Weak Barbarism: A Contemporaneous Axiological Mutation

By Radu Vasile Chialda

Barbarism: Contemporaneous Axiological Mutations is not meant as a thesis that provides a holistic approach on the concept of barbarism, a concept whose area of investigation may be deemed as vast as that of the concept of culture. By taking advantage of a hindsight outlook as to what concerns this topic, one could learn a great deal of details about the radical alteration of the current depiction of the notion of barbarism. Therefore, as an incipient undertaking into the overall argumentative process, which defines the character of the thesis, I shall try to illustrate the idea of an induced misunderstanding, at a global level, on the concept of barbarism, which has led to significant and acute hermeneutical malformations concerning its various aspects of manifestation, both socially and culturally and, consequently, in terms of barbarisms own axiological structure in the range of human behavior.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Aug 14, 2015
• ISBN: 9781504987936

Radu Vasile Chialda

Dr. Radu Vasile Chialda obtained his PhD degree in 2011 in philosophy of culture at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University and was a former high school teacher and lecturer. He had his debut in the anthology of Lumen Association: Love, Light, Poetry in 2013. In 2006, he became coordinator and editor in chief of the sociocultural journal entitled “The Avrig from Us.” He collaborates with several cultural and literal journals, such as Culture: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, where he entered in editorial staff since 2008; the journal of literature and literary experiment Feedback; the social human sciences magazine Symposium, from Gheorghe Zane Institute of Economic and Social Researches, The Romanian Thought, publishing both literature (prose and poetry), literary critics and studies of the philosophy of culture. Also, since 2011 he has been cofounder of the nongovernmental Literature Zone organisation and coeditorial board adviser of the Zon@ cultural and literary journal. In 2007 he published his first volume of poems entitled The Juke Box with Dreams, reedited by Lumen Publishing House, Iasi, 2008, and with the help of AFCN–Culture Ministry Agency. In 2008 he edited, as coordinator, the anthology of poems To Mother, republished as a second edition in 2014, and also in 2008, he obtained a prize for the poem Https or With Angels on the camp at the International Contest of Poetry of the Romanians from Everywhere under the coordination of Starpress Journal. In 2009 he published together with Ramona Elena Bratu (Duna) his first volume of short prose About Angels . . . Gossiping! and in 2011 a second volume in the French language (La causerie . . . Sur les anges!) published by Xlibris Publishing House in UK, USA, and Canada, and in 2012, the Romanian version of the same title. In 2011 he was awarded with first place at the first Cezar Ivanescu Poetry Festival, published in several literary anthologies, and in 2012, he published the second poetry book entitled Imaginary Apocaliptions.

Book preview

2015 Radu Vasile Chialda. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 08/11/2015

ISBN: 978-1-5049-8792-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5049-8791-2 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-5049-8793-6 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Author’s note

Introduction

1. Culture-barbarism-civilization

2. The dialectical and phenomenological method in the analysis of barbarism

Part I An illusory dialectics

A

Us and Others –

A historical approach on exterior conflict

1. Ancient Greece

2. The Macedonian Empire

3. The Roman Empire

4. Christianity

5. The Byzantine Empire and the Middle Ages

6. The justification (necessity) of the expression us and others

B

Colonialism, globalisation and the problem of space

1. Space and frontier: essential geographical coordinates for the limits imposed between us and others

1.1 Frontier: institution and idea of property

1.2. Stretch and expansion; factors transcending property

2. The Context of Colonialism

2.1. Extreme imperialist slavery

2.1. European institutionalisation in the colonies

3. The Context of Globalisation

3.1. Globalisation – a transfiguration of power

3.2 Globalisation and the interiorisation of barbarism

C

Alterity: a decisive phenomenon of barbarism

1. The predicament of the other

1.1. From others to the others

1.2. The „alter" characteristic of the other

1.3. Intrinsic characteristic of the other

2. The predicament of the foreigner (alienated)

2.1. The tourist – the eternal foreigner

2.2. Alienation – an excess of alterity

3. The predicament of decline

3.1. Declining as a method of alterity

3.2. Crisis – a symptom of an inevitable end

3.3. The origin of alterity of the individual and two paradigms of finitude

3.3.1. Creationist alterity

3.3.2. Evolutionist alterity

3.4. A hereditary finitude

D

Interior barbarism:

Illusory consequence or apriori intrinsic attribute?

