ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 22 · 2012 · 2 603 Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach, Gita Dharampal-Frick, Minou Friele (ur.): DIE INTERKULTURALITÄTSDEBATTE – LEIT- UND STREITBEGRIFFE. INTERCULTURAL DISCOURSE – KEY AND CONTESTED CONCEPTS. Freiburg – München, Verlag Karl Alber, 2012, str. There is a common prejudice among many profes- sional philosophers that there is no genuine place secu- red for an intercultural philosophy within the philosophy departments and their respective curricula. Although we can observe many positive changes taking place in the last decades, there still is no major philosopher of an in- tercultural orientation admitted to the core of the We- stern philosophical canon. Intercultural philosophy is still claimed, as it were, to be a more or less distant cousin of philosophy, being its relative but still not really being a part of the ‘family’ as such. There are many reasons for those prejudices; the book, a bilingual German-English compendium Die Interkulturalitätsdebatte – Leit- und Streitbegriffe. Intercultural Discourse – Key and Conte- sted Concepts, is a valuable contribution to one of most pressing issues of today’s world – i.e. an interdisciplinary field of intercultural studies. There was undeniably a shift that took place in the philosophy of the late 20th century, a new conscience, aiming at something different from or larger than the prevalent monocultural Western philosophical tradition. Schopenhauer, of course, was the first philosopher to se- riously attempt to incorporate Indian philosophy into his philosophical system. Later on, his follower Paul Deus- sen had for the very first time systematically presented his contemporaries with the new concept of philosophical historiography in his Allgemeine Geschichte der Philo- sophie (1894–1917). Paul Masson-Oursel (with his La phi- losophie comparée in 1923) invented comparative philo- sophy; later, the first serious attempts were to be made in social anthropology to study indigenous cultures. African philosophy is a result of this adventure. Religious scien- ce has also tended to followed this trend: it was William Cantwell Smith (1916–2000), one of the major compa- rative religion scholars of the 20th century, who inven- ted a new pluralist, non-exclusivist theology of religions, aspiring at deeper understanding of different religious traditions and cultures.1 Within the philosophical traditi- on, Dewey (in 1952) and Merleau-Ponty (in 1956) were among the first to pledge themselves to a new compa- rative or intercultural era.2 Among key Western thinkers both Heidegger (Unterwegs zur Sprache and Brief über Humanismus) as well as Derrida (L’autre cap) were both aware of the emergence of a new intercultural era. Final- ly, Luce Irigaray, with Between East and West (orig. Entre Orient et Occident, 1999), and many other works, sur- passed the Western monocultural and monosubjective (masculine) culture – and it is in her thought that inter- subjectivity finally meets with interculturality and rescues philosophy from the long oblivion of its two formative but forgotten and supressed traits. If there exists a truly dia- logic philosophy, respectful of difference(s), it is a thinking, whose character is both intercultural and intersubjective. Die Interkulturalitätsdebatte – Leit- und Streitbegrif- fe builds on this history and awareness and presents us with a variety of topics in a form of a compendium, brin- ging to the fore the very complicity and importance of the interculturality debate. In an era, designated by Rorty with the epithet “hybridization of cultures”3 and its essential trait, the obsoleteness of cultural differences, it is inde- ed very important to discuss the variety of concepts that are pertinent to contemporary debates, which relate to cultural differences as well as their various overlappings. Some of the entries in this book, namely “Cultural Hy- bridity” (by Jan Nederween Pieterse) or “Transkulturalität” (by Wolfgang Welsch) are directly linked to this question. The book is organized into six units, bringing to the fore various approaches – from methodological and personal to collective and finally political (public sphere) and eco- nomic issues. In this endeavour the book itself already transgresses (intentionally, as it seems to me...) the very OCENE / RECENSIONI / REVIEWS, 603˗607 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 22 · 2012 · 2 604 ‘concept’ of interculturality. Few entries are maybe even closer to the bioethics rather than to the interculturality debate, and few entries could easily be omitted (“Gene- rationengerechtigkeit” or “Civil Society”, for example), of replaced with some others. Some entries (“Terrorism”) would (for propedeutical reasons) perhaps better fit into a slightly different style of a compendium. Some of the topics would equally or even better work within a simi- lar collection on human rights (“Migration Control” and “Humanitarian Intervention”, for example). But this are only side observations. Let us look more closely into the book. Heinz Kimmerle once said that there is a deep affinity between philosophies of difference (Heidegger, Adorno, Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida, Irigaray, Kristeva) and intercul- tural philosophy.4 It is a stunning failure of Western tra- dition (or its academia) to thus, still not be able to fully recognise and affirm this fact and translate it into a kind of dialogic and intercultural (including political) thinking of and for our age. The editors of Die Interkulturalität- sdebatte – Leit- und Streitbegriffe (Monika Kirloskar- -Steinbach, Gita Dharampal-Frick and Minou Friele) are