When analyzing contemporary Chinese religious life and religious policy of the Chinese state, the starting point should be to understand the context in which the term religion was introduced in China and to recognize the tools that the Chinese state has been using for handling religious expressions in society. These issues are rooted in the long history of the relationship between religion and the state in China; however, they are perceived through modern terminological and theoretical discourse. In fact, it is modern European science (humanities) that has defined the historical role, function, and form of religion since the late 19th century. With extensive help from the Chinese intellectual elite, the humanities have also interpreted various manifestations of religion in modern as well as in traditional Chinese society. Indeed, science, both domestic Chinese and Western, has played an important role in the introduction of the theoretical concept of religion into Chinese society and its subsequent use for specific political goals. This paper focuses on the origins of the concept of religion in the Chinese reality; it traces these origins in modern European thought and, in particular, the cultural and structural patterns that are unfamiliar to traditional (pre-modern) Chinese culture and society. It also attempts to outline problems that arise from the penetration and acculturation of the concept of religion into Chinese society and describes how these problems are reflected in the academic environment, especially in the Euro-American area.
Within discussions of the history of the Balkan nations, their Ottoman past is a period whose interpretation is characterized by a strong ethnocentric enthusiasm. The terminology that each national community traditionally uses to identify this epoch, also attests to their highly emotional evaluations. The natural linking of a particular concept with a nation's ideology is most evident in Bulgaria, where the traditional terms "Turkish slavery" and "Turkish yoke" persist in the social discourse. This terminology comes into opposition with the neutral concepts of Ottoman dominion or administration, which are used in serious historiography. Discussions of the essence of the Ottoman period in Bulgarian history thus confirm that it is still a living component of the national narrative. The confrontation between the above-mentioned interpretative models, which also appear in school curricula and textbooks, likewise provides evidence of this effect. This study specifically analyzes the spectrum of socio-cultural reflections of the Ottoman past in the context of the latest national curriculum. Within this framework, the Bulgarian Ministry of Education proposed in early 2016 the politically correct term "coexistence" of Bulgarians with Ottoman Turks. It can be said that these discussions have reopened the question of what to actually call the Ottoman period of Bulgarian history. and Osmanská minulost představuje v dějinách balkánských národů období, jehož interpretace jsou charakterizovány silným etnocentrickým zaujetím. Svědectvím emocionálních hodnocení je i terminologie, s níž dané národní společenství tuto epochu tradičně označuje. Přirozené sepětí příslušného pojmu s národní ideologií se přitom nejvýrazněji projevuje zejména v Bulharsku, kde v nejširším diskurzu přetrvává zažitý termín tureckého otroctví či jha. Tato terminologie vstupuje do opozice k neutrálním pojmům osmanská nadvláda či správa, které užívá i seriózní historiografie. Diskuze o podstatě osmanského období bulharských dějin tak potvrzují, že se jedná o dodnes živou součást národního narativu. Dokladem tohoto působení jsou konfrontace uvedených interpretačních modelů, které se dostávají i do školních osnov a učebnic. Stať proto v kontextu nových učebních plánů, v jejichž rámci navrhlo počátkem roku 2016 bulharské ministerstvo školství politicky korektní termín "společné soužití" Bulharů s osmanskými Turky, analyzuje spektrum sociokulturních reflexí osmanské minulosti.
According to the traditional interpretation, Lévi-Strauss’ structural anthropology deposes the concept of man and the notion of human nature from its central place in human and social sciences. While it’s necessary to acknowledge Lévi-Strauss’ distance vis-à-vis all philosophy based on intentionality, experience and consciousness of subject, we argue that the most interesting purpose of the structural anthropology lies elsewhere. Not only Lévi-Strauss never declared himself being part of anti-humanism movement, but most of all, his famous polemics with Sartre at the end of La Pensée sauvage should be interpreted as part of his fight against ethnocentrism. The project of “dissolving the man” can be thus read as deconstructing the idea that western man makes of himself in the light of ethnological findings about universal structures orchestrating all human societies. We further show that the notion of subject survived its very death announced by the most radical structuralist thinkers and that structural method could be effectively employed in order to study different techniques and modes of subjectivation, revealing that “becoming subject” is a process structured by our language, symbolic universe and ethical teleology. and Ondřej Švec.