1. An illusory chrono(logic)

2. Breaking the spell around interior barbarism

3. The sources of a priori, intrinsic attributes

Part II Contemporaneous Axiological Mutations

1. The genetic mutation and the new barbarian

2. A torn society

3. A civilisation of coexistence

3.1. The „unity in diversity" concept

3.2. The predicament of identity and ethnicity

3.2.1. The immigrants` invasion

3.2.2. The demographic growth

3.3. Mutation – „a revolution of mentality and existence"

A

On Weak Barbarism

1. Dialectical and resumptive differences

2. The theory of weak thinking

3. Forms of weak barbarism

B

Altered contemporaneous barbarism

1. From new mythologies to new barbarians

2. From new technologies to new barbarisms

3. Cultural barbarism

3.1. The legislative system

3.2. Masses and elites

3.3. Pub barbarism

3.3.1. Pubs, tabloids, salons and gardens

3.3.2. Code of good manners, good taste and fashion

3.4. Ethical barbarism

3.4.1. Lawless and normless

3.4.2. Sexuality, pornography and prostitution

3.5. Religious barbarism

3.5.1. The preacher and congregational institutions

3.5.2. Religion – mania and eschatology

3.6. Aesthetical barbarism

3.6.1. The illegitimate artistic attitude and the industrial character

3.6.2. The art of making anything and belittlement

3.7. Linguistic barbarism

3.7.1. The abbreviated language of text messages (SMS), instant messaging and social networks

3.7.3. A global language?

3.8. Intellectual barbarism

4. Civilized barbarism

4.1. Mass-man, the paradox of contemporaneous world

4.2. Technological barbarism

4.2.1. The consumerist principle

4.2.2. The demographic principle

4.2.3. The virtuality principle

4.3. Scientific barbarism

C

Chronic contemporaneous barbarisms

1. Terrorism

2. Ecologism

3. Postmodernism

4. Aspects of the phenomenon of football.

Conclusions

Bibliography:

To my father

Dr. R adu Vasile Chialda obtain his Ph.D. degree in 2011 in Philosophy of Culture at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, and is a former high school teacher and lecturer. He had his début in the anthology of „Lumen" Association: Love, light, poetry in 2003. In 2006, he become coordinator, editor in chief of the social cultural journal entitled The Avrig from Us. He collaborates with several cultural and literal journals such as: Culture - International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology where he entered in editorial staff since 2008, the journal of literature and literary experiment Feedback, the social human sciences magazine Symposium from „Gheorghe Zane" Institute of Economic and Social Researches, The Romanian Thought, publishing both literature (prose and poetry), literary critics and studies of the philosophy of culture. Also, since 2011 he is co-founder of the non-governmental Literature Zone organisation and co-editorial board adviser of the Zon@ cultural and literary journal.

In 2007 he publish his first volume of poems entitled The Juke box with dreams, reedited by „Lumen" Publishing House, Iasi, 2008 and with the help of A.F.C.N. – Culture Ministry Agency, in 2008 he edit as coordinator the anthology of poems To Mother…, republished as a second edition in 2014, and also in 2008 obtain a price for the poem Https or with angels on the camp at The International Contest of Poetry of the Romanians from Everywhere under the coordination of Starpress Journal. In 2009 he publish together with Ramona Elena Bratu (Duna) his first volume of short prose About Angels… Gossiping! and in 2011 a second volume in french language (La causerie… Sur les anges!) published by Xlibris Publishing House in UK, USA and Canada, and in 2012 the romanian version of the same title. In 2011 he was awarded with first place at the first Cezar Ivanescu Poetry Festival, published in several literary anthologies, and in 2012 he published the second poetry book entitled Imaginary Apocaliptions.

