on the one hand, that the “natural ight” i separate fom divine right or ffom the positive right due to the State; on the other, the idea connected with the “social contract is due to a pact established tpenween fee individuals who, by mutual consent, limit their own fieedom to generate the State (Vigna & Zamagni, 2008-82). [From such premises it can be realized that it is difficult to completely account for how soviety is possible: the associative forms and ‘the connection that link actions to individoals ‘ean be both intentional and. non-intenional, and pethaps never taken as existing a pron NNonctheless, the social pact that joins individuals fo one another is essential for the existence of society. 2. ETHNICITY AND PLURALISM. 24 Belonging to a culture. Durkhsim (1971) observes that the consciousness that leads us to belonging oa common ealture ‘very likely progress fess than the inivdeal onsciousets (1) The collective ype loses ‘efniion and ie forme are more aback and ‘more undceee (3) “TE CONFLICTUAL BASES OF ETHNICETY AND PLURALISM ‘Common consciousess; albeit common ‘because it is shared hy the community, is ‘onetnes india fom the pot of vise of is object. Although it draws srengt fom fcety, it de not conect sh i but Tater with ourselves (Durkin, 1971:182¢ 1). In agement with Durkheim, Aime (2004) observes thai isnot cultures that cash, but it js men who, insisting on local, national or supranational identity, creat insurmountable fnelorures which fuel new forme of racism, Galt ca in fact be considered mask under ‘which tobide differences of identity In pursuing the minimum common decomintor of the human that should. be ecogniz and guaranteed (Human rights) by ‘everyone, man is considered for what e has in common with other men (an notin order 69 remove differences), In drawing up the first raft of the Buropean Constution Giscard Estaing wrote: “The won has ite root in he vale of respect ofan dignity of freedom and demacary, ‘ofthe State of law and of respect of man's Tighe Re obec ie being » pacific society ths prectces tolerance, ste, soldaty {Aiow, 20042). 1 must be considered that the principles of freedom, equality and fstemity were establish by the French Revolution and not thanks tte great Religions. ‘About multiethnic society, Tousine (1998) leads us f0 envisage a rociry based on the Jnegraton of shared values, integration seen as ruling principle of behaviors. The scholar ‘mentions demodemizaton, which will be reached afer the collapse ofthe way in which the two universes of modemity end post smedemity have been run. Demodemization does not mean nosnigia for a now vanished social a community order, but rather aceeptare of the breakdown in the ancient synthesis represented by homo politicus and a search for new modemity. Thus, the French sociologst intends o respond to the question ‘om how “to live together” with our diversities. Histarcally, the ways in which moder is undestood have greatly changed: the reasons for biological diferences, widespread jn the 19th ceamy, had become cultural ferences by the end of the 20th century. ‘Today, the rejection of the otber is neither ‘marginal acceptance of the foreigner nor hostility toward a stranger, but the exclusion of those who ae perceive the denial oF the cultural model underying society. Such deni js typical both of actual recism and also of altura xenophobia (Tourane,1998:130). The rain dference between “modern” and “post- modern” foreigners Ties inthe fact hat while the former were relegated at the margin of @ continually advancing front, and. thus fondemned from the very beginning to being ssimilaed (Bauman uses the term Sonate), the latter have arived ata time ‘when assinilation is no longer considered “good” and therefore have to exist a a fintue of the landscape, These post-modern foreigners are no longer scen asa transitory problem that can be redested. They ae Always “atthe dooe” (ante porta) snd the issue is how to live, day in day out, with extancity (Bauman, 2002), “The "question is how to combine recognition of eivesity with the statment that ‘every man born equal. This impasse cannot be solved though tolerance, which is never wholly detached from sogresation, since the search frit ean be aceptable only when iti coupled withthe rejection of intolerance. The later guarantees neither communication nor ikelhood of minority ever to become majority tnd be able to decide for isl? what is tolerable and what intolerable “Tolerance of tolerance ie only the degree and the limit of tolerance (Mareuse, 1969) In the aceptaion of philosopher Hanna Arendt (1994) tolerance isthe ability to think, even for 2 moment, tat the interlocutor may be right. Communication can exist ony through secognition af the others, and such recognition fan be defined as solidarity or faterity. In ‘ach individual life there i a tendency to join diversity and. similarity. Man alvays feels ‘riven toward indvidualization, but also toward conforms: o be like the oer to be accepted, ad be different to establish oneself. Every community has a separating funcion anda unifying” funtion: the community 9 Marields TESSAROLO separates itself fiom those who are diffrent and assochtes with {sown group (rancescato, 1982). Both separation end Association hve a “redeeming” value oriented ‘ovard ther group and their cate Intercultural communication is contorted hocate it pisses thrngh the jets iden (Gelationship with oneself) and then considers relationship with others. t can be possible ‘only ifthe Subject has previously beoa able to free himvberef from the community, The ‘other can be recognized as such only if he is understood acepied and loved as a subject, ‘thats s an ictive element of mediation. ‘The recoptition of the Other is posible ‘only starting from the statement that everyone has the right be a subject. At he same time, the subject cannot establish him/herself as ‘sch without recognizing the other as a subject and without shedding the fear ofthe other that Teags 10 hsher exclusion, A democrtic society is bared on the effert to combine the universalist principles linked to the arche, and so nonscil,t the aspect ensuing fom tational activity and cultural and personal identity, not 0a conformity to univesalisic principles, Inequality exists between empirical {as repards aiites, quality, et.) individuals, but it is up to science to answer such Ailes, nit upto ethics o sociology. ikics is responsible for the consiruction and the safeguard of the individual: this is why iversty and inequality are not conflictual Detween one another, bit, rater, inseparable ‘Touraine, 1988:185), 'A society that doce not recognize diversity would be a citatorship, which would impose homogeneity on its members; a sort of ‘Taylorism extended to socal life as 2 whole, ‘or an ethnic cleansing agency. On the other hand, “2 society without oquity would ‘sablsh the hirarchic order typical of the presmoder (Fourine,1998:186), 22 Belonging and tolerance. The man that lives onthe Boundary is an eoventrie man ‘who stands “infill view”, who belongs both within and without the boundary itself. The stranger is «man on the boundary, he appears in the shape of something exta-ordinary, that iS of somehing. that ‘does not have an appropriate ylace in the current ordec and is 0 therefore excluded fiom it, We can ask ‘ourselves how we can address the strange? 50 thatthe way itself of addressing him docs not reutrlize or roeognize is effects, his challenges, his requests (Waldenfls,2008:10; Levinas, 1988), ‘The ‘way of relating witk the boundaries reveals the sprit of which an age i the chil ‘The other (alter) and the stranger (Remon) are two diferent things: extaeity cannot be ‘reced to something which is diferent. There are several ways to defend cultural diversity: differences between cultures encourage very Timited communications between them in order to ward off the hegemony of a culture Recognition of diversity between cultures leads to the protection of minority cultures. ‘Their defense ean occur in different ways. The Sirs recognizes constitutional rules in favor of respect of the fundamental Geedoms of ‘organization of public power. I leaves tothe social and cultural organization, and so to plurality of eutures, a space within the rules that should estentisily formalize the Kantian Drinciple that anybody's ffeedom ean oaly go 50 fat as it does not treaten the liberty of ‘others (Tourtne, 198:187) It can be said hat philosophy produces a greater aumber of

    Potrebbero piacerti anche