In this article I consider how we might suitably define the concept of culture where we take seriously the possibility of inter-cultural dialogue. I reject the idea of mutually-separated bits of culture characterised by certain typical values (Asian, Euro-Atlantic, African etc). It is necessary to refuse the reification of partial cultures, both for theoretical and for practical reasons. The concept of eternally-existing portions of culture ultimately serves only to limit the free behaviour of people interpreted as members of such cultures. The idea of a certain portion of culture, or of cultural value, is defensible only as an ideal type which provides an interpretational key to the discovery or construction of facts, to their organisation and to understanding them. More important in dialogue is seriousness and equal respect towards each cultural situation from which individual people emerge, and the systematic openness of society to the acceptance of the original cultural situation of each person as an opportunity for widening and enriching the common culture (understood at the level of the relation of the origin of a family of immigrants and the integration into the national culture of the relevant national state). As regards the discussion about inter-cultural dialogue in relation to the extent of globally-recognised human rights, I emphasise the occurrence of the political implementation of such rights in constitutional republics, and I show that without state power human rights cannot be secured against the threat of religious fanaticisim, the despotic power of families or customary norms. Dialogue about human rights at the global level will not be maintainable without the Kantian ideal of a world civil society as a community of constitutionally-regulated states.
Článek polemizuje s novou koncepcí J. Macháčka, která se pro útvar nazývaná Velká Morava snaží využít modelu cyklického náčelnictví. Ukazujeme, že autor pomíjí mnohá svědectví písemných pramenů, stejně jako některé nové závěry archeologické. Není nutné nazývat raně středověkou Moravu státem, tím zjevně nebyla připojená území (Čechy, Vislansko). Ukazujeme však, že struktury moravské moci, hospodářství a společenských vztahů byly, přinejmenším v posledních čtyřech deceniích 9. století, příliš komplexní a institučně příliš pevně ustanovené, než aby se při jejich interpretaci mohl s prospěchem použít model cyklického náčelnictví. and The article is a discussion regarding the new concept put forward by Jiří Macháček, which attempts to use the cyclical chiefdom model for the unit called Great Moravia. The article shows that the author has disregarded the testament of written sources as well as some new archaeological findings. It is not necessary to call medieval Moravia a state. It is however shown that the structures of the Moravian powers, and economical and social relations were, at least in the last four decades of the 9th century, too complex and too strongly constituted institutionally for the cyclical chiefdom model to have been successfully used during interpretations.