Author’s note

Four years ago, if there had been someone to ask me about the publishing date of the thesis, I would have probably and nonchalantly replied: never. I was aware that I did not have a too bold thesis which might spark interest for reading, although the world was heading towards what I suggest in it. Eleven years ago, I had read a book about the proper understanding of history, a book which would change my selection of books and, hence, my reading process. I can vividly recall, even now, the voracious reading of that book, taking notes, lying down on the back seats of a car, in the backyard, sheltering me from the torrid heat, and with the familiar words of one of my professors flying about my head: if you are absolutely convinced that this is the path you would like to embark on, then I recommend you to read through the bibliography that I have handed to you and, in autumn, tell me about your direction of research that you would like to follow. Six years after my professor’s valuable words, I was preparing myself for admission at the doctoral school, confident about my decision to develop the idea of research that had been crystalised at the end of my philosophical studies and M.A. in the Philosophy of Art and Cultural Management. After I was admitted, I was confident that I could successfully finish my research project, begun in my second doctoral year, and, hence, find out what makes barbarism last for ages. It was very difficult, mainly because I was proposing to scientifically investigate a rather historically-related concept set in the context (discourse) of the philosophy of culture. Moreover, I proposed to scrutinize the concept from an axiological perspective and crystalised via the methods employed by the philosophy of history. My confidence that I could eventually write a captivating and debatable thesis was confirmed when I witnessed some US and Australian professors’ genuine interest in an article that unveiled weak barbarism; it was an article published a little earlier before the public defence of my thesis. Nevertheless, after my reading sessions and the conclusions, that I had hoped to achieve even from the beginning, I found resolution to another dilemma that had been haunting me throughout. There was some other professor who told me, in line with the metaphysical principles evoked by Aristotle that the simplest definition of things is to name what they are not. It was then when it struck me that my entire research was a process of enlightenment (discovery) of the contemporaneous barbarism, of its role in the present society and, by providing and indirect definition of it, I actually answered the question: what is culture?

Barbarism is a concept which dominated my bibliographical readings. The bibliography at the end of this research study does not entirely reflect my readings upon this topic. Once I gradually stepped into the world of barbarism, I noticed that I could not grasp it, in its entirety, in any book I read or any other study on it. Therefore, I´m not convinced that I completely covered this topic which, I have to confess, was, and still is, extremely enticing. I managed to portray, as much as I could, the transformations suffered by the concept of barbarism in order to adapt to the contemporaneous context. Weak barbarism is the result of a long process of debates and studies, an investigation into the realm of a taboo topic in most cases. Whether I have managed, or not, to spark the interest of those passionate about the topic, as well as of those who seek a background picture of the concept of barbarism, will be determined by the readers. As an author of this study, I can only claim that I tried to.

Leaving aside all the efforts undertaken to materialise this book that you are holding in your hands, there were also events that took place and which left their imprint, both on the last decade and on the pages of the present research. If terrorism were not developing into a worldwide phenomenon, if I were not more than a supporter of a football team, if I had not the passions for history, if technology were not becoming so advanced in a very little time, if globalisation were not so contagious and if mass-media were not so obsessively preoccupied with putting on display the cruel reality from any corner of the world, then I would have no reason to publish the results of my research, not even now. Should there be cases where actual data is not relevant, or there are incomplete notes, as well as uncertain online references, originally used to highlight some aspects of barbarism, then it is because the cited sources are valid for year 2011. There are great chances that many references may not be valid today. Likewise, this book entails a series of personal representations under the form of complex tables and graphs, whose intent is to schematically illustrate the debated theoretical content. Then, I firmly thought, as well as today, that the tables render a more efficient image of the concepts employed in this research, especially of the stated preoccupation of redefining the concepts of barbarism, culture and civilisation. From the date of the thesis’ public defence until its actual book form, I observed that the graphs did me a favour by giving a specific touch to the overall structure of the research. Once with the publication of this book, I can argue that its actual form is the best, although there are many more elements to be added. The phenomena of contemporaneous barbarism are in full sweep and, therefore, an image is not enough to illustrate all the variations in one single framework. The two covers of the book remain, even for myself, open, permissive and translucent frames.

