1,720,962 research outputs found
Многуимените други: Македонија како пресечна точка на другоста на средновековниот Балкан
Full text linkThe Others with Many Names: Macedonia as an Intersection Point of Otherness in the Medieval Balkans
This paper examines the phenomenon of Otherness in the Medieval Balkan region of Macedonia. We analyze the terms used to designate and label ‘otherness’ in respect of their origin, character, use, and their (non)acceptance by the population categorized as the Other. Оtherness is a key aspect in understanding the ethnicities of the past: which populations were regarded as their Other and by whom. Today, by the combination of these data from various (often opposed) political and cultural centers, we may identify the ‘zones of Otherness’, which often remained undefined and even unidentified in the sources. We may determine that certain geographical areas did not have their own elites to legitimize their separate identity, yet, that identity differed and refused to be identified with the imposed identity structures. Their Otherness could refer to a specific ethnicity, but not necessarily. The population in these zones did not necessarily have to be unified (by self-awareness, language, name, etc.), but they could. These zones were variable and often changed in both time and space.
However, some of the labeling terms used to designate this Otherness in the past are in use even today. More often than not, this use is aimed at different populations and geographical areas that are not related to the ones from the past, usually in a new national sense that does not correspond to their use in the Middle Ages. This phenomenon creates serious confusion in understanding history as it transfers contemporary pretensions and realities to the past (Fine 2006: 9–11).
Thereby, the author calls for careful studying of the terms and zones of Otherness within the context of their time and place. The region of Macedonia was definitely a zone of Otherness in Medieval times.
The Otherness was expressed by different names at different times, but the perception of many people in Macedonia as ‘others’ is constant throughout almost the entire Middle Ages. Those people were seen as ‘other’ and different from the Medieval Balkan centers of power: Constantinople, Pliska, Preslav, Trnovo, Ras. That Otherness was not strictly fixed to the borders of the region of Macedonia: sometimes it was spreading wider, other times it referenced only a part of Macedonia.
In the period between the 7–10th centuries, the Otherness was designating all the Slavs, expressed by the general term Slavs (but also Scythians, barbarians), used for the population of most of the Balkans, but also in Eastern Europe. Later on, between the 11–12th centuries, most of the region of Macedonia (without its southeastern part) was designated to an area of Otherness together with the territory of present-day Serbia, Kosovo, and some neighboring regions (Serdika, Southern Albania, part of Thessaly). This Otherness was designated by the term Vulgars/ Bulgars and was closely related to the Ohrid Archbishopric, its title, and the Slavic language nurtured in the churches of this area. At that time, the Balkan was not the only zone of Otherness in the perceptions of the Romans. There were two more: one in Dalmatia, designated with the terms Slavs, Illyrians, Serbs, and Croats; and another in Moesia, designated by terms such as mixed barbarians, Scythians, and local people. Contemporary Byzantine and other authors do not mix these three Othernesses and define them on different grounds: Dalmatia by its political autonomy, the Ohrid Archbishopric by the distinctiveness of its church and liturgy, and Moesia by multiethnicity, non-Romanism, and barbarism. During this period, in the terminology of some Byzantine authors, equivalence and mutual identification appeared between the terms ‘Bulgaria’ (Ohrid
Archbishopric) and ‘Slavic language/people’ (the liturgical language and the basic population in the archiepiscopate). It was a synonymous equation, not an idea. It meant that there are more Slavic peoples and Bulgarian is one of them, i.e. the Slavs are the Bulgarians and vice versa. In the Slavic sources of this time, this equivalence was not observed.
Between the 13th–14th centuries, Macedonia together with Thracia formed a new group of Otherness in the eyes of the elites of Bulgaria and Serbia, denoted by the terms Romania, Greek lands, and Greeks. At the same time, in Byzantium, a large part of that population was also seen as foreign, expressed in terms such as Myzi (Μυσοί), barbarians, Bulgarians, tribal people. During that time, in Greek sources from the Ohrid Archpiscopate, the term Bulgarianswill be redefined as a collective name for several Slavic nations. While in Bulgaria, the same term will be interpreted as an alternative to Romaioi—a supra-ethnic imperial name for the population in the northern Balkans (north of the line of Stara Planina-Skopje-Dyrrachium)—which includes Slavs, Vlachs (Aromanians), Serbs, and Cumans.
