« On parle dans sa propre langue, on écrit dans une langue étrangère », nous dit Sartre dans Les Mots. Quelle langue Sartre a-t-il dès lors utilisée dans ses romans pour écrire la parole ? Pensé comme une véritable composante romanesque de la liberté, le dialogue selon Sartre répond à trois grands préceptes. En premier lieu, pour ne pas imposer au lecteur un narrateur tout-puissant et pour faire coïncider le temps du personnage avec celui du lecteur (c’est le fameux « isochronisme » genettien), Sartre refuse de condenser les propos de ses personnages. En découle une scrupuleuse utilisation du discours direct qui distingue le dialogue sartrien de celui de ses contemporains. En outre, sous l’influence de Dostoïevski, Sartre incite à recourir aux tâtonnements et au superflu de la langue parlée, et non à la vitesse et à la clarté de la langue théâtrale qui impliqueraient une irréaliste conscience du personnage à luimême. Enfin, Sartre accorde que le dialogue puisse être « pâteux », c’est-à-dire qu’il ne fasse pas avancer à tout prix l’action du roman. Cet article entend présenter la poétique sartrienne du dialogue avant d’en interroger, à partir de l’ensemble du corpus romanesque de Sartre, les implications narratologiques et stylistiques.
Study of Slovenian Transition
Contemporary political rituals have been a neglected topic in Slovenian ethnology and anthropology. This article presents celebrations of Slovenian statehood in the period of transition - from 1991 to the present - which were being organised in the Republic Square (Trg Republike) and cultural centre Cankarjev dom in Ljubljana, and have been outlining the components of Slovenian political mythology and offering solutions for the new national future. The analysis is focused on the holders of political, cultural and media systems. It attempts to disclose the significance and use of the concept of intercultural dialogue in contemporary Slovenian society by exploring the relationship between ritual and its social background.
A Platform Statement from the Sternberg Centre JCM Dialogue Group
Sternberg Centre JCM Dialogue Group
We are a group of Jews, Christians and Muslims who have been meeting for twelve years though some of us have joined more recently. We feel it is time to make a public statement to express our shared concerns. We wish to emphasise our shared belief in God, the shared moral and spiritual values of our three faiths, and to draw attention to the urgent need for inter-religious understanding and co-operation to promote a more just and peaceful and ecologically sustainable world.
How Family Courts Are Providing a ‘Dialogue’ between Husband and Wife
In the year 2000, Egyptian women were given the right to unilateral divorce through a procedure called khul'. Khul' became the source of much controversy in Egyptian society, and most judges interviewed by the author expressed a negative viewpoint when asked about it. Nevertheless, the introduction of the Family Court system in 2004, with the explicit aim of solving marital disputes through mediation and communication, has made possible a 'dialogue' between husband and wife in a khul' procedure. This applies even in situations where mediators and judges profess an unfavourable opinion of women who file for khul' divorce.
Reframing Africa at the Royal Ontario Museum
This article outlines some recent museological initiatives aimed at responding to the important issues raised by the famous protest against the exhibition Into the Heart of Africa, organized by the Royal Ontario Museum in 1989. Despite the significant temporal hiatus from the historical protest, many of the questions raised in that context continue to be relevant in thinking of ways to engage and present African collections in a mainstream encyclopedic institution. Rather than rethinking a new, more culturally sensitive narrative, I suggest that the introduction of multiple voices and perspectives may be the only way to disrupt the linear authoritative narratives and promote a more significant and affectively relevant engagement with historical collections.
This is a tribute delivered at the memorial service celebrating the life of Rabbi Lionel Blue. Rabbi Daniel Smith reminiscences about Rabbi Lionel Blue, who was Daniel's teacher for fifty-five years. Lionel was a close friend and became part of Daniel's family. Lionel was a brilliant teacher, preacher and pioneer in interfaith dialogue and in German- Jewish reconciliation. Lionel worked tirelessly for peace, dialogue and understanding. He found the places that needed healing, and brought his humour, compassion and brilliance to enlighten the darkness. He was the first British rabbi to come out as gay. Young LGBTQ people now see Lionel as their pathfinder. Lionel was not scared of death. He saw heaven before he died, and the angels welcomed him with acclaim.
We at Projections have stated our purpose as being to ‘facilitate a dialogue between people in the humanities and the sciences’ (not a modest goal for a little journal first making its way in the world). We have intended to do this through what seems to us the medium that best synthesises art and technology and opens itself up to scientific investigation because of its complex perceptual nature—film. Our focus, at the same time, has been on the mind/brain, since that seems to us the place were science and film best meet.
Dialogues and Trajectories
Simon Coleman and Ramon Sarró
In his luminous reflections on the intellectual trajectory that he has traced so far—beginning with the modern and proceeding through the secular toward the global—José Casanova notes that his evolving interests took him away from anthropology and toward sociology. Yet Casanova’s work has remained influential on, and in conversation with, that of many anthropologists, not least as a result of his desire to transcend a “Western-centric view of history and human development” (this volume) as well as his predictions that Pentecostalism may well become the predominant form of Christianity in the twenty-first century. This second volume of Religion and Society presents Casanova—author of the classic Public Religions in the Modern World (1994)—in dialogue with his own past and shifting present, but also responding to the comments of scholars who are themselves anthropologically informed and yet able to represent perspectives from sociology, theology, and religious studies.
Ten Commandments for Interfaith Dialogue
‘Dialogue’ is a spoken exchange between two persons who exchange their viewpoints. In the dictionary of the ‘good person’ this concept has the highest rank which one can basically only confirm. Fundamentally, it must be better to talk with one another instead of immersing oneself in evil silence or in turning to aggressive attacks. Why, then, did the organizer of this forum present me with the title ‘Dialogue: Thank You, No!’ How can one be against dialogue? It is rooted in an honourable philosophic tradition which has been primarily established by Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas within the centre of modern thought. Since then, the waters of diplomacy have washed over it and softened it, and overuse has killed it.
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, one of the outstanding figures of modern Orthodox Judaism in the twentieth century, was opposed to interfaith dialogue and more particularly, to theological dialogue with the Catholic Church. In guidelines laid down in his paper 'Confrontation' in 1964 he proposed that Jews and Christians should discuss social and ethical problems together, but not matters theological. Since he was personally well acquainted with non-Jewish secular learning and had a philosophically sophisticated understanding of the role of halakhah, there has been much speculation as to why he sought to restrict dialogue in this way. Fifty years after 'Confrontation' was issued, it may be useful to re-examine his reasons and motivation in this matter and consider what relevance it has for contemporary interfaith relations.