I must also mention that another reason for the publication of this book is to relieve myself from it. It is not because it has been a burden. It is not because of someone’s forcible attitude to me in this respect. And, it is not because of the fame acquired by publishing a doctoral thesis, due to the fact that I have been waiting for four years to adorn my research with two covers. It is, rather, because I need a starting point for the future. I have so much left to say about barbarism, things that have been left out of my research that, as soon as I see Weak Barbarism in printed version, I will find it easier to move on, although I am not a member of a research institution.

Nevertheless, this book would not have existed, if it had not been for the external impulses. That is why I would like to thank those persons who supported me throughout. First of all, I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor (Full) Professor Nicolae Rambu, for offering me the possibility to continue my studies. Last time I spoke to him, I asked him whether he would like to write a prefatory note to the book, and he replied in a self-confident mien: The content of the study speaks for itself, it does not need any preface. Then, my thanks go to (Full) Professor Marius Dumitrescu for inspiring confidence and for his foremost support of the idea of graphically illustrating the basic concepts, as he used to say: an unprecedented aspect in a philosophical thesis, so far. How could I forget my old friend, Marius Sidoriuc, PhD, a true partner of discussions about various topics from various context? I thank him especially for the long dialogues we had about the contemporaneous society around a cup of coffee; those dialogues helped me to constantly reevaluate the direction of my studies, as well as his suggestions and ideas. I would like to thank him also for his support along the seven years we have known each other. Likewise, I would like to express my gratitude to my two friends, Paul Gorban, PhD, and Ciprian Soptica, PhD, whose critical insights kept my enthusiasm in check and corrected me in many situations when I was over-confident that my writings were based on solid argument. It was not always the case, though. The appreciations are also expressed for our constructive dialogues which helped me a great deal in my personal research. Last, but not the least, I would like to offer my gratitude to the family, my parents and sister. They were all very patient with me, even though they were dissatisfied with my decision to study at the doctoral school. Most importantly for me, I dedicate this book that you are holding in your hands to my father, who died last year, in the moment I needed his support the most. He was also the one who guided my path in life to what I have become.

Introduction

Barbarism; contemporaneous axiological mutations is not meant as a thesis which provides a holistic approach on the concept of barbarism, a concept whose area of investigation may be deemed as vast as that of the concept of culture. By taking advantage of a hindsight outlook as to what concerns this topic, one could learn a great deal of details about the radical alteration of the current depiction of the notion of barbarism. Therefore, as an incipient undertaking into the overall argumentative process, which defines the character of the thesis, I shall try to illustrate the idea of an induced misunderstanding, at a global level, on the concept of barbarism, which has led to significant and acute hermeneutical malformations concerning its various aspects of manifestation, both socially and culturally and, consequently, in terms of barbarism’s own axiological structure in the range of human behavior. Considering the specified argumentative stance, I could neither have the necessary conceptual undertakings nor too many theoretical alibis in order to be concise, even from the first lines, as to the meaning of the topic in the eyes of the contemporaneous society. Against this backdrop, I have always been forced by the incessantly moving and dysfunctional, quasi-divergent transformation of the quotidian circumstances, to admit myself dealing with a scientific investigation area which can be defined as both respectably researched and not researched at all, respectively, provided that we bear in mind the overtly wide span of the topic, fact which deems the adjective term „holistic", used initially as a justifying research means for the present thesis, simply as a definition of the topic under scientific scrutiny. Thus, beside mentioning the most salient aspects, values, forms and representations, the present thesis also focuses on the contemporaneous stances, in which case there is an impending need for revealing not only barbarism as such, but also its axiological mutations which have crystalized the new meanings. The thesis makes its argument only by observing the perspective shift from general (barbarism) to particular (contemporaneous axiological mutations)¹, a perspective shift which helps describing a direction² of approach from the basic concept used, where morphologic undertones are sketched out, to the context in which the term barbarism, as a basic concept, is currently changing its meaning. If the negative features, which refer to barbarism, have no longer the same effect (do not subscribe to the same parameters), then the transformations and breakings with the past put forth a different version of the term itself. Presently, we stand witness before a different type of barbarism. Barbarus novus is the concept that the present thesis is endeavored to reveal to the public opinion, to debate upon and have under scrutiny. In the process of revealing the concept in the contemporaneous context, it may trigger a shock for the public opinion, which may find it difficult to accept but not an impossible task. Let us see why mutation is the main argument of this research; once it is sketched out it can shed light upon the taboo of barbarism.³