Namely, in this period, the equivalence between the terms Bulgarians and Slavs passes from the Byzantine in some Slavic sources. On the other hand, in other periods, for the Slavic authors in Macedonia, terms like Greeks and Bulgarians are clearly understood as foreign and those that express Otherness.
The author concludes that the region of Macedonia constantly belonged to some zone of Otherness during the Middle Ages: in a ‘vertical zone’, together with the region of today’s Serbia (11–12th century); or in a ‘horizontal zone’, together with Thracia (13–14th century). This territorial variability means that the Otherness was not assigned to known ethnically formed communities. Rather, the terms were being used to express the meaning of disloyalty, peripherality, marginality, cultural difference, cultural inferiority, and/or unknown foreign language. Most of these terms—Slavs, Bulgars/Bulgarians, barbarians, Myzi, Greeks, Scythians, and others—were used for designating the population in these zones, not as self-designation. Of all the names that were used to denote Otherness in Macedonia, only the term Slavs was used by the population itself as their own name and in an ethnic sense. After some time, the people who were designated as Others also developed terms for their Othernesses
Controversies of Multi/Ethnic Democracy: The Case of Republic of Macedonia
Full text linkThis paper aims to demystify the multi-ethnic model of the democratic form of government, which has been strongly promoted in the international political discourse toward Third World countries. In political science, this concept is actually so controversial and paradoxical, that its (pseudo) scientific use can be interpreted only as an instrument of geopolitical strategies. The author renames it "multi/ethnic democracy" to reveal that its ethnocratic and destabilizing potential overpowers its cooperative intentions. Recent empirical studies have proven the unreliability of this model, but the case study of the Republic of Macedonia has not been included yet. The combined qualitative and quantitative research in this paper shows that in the last 17 years (2001-2018) this inconsistent cross between ethnocracy and democracy in the Republic of Macedonia resulted in a series of conflicting social, political, religious, and cultural circumstances. Instead of improving the civil (trans-ethnical) concept of the state, the ethnic concept grew stronger. In a short time and with hasty constitutional revisions the former stable national and civil structure was transformed into an entropic structure full of divisions and tensions on ethnic grounds and of fragmentations and isolations on territorial, institutional, linguistic, and cultural grounds, while the existence of the Macedonian ethnos, nation, and state was brought into question
Enforced linguistic conversion: translation of the Macedonian toponyms in the 20th century
No full textEnforced linguistic conversion: translation of the Macedonian toponyms in the 20th centuryThe article deals with the issue of forced conversion of Macedonian toponyms, considered as a form of linguistic and cultural dislocation or luxation (the Latin luxatio originating from luxus – dislocated). The toponyms are not just eminently linguistic but also a part of civilization’s memory of nations and of humankind, and that is why they are protected by international regulations. The act of translating toponyms from one language to another, within the frames of culturally and ethnically marked space, is undeniable violence against the cultural heritage. A change of a toponym, its forced translation into another language is, according to these legal acts, a crime against culture. For a toponym is a true reflection of historical facts and historical memories. Toponyms can be transcribed onto a different alphabet, letter‑by‑letter (transliteration), but should not be translated, especially not on the territory which is their civilization’s cradle, where they are practiced and inherited. Violent conversion of toponyms is an introduction to conversion of historical narratives and modern ethno‑cultural identities. History shows that there are