Examines the interaction between Western leader ship and authority practices and those of a non Western culture (Nigeria) in their managerial and or ganisational context. Data concerning the experience of an organisational change in a non‐Western cultural context fail to confirm some of the ideas advanced in the convergence and divergence theses. An alternative framework for conceptualising the process of interaction and outcome of organisational development in situations of cross‐cultural transfer and application of management practices is proposed.
Abstract At the heart of this paper lies the perennial problem of the legitimacy of tribunals judging war criminals and the role of public imagery in countering Victor's Justice challenges. The paper follows along the paths of components of the cultural transfer from Nuremberg and Tokyo international tribunals (1946–1948) for the prosecution of war criminals post World War II through the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem (1961) to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (1993), focusing on two specific 'carriers' of this cultural transfer: "Law" and "Architecture." By Law, I mean the copying and re-application of similar legal procedures, the active participation of certain people within two of the three instances, and even the carrying forward of physical pieces of evidence from one trial to another. By Architecture, I mean the actual construction of the trial chamber in all three places. The location of the judges' bench, the defendants' dock, the witnesses stand, and the inter-relational architectural flow which became characteristic of each of these Lieux de Justice. In terms of public imagery, important counter measures to Victor's-Justice claims also included the ample facilitation of journalist coverage, the provision of full translation services for the defendants (countering claims of linguistic non-misunderstanding), and the holding of the defendants in humane conditions of incarceration, in a somewhat deliberate juxtaposing countenance to their own crimes which habitually included concentration camps and harshly inhumane incarceration facilities. The paper concludes with a recalibration of Hannah Arendt's mistaken claim vis-à-vis Eichmann, in contrast to her important understandings concerning the banality of evil.
The article analyzes one of the forms of nomadism in the intellectual world, which is called cultural transfers. One of the directions in the study of cultural transfers is the migration of concepts and notions between scientific knowledge (in this case linguistic) and literary experience (mainly experimental). The article is devoted to one of such migration trajectory from the perspective of interdiscourse methodology. We discuss the works of one of the agents of cultural transfer in the field of linguistics – R. Jakobson. The task of the article is to draw a trajectory according to which the linguistic concepts of Jakobson intertwine with parallel processes in literary (mainly poetic) experiments. The analysis concludes that precisely in connection with close contexts and transfers between poetry and linguistics, the Russian science of language represented by Jakobson develops a view of literature as a special language and a special communicative system. This trend is not typical for the Anglo-American linguistic tradition of the twentieth century, the quintessence of which in the middle of the century was represented in the theories of N. Chomsky and his circle.
This volume deals with the field of Belgian-German cultural relations during the Nazi occupation of Belgium (1940-1944) from the perspective of the cultural transfer paradigm. Considering the highly political charged context of a totalitarian regime, which is, in this case, simultaneously occupying and waging war with its cultural 'partners", we are obviously dealing with large asymmetries of power and a censorship system that 'blocks, manipulates and controls [.] crosscultural communication'.1 We can therefore assume that the terms of the cultural 'dialogue' were unilaterally determined by the Nazi German censorial institutions for the purposes of both promoting their ideological world views and realizing the foreign policy goals of the regime. The approach of cultural transfer research allows us to differentiate this assumption without relativizing the overtly repressive and destructive nature of Nazi dictatorship. With its focus on individual agency and interactions, it enables us to further analyse the intricacy of the politically dominated cultural exchange. More specifically, it helps to reveal the – often competing – factors that shaped the transfer and transformation of cultural products, while also displaying the marked tension between the highly repressive totalitarian system and the actual agency of cultural agents.
This volume deals with the field of Belgian-German cultural relations during the Nazi occupation of Belgium (1940-1944) from the perspective of the cultural transfer paradigm. Considering the highly political charged context of a totalitarian regime, which is, in this case, simultaneously occupying and waging war with its cultural 'partners", we are obviously dealing with large asymmetries of power and a censorship system that 'blocks, manipulates and controls [.] crosscultural communication'.1 We can therefore assume that the terms of the cultural 'dialogue' were unilaterally determined by the Nazi German censorial institutions for the purposes of both promoting their ideological world views and realizing the foreign policy goals of the regime. The approach of cultural transfer research allows us to differentiate this assumption without relativizing the overtly repressive and destructive nature of Nazi dictatorship. With its focus on individual agency and interactions, it enables us to further analyse the intricacy of the politically dominated cultural exchange. More specifically, it helps to reveal the – often competing – factors that shaped the transfer and transformation of cultural products, while also displaying the marked tension between the highly repressive totalitarian system and the actual agency of cultural agents.
It is an established historical fact that both sides of the Straits of Gibraltar formed a cultural unity in many different periods. After the military success of Mûs_ ib Nusayr, Islam broght unity to Arabs and many Berber tribes in the Maghrib, but the struggle for independence and the adoption of the eastern Khârijî doctrine always caused struggles. It is a well known fact that the contingent of Berbers among the Muslims of al-Andalus outnumbered considerably the inhabitants from Arab origin. After the decline and collapse of the Umayyads and Hammûdids in al-Andalus, various Berger dynasties seized their power and founded many different kingdoms (Taifas, from Arabic mulûk al-tawâ'if). Arab Andalusi culture flourished, which can be demonstrated by the fact that Arabic became the most important language of the Iberian Peninsula under Muslim rule. On the other hand, large numbers of Andalusis emigrated to the Maghrib in many different periods. Already in the first centuries of Islamic spain, many Andalusis settled in North Africa. These Andalusis fled as a consequence of the drought, or were expelled for having collaborated against the regime or were forced to leave the Peninsula by the Christian Reconquista. Mutual migrations and political unity led to the exchange of many cultural phenomena between the two sides of the Straits. This fourth issue of Orientations focuses on some aspects of the 'cultural transfer between al-Andalus and North Africa,' and particularly deals with some aspects of Poetry, Politics and Polemics from the eleventeenth to the seventeenth century
"This volume brings together essays based on a conference that took place in 2016 at the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. The purpose of the event was to explore the role of the arts within confessional transfer and negotiation processes. While many aspects of cultural transfer in the field of secular representation within Europe are already well studied, the exchange of architectural forms and images between different confessions as well as the political contexts and motivations for these exchanges remain little understood. For this reason the following questions are central to this volume: Which aspects of art and architecture were transferred from one confession to another, and how were they modified? What theological or political intentions motivated processes of reception and adaptation? How did the arts help to interpret the relationship between politics and religion, and how did they, as part of a linguistic and visual discourse, model the relationship between spiritual and temporal powers? And to what extent was religious tolerance thereby encouraged or undermined?"