In the present research study, one can trace a certain ease as to matching the barbarian character to each and every situation⁴, and also an ease in impressing the barbarian stigmatism to the most diverse sociocultural aspects and elements, out of comfort in naming every act within the sphere of negativity as an act of Barbary. It happens because of the specific way in which one comes to understand the concept. Barbarism may have many interpretations and its parameters may have no opaque, tight or inscrutable limits. As long as we trace a clear distinction between each respective concept, along with exhausting them of each manifest meanings which can result from the act of interpretation and, cumulated with the concept of negativity being understood as opposition to anything positive, either referring to cultural aspects or to the aspects of civilization, barbarism, as contrary negation⁵ to them, in a context characterized by transfiguration, proliferation, fragmentation and overwhelmed with mutations at all standpoints, can be linked, unequivocally, with the sum total of human actions at all the levels of humanity. Due to this reason, there can be noticed a certain tolerance, even acute, to barbarian stigmatization which, presently, manifests as a rapidly developing disease in the contemporaneous society. However, not any instance of negative activity is related to barbarism but, as long as negativity corrupts and irrupts up to the point of violence, brutality, vulgarity, illegality and nonconformity, barbarism is or can be present.

It is crucial that we understand the importance of contemporaneous notion of barbarism. Once we grasp its overt manifestations, then we can easily sift „good from „evil⁶ and, likewise, in a more and more alert world, diffuse and crowded, we can create standards of conduct.

1. Culture-barbarism-civilization

Philosophy is a very complex and sufficiently grasping scientific area of the human thinking that could be broached upon in a standalone universe of specialized discourse. This can also be stated about the branches of Philosophy, especially about the Philosophy of Culture. The wide array of concepts and ideas which refer to culture, correlated with the multitude of possibilities in defining this universal concept and, along with the fact that it is a constitutive part of the human essence itself, thus working out the human character, its demeanour, attitude, nature and all the aspects which sets one apart from the other creatures⁷ roaming the Earth, turn the concept into a best example for the transdisciplinary theories. In this logic, the Philosophy of Culture is the most grasping branch of Philosophy.

There has always been an issue in defining culture, especially nowadays, when pluridiversity and proliferation, at all levels, have made me consider and note a certain corrosive, distorted and paradoxical multiculturalism. If defining culture turns into a gradually harder task, close to impossibility, thus finding an exhaustive, all-embracing definition similar to a utopic undertaking, then the question comes: Why bother channeling scientific research into this undertaking? Beyond the rhetorical tint of the question, I am aware of the need of having the analysis of culture at the back of my head, especially when there is an impending call on it on behalf of the research studies. Likewise, I shall try to come up with a definition of the notion in question by enlisting the outlooks, parameters, direction of approach, the theoretical and scientific frameworks which may help shaping out a solid definition, as a proclaimed aim of the present thesis. In most cases, one puts forth definitions belonging to erudite scholars (1). A second level in coming up with a definition implies the enlisting of the correlated, connex and relational⁸ concepts (2). In order to reach an adequate level of understanding about culture, one has to understand each concept in its own way, approach which may entail calling on other complex areas of investigation. However, on a very few occasions, there is call on definition by negation (3)⁹. Along with understanding the contradiction of culture, of everything which comes contrary to it, there can be issued a picture of what culture is not. In this logic, everything which is not violence, breaking with norm and moral conduct, licentious attitude or is not against adequate behavior and univocal and unanimous social laws, shapes out a cultural character. All of these positive features embody traits of barbarism, a fundamental concept crucial to understanding culture¹⁰.