violent forms of linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic dislocations. The example of radical dislocation of Macedonian toponyms is probably one of the few in modern history. It has been taking place over an almost entire century – from the 1920s to the 21st century’s first decade. Macedonian toponyms, for centuries present on the territory of ethnic Macedonia (for which there is indisputable evidence), are being dislocated from their original linguistic/cultural context within several national entities: the Greek, Albanian and – paradoxically – Macedonian states. Such violent translation of toponyms is not devoid of geopolitical consequences.The conversions of Macedonian toponyms are just a step towards a systematic negation of the Macedonian linguistic and cultural identity, and with that, they deny the right of Macedonian people for their own national country, for every negation lies under the intention of re‑interpreting and retouching the historical reality.Wymuszona konwersja językowa: tłumaczenie macedońskich toponimów w XX wiekuW artykule podjęto zagadnienia związane z wymuszoną konwersją toponimów macedońskich, co może być traktowane jako forma językowego i kulturowego przemieszczenia / zwichnięcia / luxatio (łac. luxatio, luxare, luxus – zwichnięcie). Toponimy są nie tylko szczególnymi znakami językowymi, świadczą też o cywilizacyjnej pamięci narodów i całej ludzkości, stanowią przy tym odbicie faktów i dziedzictwa kulturowego, chronionego mocą międzynarodowych regulacji prawnych. Przekład toponimów z jednego języka na inny w ramach jednej przestrzeni kulturowej i etnicznej oznacza niewątpliwie przemoc wobec tego dziedzictwa. Zamiana toponimu i jego wymuszone tłumaczenie na inny język na mocy ustanawianych w tym celu aktów prawnych staje się przestępstwem (zbrodnią) wobec kultury. Toponim jest bowiem rzeczywistym odbiciem faktów i wspomnień historycznych. Toponimy można przepisywać innym alfabetem, litera po literze (łac. transliteratio), ale nie można ich przekładać, zwłaszcza na terytorium, na którym były ustanowione, stosowane i dziedziczone. Wymuszona zamiana prowadzi faktycznie do przekształcenia narracji historycznych i tożsamości etniczno‑kulturowej. Historia dowodzi, że istnieją pewne formy przemocy prowadzące do dyslokacji językowej, religijnej i etnicznej. Radykalna rewizja macedońskich toponimów zidentyfikowanych jako słowiańskie jest prawdopodobnie jednym z nielicznych przykładów, jakie zna współczesna historia. Tak dzieje się od prawie stu lat – od początku 1920 roku aż do pierwszej dekady XXI stulecia. Toponimy, które pojawiły się na etnicznym terytorium Macedonii (na co istnieją niezaprzeczalne dowody), zostały przemieszczone z ich pierwotnego kontekstu językowego / kulturowego w ramach kilku podmiotów regulujących: greckiego, albańskiego i – jak się paradoksalnie wydaje – macedońskiego. Ten rodzaj zakłóceń językowych ma swoje geopolityczne konsekwencje.Wprowadzone zmiany toponimów świadczą o systematycznej negacji macedońskiej tożsamości językowej i kulturowej, a w konsekwencji o procesie negowania prawa narodu macedońskiego do własnego państwa narodowego, gdyż główną intencją każdej negacji jest reinterpretacja, przetwarzanie i zmiana rzeczywistości historycznej
Macedonians of Islamic Religion in the Context of Identity Theories
Full text linkIn line with the theories of variability, fluctuation and instability of ethno-cultural identities, this paper deals with some sensitive issues surrounding the creation of new (sub-ethnic and sub-cultural) microidentities within one nation, in this case within the Macedonian nation. The research focuses on the initiative for declaring one part of the Macedonian nation, the Macedonians of Islamic religion, to be a separate ethnic group in 2011. It analyses the regional and historical background from which this initiative originated, mostly as an echo of the multicultural strategies and policies in the European and international context. It shows how the unstable politics destabilized the already fragile and fluctuating identity of this group toward an identity of resistance or even heresy, inspite of having preserved their primary Slavic