Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Antonina Kłoskowska
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article is an attempt at contemporary interpretation of Antonina Kłoskowska’s theory of culture. The Author starts with a brief summary of her concept and follows with his analysis and elaboration on a few interesting issues which are the most inter- esting in his opinion. They include: national culture and the culture of a national society (i.e. a society, the members of which regard themselves also as members of a national community, an essence of integrative functions of national culture and conciliative functions of artistic heritage.
EN
In the last period of her professional career, Antonina Kłoskowska focused on issues related to national culture and nation itself, which is evident e.g. in her publication National Cultures at the Grass-Root Level. The article presents Kłoskowska’s main agruments concerning the notion of “national culture”. The author regarded this specific type of culture as one that could be characterized as symbolic, compound and coherent in the syntagmatic sense. Kłoskowska points out that, in order to be recognized as a member of a national community, it is necessary to acquire and refer to the canonical resources of its culture. In the second part of the article some of the findings of contemporary Polish researchers are laid out, which correspond or directly relate to some of Kłoskowska’s ideas. A comparison and analysis of their views leads to a conclusion that their diversification does not generally mean that they are completely distant in their judgments but rather that various aspects are stressed in different ways. This attests, however, to the fact that the authors belonged to diverse intellectual formations.
EN
Forty years ago Antonina Kłoskowska built up a universal paradigm of three social frames of culture. They included: frame one, i.e. local production of symbolic processes, close to folk culture; frame two — understood as a network of local institutions of culture; frame three — involving a radiation of pan-local centers, in particular a reception of contents transmitted by mass media. A basic sociological criterion of differentiating between these categories includes a type of contact, and adjacency of sender and recip- ient of symbolic communication. Currently, following years of development of digital means of communication, computer networks and fiber optic technologies, audio-visual systems, mobile telephones, etc. a proposal of frames of culture must be examined again. New media shape new vehicles of expression (e.g. hypertext), but most importantly they inspire specific social relations. Discussion over cultural framework is also triggered by accelerated processes of economic and social transformation, advanced globalization, increase of living standards and dissemination of consumption attitudes, changes in leisure activities of the middle class. In more narrowly understood domain of institutional and professional culture one witnessed the processes of European dereg- ulation and release of culture from state, which in Eastern Europe was accompanied by abolition of censorship and a different model of culture distribution, which is controlled by market and cultural (creative) industry rather than by central government. As a result, the nature of direct communication among people is subject to ongoing transformation. We witness more and more indirect cultural communication (off-line and on-line). Modified and broadened proposal of social frames of culture includes five rather than three paradigms, namely: the culture of indirect communication, the culture of associations and volunteers; the culture of local institutions (public and private), mass culture versus pop culture, cyber-culture, culture of network community. One has to underline that in the new reality of our civilization we can still use analytic principles of Kłoskowska’s typology. First, we can treat spiritual culture as a phenomenon of autotelic semiosis with pragmatic definition of sign; second, while describing social functioning of culture we can use a sociological criterion of contact and adjacency.
EN
One of the most powerful ways in which we can globalize knowledge, and sociology, is to figure ways in which leading intellectual figures within insufficiently articulated knowledge cultures might inform readings of the other’s work. With the recent revivals of Antonina Kłoskowska and W.E.B. Du Bois in Polish and US sociology respectively, it is a propitious time to figure the ways in which their scholarship aligns, contrasts, and can mutually transform. In particular, the two are both concerned for how marginalized communities with their associated subjectivities engage dominant cultures, but Kłoskowska works within a national/regional frame and Du Bois a global and racial one. Too, Du Bois theorizes from within that marginalized community, with political pointedness, not from outside it or with any attempt to refrain from value judgements. Finally, while Du Bois blends Marxist accounts with a culturally rich account of Blackness and its others, Kłoskowska offers a more semiotic and intersubjective hermeneutic view of how various fusions of horizons might also create a more open world. Those who extend Kłoskowska’s tradition exemplify that very potential while Du Bois, in his very conditions of existence, made racism’s hardest shell manifest. Figuring exemplars of national and racial leadership might, however, invite powerful figurations of the future, but only when their cultural and political constitutions are made explicit.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.