Likewise, for a thorough understanding of culture, the concept must be differentiated from the notion with which is always associated by confusion, namely the term civilization¹¹. The proper universe of discourse is not totally different to that of culture, thus stirring questions mainly focused on the difference between the two concepts. On the one hand, I ask myself: when the two concepts are different, why is that so and in which way? On the other hand, influenced by the same brooding rhetoric, I ask myself: what is civilization in itself? In order to define a space as being civilized in a certain historical horizon we must not overlook, at least, two defining aspects: technological progress, on the one hand, and scientific development, on the other hand, both of which are fundamental towards describing a civilized society.¹² Nowadays, this concept has acquired a universal character and, most of the times, civilization is referred to via political, social, racial, religious, ethnic discourses which are taken for general anthropic principles. Moreover, the concept of demography, helps explaining and providing a better hindsight in relation to the two terms previously stated and, which (demography), in turn, is better understood by calling into question the historical principles which, in turn, are linked to the concept of conflict. If the anthropic principles crystallize the cultural differences and the geographical space, then the historical principles shed light upon evolutionary aspects in temporal progression. In short¹³, these are the frameworks of the valences of civilization and are valid for every paradigm and scenario. Given the current global context, I would surely identify many dysfunctions, slips of any kind and errors (which render the result of progress and development as actually causing manifestations of contrary aspects of civilization’s representation), if I were to apply the abovementioned principles to the entire world. These errors, more and more intense, happening more often and prolific, can be of violent, aggressive, antihuman, immoral or destructive origin and can be seen as aspects of manifestation of contemporaneous barbarism. Although their intents are positive, the effects can easily be transferred into the sphere of negativity (I will exemplify this throughout the thesis). Barbarism opposes civilization by civilization’s own character as a connex concept for culture, and of whose conceptual sphere is part of.

The concept of culture is at the heart of the philosophy of culture but, in order to be defined, it must be related to at least two other fundamental concepts; civilization and barbarism. If the former grants culture the dominant character, that which is interpreted as defining aspect for the human essence, the latter, via scientific study upon it, may exclude what is not proper for itself from the definition of culture. In order to have the full picture, I shall make recourse to a series of other elements of the discourses of the three concepts, which are tightly linked to each other. Barbarism is the concept which, once under scrutiny, gives contour both to culture and civilization because it can be put neither in the vicinity of culture nor civilization. When it comes to either civilization or culture, the logic does not work anymore in case the focus falls upon identifying barbarism. Here is why the present thesis has endeavored to scrutinize barbarism, its key concept role in relation to the other two terms being essential. Barbarism has a strong character in relation to the other terms and its negativity gives itself force and vitality, motion¹⁴ and charisma.

Culture, barbarism and civilization are concepts belonging to the western lore. The present research study’s conceptual approach entails this analysis outlook. Due to the fact that the proposed bibliography contains entries from the western space, or entries which are under the influence of this dominant thinking, as it is outlined from the descriptions of the below concepts, the meaning (direction) of culture and of civilization is understood via western lenses. Thus, a great deal of statements is not able to meet all the typologies of thinking. Consequently, what is expounded in this thesis is barbarism conveyed from the western outlook.

Table 1: Definitions of fundamental concepts

54616.png

2. The dialectical and phenomenological method in the analysis of barbarism

As far as culture, its connex concepts, and barbarism are concerned, there are many perspectives engaged in disclosing about them. If focus falls upon literary discourse, the freedom of speech and understanding is significantly bifurcated and there is recourse to metaphors and literary constructs meant to put forth the character and essence of the fundamental concepts. If focus falls upon scientific, philosophical discourse, the language and methods employed imply a thorough approach. The concepts of culture, barbarism and civilization, as fundamental concepts of the philosophy of culture, with implications at all material and spiritual levels of the humane, are very hard to grasp. The complexity of relating them to the human individual, and the other way round, illustrates a comprehensible space which is nearly impossible to fathom in one interpretative direction. Barbarism can be the object of study of some philosophical disciplines, such as cultural anthropology. However, as far as barbarism is concerned, one had better know that it is a specific concept to the transdisciplinary sphere of the philosophy of culture and that it can not be removed from the area of investigation of the philosophy of history, the philosophy of mentalities and of axiology. Conversely, barbarism does not only pertain to the philosophical sphere. Its aspects, acts and forms pertain, in line with a discourse characteristic to the thinking of Wilhelm Dilthey, to all the disciplines of the spirit, whether they are of philosophical nature or not, thus turning the concept into a fundamental one for the present scientific investigation.