linguistic and cultural identity. The paper argues that the Macedonians of Islamic religion are a part of the Macedonian social, cultural and religious reality and should therefore be recognized as a specific cultural-religious community within the Macedonian national entity. This issue is seen as very important in the present context, since the Macedonian identity is preasured and relativized itself. The paper underlines that the Macedonian national identity is inclusive, layered, more general and complex than its religious factor. Therefore this researcher proposes inclusive state policies for all Macedonians regardless of religious affiliation, inclusive civilizational strategies with inter-connective spiritual values (inter-religious palimpsests and symbiosis) and inclusive state secular strategies as protection against religious radicalisms, atavisms and conflicts
The Dead Brother’s Ballad as a Balkan Shared Place of Memory
Full text linkThere is a ballad saved in the folklore and oral literary tradition of several Balkan peoples and their collective memory under different names, but with the same proto narrative: “The Dead Brother’s Song” (Greek), “The Return of the Dead Brother” (Macedonian), “Brother and Sister” (Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian), “Lazar and Petkana” (Bulgarian), “Constantin and Doruntinë” (Albanian), and “Voika” (Romanian). Appearing in several linguistic and stylistic variants, this ballad can be considered as an illustrative shared place of collective Balkan memory. Saved both as a local (national), and regional (transnational) cultural heritage, Тhe Dead Brother’s Ballad contains the most significant aspects of the Balkan cultural paradigm: mythical, mystical, folkloric, religious, ethical, and historical ones. The interpretation of this ballad in the mythopoetic context demystifies the Balkan identity prejudices and the misinterpretation of the shared cultural heritage. Methodologically, the present interpretation of the Balkan ballad is syncretic, combining diverse theoretical and interpretative tools from mythology, theory of literature, culturology and post-postcolonial criticism. Instead of giving an ultimate conclusion, this paper deconstructs the dominant interpretative strategies of the Balkan spiritual and historical heritage in the last two centuries (adoptive, contestable, convertible, competitive) showing that they all actualise the conservative principles of cultural hegemony on the Balkans. Having a scientific consensus for the transnational aspects of the Balkan cultural heritage might be a starting point for a new, empathetic strategy of their perception
The European Topos in the New Macedonian Novel / Le topos européen dans le nouveau roman macédonien
No full textThe European topos in the new Macedonian novel is accepted as a home. Young Macedonian authors consider Europe their home. The fact that they live outside the European Union, or outside the European West, which has for a long time been considered the implicit cultural centre of the world, does not make them less European. Originally born in Macedonia, a cultural centre of the distant past that used to consider Western Europe a periphery, writers such as Goce Smilevski and Olivera Kjorveziroska materialize in their works the ‘Western European topos’ in a seemingly sidelong, but none the less essential manner. They draw attention to the dark side of Western culture and the suppressed content that official historiography tends to conceal. They remind us that Europe’s spiritual being knows no boundaries and that literature transcends institutional, conceptual, and ethical frontiers. Liberated from European stigma (fallacious moral, repressed memory, colonial traumas), these Macedonian authors reveal certain parts of the European Shadow (the collective unconscious, the historical archives full of shameful bits). No civilization is without its dark facets. That is the law of Light. That is how Europe is, composed of West and East, but also of North and South. It is liminal and intercultural. In its process of assimilating, it becomes assimilated.The interpretation focuses on novels by Goce Smilevski (Razgovor so Spinoza / Conversation with Spinoza, 2002; Sestrata na Sigmund Frojd / Sigmund Freud’s Sister, 2007/2010, Vrakanjetо na zborovite / The Return of the Words, 2015) and by Olivera Kjorveziroska (Zakluchenoto telo na Lu / Lou’s Locked Body, 2005).Le topos européen dans les romans macédoniens les plus récents est accepté comme domicile. Les jeunes auteurs macédoniens considèrent l\u27Europe comme leur propre maison. Le fait qu\u27ils vivent en dehors des frontières de l\u27Union européenne, c\u27est-à-dire hors de l\u27Ouest européen qui était pendant longtemps le centre culturel implicite du monde, ne les rend pas moins européens. Originaires de Macédoine, le centre culturel d\u27autrefois pour lequel l\u27Europe occidentale faisait partie de la périphérie, les écrivains comme Goce Smilevski et Olivera Kjorveziroska actualisent “le topos euro-occidental” d\u27une manière à première vue périphérique, latérale, mais d\u27ailleurs essentielle. Ils poussent l\u27attention vers la partie sombre de la culture euro-occidentale, vers les contenus que l\u27historiographie officielle a tendance de cacher. Ils rappellent que l\u27Etre de l\u27Europe ne reconnaît pas de frontières et que la littérature dépasse les frontières institutionnelles, conceptuelles et de valeur. Libérés de la stigmatisation européenne (morale fausse, mémoire inconsciente, traumatismes coloniales), les écrivains macédoniens reflètent des parties de l\u27Ombre européenne (l\u27inconscient collectif, l\u27archive historique pleine de taches noirs). Il n\u27y a pas de grandes civilisations sans visage sombre. C\u27est la loi de la Lumière, de l\u27Humanisme et de la Civilisation. Elle est comme ça l’Europe : constituée d\u27ouest et de nord, mais aussi d’est et de sud ; liminale et interculturelle. En assimilant, elle devient elle-même assimilée
The Narcissism of Minor Differences in the Context of Post-Imperial Macedonian Neighbouring
Full text linkThe Narcissism of Minor Differences in the Context of Post-Imperial Macedonian Neighbouring
The conflicting relations among neighbouring nations in the Balkans may very accurately be explained by S. Freud’s theory of the Narcissism of Minor Differences. Related identities among nations and the bordering zones between countries have always been and continue to be a generator of racial, national, religious and cultural tensions. Whenever the discourse of identities is radicalized, cultural and political hegemony comes to life: identities are ranked according to worth; borders are changed according to national identity; methods of physical and metaphysical violence are used; shared places of memory are appropriated, and those not shared are negated. Perception is in crisis and, as a result, promotes a kind of conflictual mutual misrecognition. This text aims to demystify such installations of hegemony in the (North) Macedonian neighbouring region, and to articulate some principles of a post-hegemonistic paradigm.
Narcyzm małych różnic w kontekście postimperialnego sąsiedztwa Macedonii
Konfliktowe relacje między sąsiednimi narodami na Bałkanach można bardzo trafnie wyjaśnić teorią narcyzmu małych różnic Z. Freuda. Pokrewne tożsamości w obrębie tych narodów oraz stref przygranicznych między poszczególnymi krajami były i są generatorem napięć na tle rasowym, narodowym, religijnym i kulturowym. Ilekroć dyskurs o tożsamościach ulega radykalizacji, ożywa kulturowa i polityczna hegemonia: tożsamości są szeregowane według wartości; granice są zmieniane zgodnie z tożsamością narodową; stosowane są metody przemocy fizycznej i metafizycznej; współdzielone miejsca pamięci są zawłaszczane, a te, które nie są współdzielone, są negowane. Percepcja znajduje się w kryzysie i w rezultacie sprzyja rozwojowi wzajemnego niezrozumienia, które prowadzi do konfliktów. Celem niniejszego tekstu jest demistyfikacja takich działań o charakterze hegemonicznym w sąsiednim regionie (północnej) Macedonii oraz wyartykułowanie pewnych zasad paradygmatu posthegemonistycznego
Panoptic Vision of the World: Can a State of Emergency Become a Regular One?
Full text linkPanoptic Vision of the World: Can a State of Emergency Become a Regular One?
