Suchergebnisse

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.

The aim of the article is to discuss the origins and issues of neo-tribalist and neo-pagan movements and their cultural, political, educational, international effect in Lithuanian. The main object of our investigations is activities of modern neo-Semigallians (žiemgaliai) and Samogitians (žemaičiai). The main problem for analysis is the kind of impact Lithuanian ethnology has on supporting new imagined identities and modern consumer demands support for making new cultural, social, and historical identities.

The aim of the article is to discuss the origins and issues of neo-tribalist and neo-pagan movements and their cultural, political, educational, international effect in Lithuanian. The main object of our investigations is activities of modern neo-Semigallians (žiemgaliai) and Samogitians (žemaičiai). The main problem for analysis is the kind of impact Lithuanian ethnology has on supporting new imagined identities and modern consumer demands support for making new cultural, social, and historical identities.

The aim of the article is to discuss the origins and issues of neo-tribalist and neo-pagan movements and their cultural, political, educational, international effect in Lithuanian. The main object of our investigations is activities of modern neo-Semigallians (žiemgaliai) and Samogitians (žemaičiai). The main problem for analysis is the kind of impact Lithuanian ethnology has on supporting new imagined identities and modern consumer demands support for making new cultural, social, and historical identities.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong's presumption that Nietzsche's political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche's thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche's thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche's political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.

The present day understanding would state that in a context of studies of anthropological, visual studies any view is an equivalent expression of cultural discourse that is why approaching to culture through analysis of a film also may be successfully applied in knowing different cultural models around or even in our own societies. The first theoretical part is dedicated to review a conception of sexuality in a context of western culture: essencelisation vs constructionalism. The second part is dedicated to analysis sexuality as social construction in the discourse of power. M. Foucault is being introduced who underlines sexuality as a social construct in a discourse of power, processes of suppression of sexuality are being analysed as well as outcomes of the process. In a changing society, understanding of the world, new comprehensions concerning traditional conceptions of sexual roles, manifestations and transformation of sexuality as a social construct are being formed. After reviewing Lithuanian cinematography, we notice the changing expression of sexual images, roles, intercommunication. Forms of sexuality which were replaced out of public discourse, normative definitions of proper behaviour earlier, in a present period are simply being reproduced, revitalised – thus constructing a vision of transformation.

The present day understanding would state that in a context of studies of anthropological, visual studies any view is an equivalent expression of cultural discourse that is why approaching to culture through analysis of a film also may be successfully applied in knowing different cultural models around or even in our own societies. The first theoretical part is dedicated to review a conception of sexuality in a context of western culture: essencelisation vs constructionalism. The second part is dedicated to analysis sexuality as social construction in the discourse of power. M. Foucault is being introduced who underlines sexuality as a social construct in a discourse of power, processes of suppression of sexuality are being analysed as well as outcomes of the process. In a changing society, understanding of the world, new comprehensions concerning traditional conceptions of sexual roles, manifestations and transformation of sexuality as a social construct are being formed. After reviewing Lithuanian cinematography, we notice the changing expression of sexual images, roles, intercommunication. Forms of sexuality which were replaced out of public discourse, normative definitions of proper behaviour earlier, in a present period are simply being reproduced, revitalised – thus constructing a vision of transformation.

The present day understanding would state that in a context of studies of anthropological, visual studies any view is an equivalent expression of cultural discourse that is why approaching to culture through analysis of a film also may be successfully applied in knowing different cultural models around or even in our own societies. The first theoretical part is dedicated to review a conception of sexuality in a context of western culture: essencelisation vs constructionalism. The second part is dedicated to analysis sexuality as social construction in the discourse of power. M. Foucault is being introduced who underlines sexuality as a social construct in a discourse of power, processes of suppression of sexuality are being analysed as well as outcomes of the process. In a changing society, understanding of the world, new comprehensions concerning traditional conceptions of sexual roles, manifestations and transformation of sexuality as a social construct are being formed. After reviewing Lithuanian cinematography, we notice the changing expression of sexual images, roles, intercommunication. Forms of sexuality which were replaced out of public discourse, normative definitions of proper behaviour earlier, in a present period are simply being reproduced, revitalised – thus constructing a vision of transformation.

In this article the author discusses the practice of cannibalism by, asking why the practice was popularly attributed to distant people long after Europe had exchanged the myths of classical antiquity for the cold and sceptical application of human reason to the wonders of the unknown world. The article discusses Jan Nederveen Pieterse's (1992) opinion about cannibalism as the fearsome trait of those just across the border, just beyond the line that divided the known from the unknown. To explain the persistence of cannibal imagery in the West, and its attribution to the inhabitants of Africa just as the conquest and pillage of Africa by European powers began Pieterse points out that cannibalism earlier served to position Europe's "others" in a hierarchy of exclusion and denigration, delineating the moral boundaries of European "civilization" against the "savagery" of others. Another part of the article analyses cannibal humour, from the late nineteenth century onwards; and from 1980 to the present, that of mechanized cannibalism. The stereotypes that clash here may well reveal profound historical antagonisms, may well embody historical relations between the black and the white. But to disentangle these images from each other, to see them deriving from different "histories" or orders of signification, to see difference emerge from such a binary simplicity, these things require a look at the mechanisms and politics of displacement.

In this article the author discusses the practice of cannibalism by, asking why the practice was popularly attributed to distant people long after Europe had exchanged the myths of classical antiquity for the cold and sceptical application of human reason to the wonders of the unknown world. The article discusses Jan Nederveen Pieterse's (1992) opinion about cannibalism as the fearsome trait of those just across the border, just beyond the line that divided the known from the unknown. To explain the persistence of cannibal imagery in the West, and its attribution to the inhabitants of Africa just as the conquest and pillage of Africa by European powers began Pieterse points out that cannibalism earlier served to position Europe's "others" in a hierarchy of exclusion and denigration, delineating the moral boundaries of European "civilization" against the "savagery" of others. Another part of the article analyses cannibal humour, from the late nineteenth century onwards; and from 1980 to the present, that of mechanized cannibalism. The stereotypes that clash here may well reveal profound historical antagonisms, may well embody historical relations between the black and the white. But to disentangle these images from each other, to see them deriving from different "histories" or orders of signification, to see difference emerge from such a binary simplicity, these things require a look at the mechanisms and politics of displacement.