Given that, during the first part of the discourse on barbarism, I shall approximately walk in G. W. F. Hegel’s footsteps as to what concerns Lectures on the Philosophy of History, I am indebted to also make use of the method on which the German thinker focused and portrayed in its entirety in Phenomenology of Spirit, method which provided scientific support to his argument/thesis on the universal spirit of history. On the one hand, the Hegelian dialectical method has been very useful in order to portray the relation between barbarism and the other concepts, fact which left room for further clarification on the concepts employed. On the other hand, I have made recourse to the Hegelian phenomenological method in order to add value to its (barbarism) gist and to provide one with a detailed insight into the structure of these concepts. Dialectics stresses the conceptual sphere of barbarism, phenomenology boosts its importance and, from this standpoint, I can admit as crucial the necessity of recourse to these two methods.

Hegel understands dialectics as a holistic method and, in order to clarify this, Jacqueline Russ made the following statement: „to think, doesn’t it mean maybe, first, to unify and to reflect within totality what has seemed disjoint and separate?"¹⁵ This type of dialectics can only be put to use in dealing with concepts. However, dialectics, by its own specific nature, presupposes inter-conceptual conflict and, hence, revealing concepts in motion (Aufhebung), be it in their own sphere of discourse or in the integral and all-encompassing sphere in which is manifest. Behold the true connection of dialectics with phenomenology.¹⁶ Whereas the former gives contour to the concept of barbarism, the latter is the method via which, characterized by an effervescent motion of negativity¹⁷, aspect which surfaces in the aftermath of the dialectical analysis, barbarism is rendered as phenomenon, as a negative act and not as a concept. Out of this resulting phenomenological and dialectical interconnectedness the complexity of barbarism shapes out. Thanks to the phenomenological analysis, we can no longer speak only about its theoretical level, but we must also shed light upon the instances of barbarism, as well as on those which have attributed this denomination. Whereas the dialectical analysis speaks about the concept of barbarism, the phenomenological method helps bringing barbarism to the level of the quotidian praxis theory which, as a phenomenon, is attributed an act of barbarism. From now on, the analysis of barbarism is not only a fundamental concept in the philosophy of culture but also in the historical, social, behavioral, ethical, aesthetical, religious, political, ethnical, racial sciences. In this light, the act of barbarism represents the manner of insertion and manifestation of barbarism, whereas the barbarian being the individual engrained in and guilty of the act of barbarism.

The force of barbarism lies, on the one hand, in the negative conceptual character and, on the other hand, in the motion phenomenon suggested by the act of barbarism and performed by the one we call a barbarian. Negativity is „a process of differentiation via which what has been stated is negated and alienated"¹⁸. Culture and civilization have been and will always be aligned in the sphere of the positive concepts, regardless of the consequences, effects or errors, which result from the characterizing processes, because all the social and individual actions are channeled to their confirmed specific aspects. Conversely, barbarism is on the other side of the equation, condition which requires it to fight and work¹⁹, in a negative competition, against the other concepts.

In a dialectical context of a dual nature, in our case about the discourse of the cultural ensemble, barbarism-culture and barbarism-civilization, „everything is contradictory"²⁰. That which is not culture and civilization is barbarism, that which is opposed to culture is called an act of barbarism and that individual who does not comply with the norms of civilization and, hence, acts violently, is called a barbarian. Whereas dialectics delineates main directions of approach, parameters and interpretative cadres, the phenomenality of concept sets one outside dialectical relations of barbarism and extrapolates its most diverse forms, from the most important acts of barbarism to the most representative barbarians throughout time. As a method of analysis, dialectics has an inner structure built upon thesis and antithesis. However, the phenomenological method comes to surpass this conflicting stance between affirmation and its negation, and synthesizes the analysis of barbarism by providing examples, aspects and valences. The synthesis of the barbarism research structure is called upon whenever the linking concepts, mutation and crisis, are inserted into its universe of discourse. Identifying these situations of transformation, rupture, transfiguration, deterioration, destabilization or revaluation and redefinition as cornerstone moments in a new interpretative approach, adds to the insertion of these synthesizing arguments.