The object of interpretation of this text is several social aspects of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic which have equivocal and contradictory meanings: state of emergency/crisis, emergency measures, civil and human rights/restrictions to human rights, freedom/limitation of freedom. The basic interpretative and conceptual tools used are the terms ‘panopticon’ and ‘panopticism’, whose archetypal patterns point to systematic and systemic damage to the universal human rights to freedom and privacy. This damage occurs by legalizing the surveillance and control of citizens, thus becoming more akin to radical surveillance. The pandemic is seen as an excuse to renew the panoptic vision of the world. The contemporary pandemic surveillance of citizens dissolves the boundaries between the real and the virtual and creates new boundaries of freedom on several levels: movement, speech, work, communication, existence. Some of these limitations of human rights and freedoms relate to the elderly population. This analysis shows the danger of prolonging and legalizing emergency measures in circumstances when, realistically, there is no state of emergency. This poses a question: can a state of emergency become a regular state? The New Normal has the power to create alienated individuals and an alienated society.
Panoptyczna wizja świata. Czy stan wyjątkowy może stać się normalnym?
Przedmiotem uwagi jest kilka aspektów społecznych pandemii koronawirusa SARS-CoV-2, które mają niejednoznaczne i sprzeczne znaczenia: stan wyjątkowy / kryzys, środki nadzwyczajne, prawa obywatelskie i prawa / ograniczenia praw człowieka, wolność / ograniczenie wolności. Podstawowymi narzędziami interpretacyjnymi i pojęciowymi są terminy „panoptykon” i „panoptycyzm”, których archetypowe wzorce wskazują na systematyczne i systemowe niszczenie uniwersalnych praw człowieka do wolności i prywatności. Ta szkoda pojawia się poprzez legalizację nadzoru i kontroli obywateli, przez co staje się bardziej zbliżona do radykalnej inwigilacji. Pandemia jest postrzegana jako pretekst do odnowienia panoptycznej wizji świata. Współczesny pandemiczny nadzór nad obywatelami zaciera granice między tym, co realne, a tym, co wirtualne i tworzy nowe granice wolności na kilku poziomach: ruchu, mowy, pracy, komunikacji, egzystencji. Niektóre z tych ograniczeń praw i wolności człowieka dotyczą osób starszych. Analiza pokazuje niebezpieczeństwo przedłużenia i legalizacji środków nadzwyczajnych w sytuacji, gdy realnie nie ma stanu wyjątkowego. Powstaje pytanie: czy stan wyjątkowy może stać się stanem normalnym? New Normal ma moc tworzenia wyalienowanych jednostek i wyalienowanego społeczeństwa
Enforced linguistic conversion: translation of the Macedonian toponyms in the 20th century
Full text linkEnforced linguistic conversion: translation of the Macedonian toponyms in the 20th century
The article deals with the issue of forced conversion of Macedonian toponyms, considered as a form of linguistic and cultural dislocation or luxation (the Latin luxatio originating from luxus – dislocated). The toponyms are not just eminently linguistic but also a part of civilization’s memory of nations and of humankind, and that is why they are protected by international regulations. The act of translating toponyms from one language to another, within the frames of culturally and ethnically marked space, is undeniable violence against the cultural heritage. A change of a toponym, its forced translation into another language is, according to these legal acts, a crime against culture. For a toponym is a true reflection of historical facts and historical memories. Toponyms can be transcribed onto a different alphabet, letter‑by‑letter (transliteration), but should not be translated, especially not on the territory which is their civilization’s cradle, where they are practiced and inherited. Violent conversion of toponyms is an introduction to conversion of historical narratives and modern ethno‑cultural identities. History shows that there are violent forms of linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic dislocations. The example of radical dislocation of Macedonian toponyms is probably one of the few in modern history. It has been taking place over an almost entire century – from the 1920s to the 21st century’s first decade. Macedonian toponyms, for centuries present on the territory of ethnic Macedonia (for which there is indisputable evidence), are being dislocated from their original linguistic/cultural context within several national entities: the Greek, Albanian and – paradoxically – Macedonian states. Such violent translation of toponyms is not devoid of geopolitical consequences.
The conversions of Macedonian toponyms are just a step towards a systematic negation of the Macedonian linguistic and cultural identity, and with that, they deny the right of Macedonian people for their own national country, for every negation lies under the intention of re‑interpreting and retouching the historical reality.