Table 2: Methods used²¹

²²

Below²³, I have sketched out the general idea of this research study. The debated thesis is, generally speaking, the conceptual recovery of barbarism throughout time and, particularly speaking, involves the identification of both barbarism and barbarian acts in the most rudimentary aspects and forms which are opposed to culture and civilization. Beyond their concrete presentation, the analysis of barbarism is way too far from being complete, thus leaving room for many unidentified valences which can be observed by recourse to the chronological principle which traverses historical aeons from Antiquity to present times. Also, the unidentified valences can be observed by calling into question the spatial principle, which provides cartography through expansion, not only from the Roman Empire to the occidental Europe and the New World but also from the antique, colonial empire of the Greek polis to the contemporaneous world. By contrast (antithesis), there comes the predicament of unmasking the illusion of such an interpretation, which distinguishes an exterior barbarism, constantly roaming at the outer layers of civilization and culture, from an interior barbarism, which lies within civilization. As such, the interpretative cadre mirrors an a priori and intrinsic barbarism, which is revaluated and projected into contemporaneity via new aspects. The barbarian and their actions make the sum total of a cadre designed for the analysis of barbarism. Still, as mentioned before, barbarism is in around the clock motion, fact which hinders the overall hindsight upon it. The comprehensive, holistic picture could never be fully complete. That is why each and every interpretation does nothing else but completing the other. Presently, what we can agree on is that one should be aware of an axiological mutation. Barbarism, in terms of a global society, is not only internal to civilization itself but also part of the anatomic and genetic structure of each individual, hereditarily speaking. In this new axiological stance, acts of barbarism depict weak aspects and valences which inherit the strong character only in essence and, because exploiting errors is of focus, they have a destructive-quantitative character. Mass proliferation, contemporaneous systems of cultural, industrial, informational goods, along with multiple errors, multiculturalism and a global civilization, transform the barbarian into a constantly lurking freak of nature. The cultivated and civilized barbarian is no one else than the mutant representatives of a modern world in crisis.

Table 3: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis of discourse on barbarism²⁴

47493.png

By making recourse to these methods of analysis, I shall undertake to portray a morphology of barbarism. Lucian Blaga, in Trilogia Culturii (The Trilogy of Culture), attempted to put forth a morphology of culture itself, although his intent revolved around a systemic outlook on the Romanian cultural particularities. His work contributes to enriching the conceptual ensemble of culture. The aesthetic element in his work crystalizes around two main genuine interpretations: revealing the stylistic matrix (mould) as a fundamental scheme in understanding each cultural pattern, type and differentiating between minor and major cultures. Likewise, Oswald Spengler, in Declinul Occidentului (Decline of the West), developed a morphology of culture. The purpose of that morphology was to analyze the concept of culture, as it is understood by the western thinking, and to identify the main aspects which can lead to culture’s downfall, to succumb. In Spengler’s conception, the finitude of the western civilization does not cause moments of its disappearance and disintegration but, rather, is the result of a process. Both Blaga and Spengler are neo-Hegelians and both started their interpretative approaches based on the speculations contained in Lectures on the Philosophy of History which, before all, embodies a morphology of the historical conscience of the spirit. Barbarism is the only concept, beside civilization and culture, which has not been approached morphologically, yet.

In analyzing the concept of barbarism, there should be taken into account two major perspectives: on the one hand, it is necessary to bear in mind the manner in which the concept has been defined until now and, on the other hand, to focus upon the aspects which the contemporaneous society attributes to barbarism. This is why the structure of the thesis (direct and interpretative) takes into account two parts: the former serves as a foundation for the accomplishment of the latter.

In the first part of the thesis, I shall keep track of a succession of stages which helps circling out the valences of the barbarism acts and the specific barbarism types. My method of research has as a starting point indispensable historical data: salient moments in the antique history of barbarism. At this level, one can encounter the prime definitions and meanings of the concept. The type of history we are dealing with cumulates around the terminology limit of the expression us and others, paraphrasing the particular expression Greeks and Others, contextual parameters