Wymuszona konwersja językowa: tłumaczenie macedońskich toponimów w XX wieku
W artykule podjęto zagadnienia związane z wymuszoną konwersją toponimów macedońskich, co może być traktowane jako forma językowego i kulturowego przemieszczenia / zwichnięcia / luxatio (łac. luxatio, luxare, luxus – zwichnięcie). Toponimy są nie tylko szczególnymi znakami językowymi, świadczą też o cywilizacyjnej pamięci narodów i całej ludzkości, stanowią przy tym odbicie faktów i dziedzictwa kulturowego, chronionego mocą międzynarodowych regulacji prawnych. Przekład toponimów z jednego języka na inny w ramach jednej przestrzeni kulturowej i etnicznej oznacza niewątpliwie przemoc wobec tego dziedzictwa. Zamiana toponimu i jego wymuszone tłumaczenie na inny język na mocy ustanawianych w tym celu aktów prawnych staje się przestępstwem (zbrodnią) wobec kultury. Toponim jest bowiem rzeczywistym odbiciem faktów i wspomnień historycznych. Toponimy można przepisywać innym alfabetem, litera po literze (łac. transliteratio), ale nie można ich przekładać, zwłaszcza na terytorium, na którym były ustanowione, stosowane i dziedziczone. Wymuszona zamiana prowadzi faktycznie do przekształcenia narracji historycznych i tożsamości etniczno‑kulturowej. Historia dowodzi, że istnieją pewne formy przemocy prowadzące do dyslokacji językowej, religijnej i etnicznej. Radykalna rewizja macedońskich toponimów zidentyfikowanych jako słowiańskie jest prawdopodobnie jednym z nielicznych przykładów, jakie zna współczesna historia. Tak dzieje się od prawie stu lat – od początku 1920 roku aż do pierwszej dekady XXI stulecia. Toponimy, które pojawiły się na etnicznym terytorium Macedonii (na co istnieją niezaprzeczalne dowody), zostały przemieszczone z ich pierwotnego kontekstu językowego / kulturowego w ramach kilku podmiotów regulujących: greckiego, albańskiego i – jak się paradoksalnie wydaje – macedońskiego. Ten rodzaj zakłóceń językowych ma swoje geopolityczne konsekwencje.
Wprowadzone zmiany toponimów świadczą o systematycznej negacji macedońskiej tożsamości językowej i kulturowej, a w konsekwencji o procesie negowania prawa narodu macedońskiego do własnego państwa narodowego, gdyż główną intencją każdej negacji jest reinterpretacja, przetwarzanie i zmiana rzeczywistości historycznej
A Transаesthetic Interpretation of "Pamięć nareszcie" / "Memory at Last" by Wisława Szymborska
Full text linkA Transаesthetic Interpretation of Pamięć nareszcie / Memory at Last by Wisława Szymborska
This essay attempts to combine several elements relevant for such interpretative practices as hermeneutics, textual explication, speech acts theory, C. G. Jung’s analytical psychology, as well inspirations taken from ritual studies, archetypal literary criticism, and transcendental hermeneutics. This combination of interpretational practices shall be applied to the reading and analysis of Wisława Szymborska’s poem Pamięć nareszcie / Memory at Last. My chief aim is to analyse the ritual dimension of the poem (without disregarding, however, the work’s stylistic features).
Wiersz Pamięć nareszcie Wisławy Szymborskiej. Interpretacja transestetyczna
Niniejszy esej jest próbą połączenia kilku elementów pełniących ważną rolę w takich praktykach interpretacyjnych jak hermeneutyka, eksplikacja tekstu, teoria aktów mowy, psychologia analityczna C. G. Junga, a także inspiracji płynących z badań nad rytuałem i archetypami, wreszcie z hermeneutyki transcendentnej. Połączenie wymienionych praktyk interpretacji będzie służyło lekturze i analizie wiersza Wisławy Szymborskiej Pamięć nareszcie. Moim głównym celem jest analiza rytualnego wymiaru wiersza (choć także jego cech stylistycznych)
- …