fully aware of this lacuna and in their introduction pledge themselves to take a different approach – especially wi- thin the philosophical field. For various reasons – as this book also shows – there already exists a kind of inherent methodological ‘consensus’ within the various fields of the humanities (in history and linguistics, for example) as well as social anthropology (ethnology), or even politi- cal science and sociology, that interculturality must form a part of any research into, say, ‘man and society’. Ram Adhar Mall, one of the most influential intercultural philo- sophers, is thus rightly placed at the head of this large and substantial compendium. In his analysis, Mall (“Zur Hermeneutik Interkultu- reller Philosophie”) warns against a monological way of philosophising and pledges a new hermeneutics of overlapping, a thought being in the vicinity of what J. Ra- wls suggested with his ‘overlapping consensus’. In this Mall diverges from Habermas and pledges for a ‘weak’ form of discursive consentialism, being respectful of difference(s) and critical of any (internal) rationalistic or aprioristic tendencies. With Georg Stenger (‘Differenz: Unterscheidungen, Differenzierungen, Dimensisonen’) we step into what was already mentioned as one of the key concepts for contemporary intercultural debate: the difference. Stenger is also aware – and I would like to put this thought into the forefront of my observations – that interculturality can only work in an atmosphere of inter- subjectivity. Lévinas is mentioned but perhaps this topic deserves a special chapter (entry); namely Stenger, who rightly observes that what is meant here is “ein Erfahrun- gsdenken, das sich zwischen die großen Pflöcke von Rationalität und Empirie schiebt, oder besser vor deren Trennung statthat” (p. 50). Later in his chapter, “vorinten- tionalen und vorprädikativen Felder sinnlich-leiblicher Genesis” (p. 52) are mentioned. This inter- and/or intra- subjective dimension is indeed very important for the in- terculturality debate. If there is a way toward ‘weak’ con- sensus or an ‘analogical’ hermeneutics it is precisely here that it could be found. In “Authenzität” Heinz Kimmerle critically discusses and reconceptualises one of the key Western concepts of the 20th century, having huge influ- ence on the entire philosophical tradition. With examples from African philosophy (and Buddhism) Kimmerle reori- ents and deconstructs the so called ‘authenticity’ debate (author/ity, person/ality, etc.) and proposes a genuine shift towards a new, interculturally-underpinned version of authenticity, now being thought of as a plurality of its dif- ferent (concrete, historico-cultural) forms. At this point, the book’s initial philosophical focus somehow (and too ear- ly?) merges with other – i.e. more transdiciplinary appro- aches. My criticism of Andreas Niederberger’s “Hetero- nomie” entry is related to his criticism of some attempts (ethics of care, or Lévinas’ philosophy) that are somehow artificially labelled with a “natural fallacy” etiquette. This is a pity indeed, since, as already said, it is precisely in those attempts, being also sensitive to what Stenger righ- tly observed as being a certain beyond of both empirical and transcendental approaches, that a new intercultural awareness could also emerge or secure its place. Me- ta-ethical approaches, in my opinion, are here obsole- te. Also in the light of an importance of heteronomy in language (earlier in Niederberger’s entry) there perhaps is a possibility also for the analogous idea working in the ethical sphere (and not necessarily limited only to certain aspects of psychological research, as mentioned by the author). In her idiosyncratic and in a way ‘radical’ appro- ach to the “Subjectivity” entry, Asha Varadhvajan focuses on many inherent layers of this perhaps most contested concept of Western philosophy (“the self, identity, body, sexuality, and mind”; p. 112). Richard Evanoff’s “Integrati- on” brings us a very important observation: it is close to what Rorty once called ‘edification’ (I deliberately refer to this word to point to the hidden ‘educational’ charac- ter of many of the entries in this compendium, which is perhaps a bit neglected) In an integrative context it is the process of being able (again, with Rorty we might refer to his ‘vocabularies’) to experience and acquire a “greater intercultural sensitivity” (p. 139) for other cultures, cultural norms or simply differences. Then it was a good editorial decision to ask an Indian scholar to write about “Multi- culturalism” (Rajeev Bhargava). As one of the mostly dis- puted concepts in today’s Europe, as showed in this entry, this analysis realistically shows the genuine perplexity of this ‘concept’ by distinguishing between its many forms. In Christoph Antweller’s “Universalismus und Kultur-Uni- versalien” I find an important observation – perhaps one that, again, would deserve a special entry in this compen- dium –namely that, if there is a place where ‘universalism’ and different cultures meet, it is in human suffering, be- ing “unmittelbar und sinnenhaft” (p. 192). Such a thought OCENE / RECENSIONI / REVIEWS, 603˗607 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 22 · 2012 · 2 605 could have huge potential for social ethics and political philosophy, as both are strongly represented in this com- pendium. Due to the character of the book it is clear that some of the other entries cannot fully represent some of the to- pics. For a book that interestingly combines encyclopae- dic and monographic styles, this is not a disadvantage. For the entries such as “Solidarity”, “Cosmopolitanism” etc. this would indeed be impossible. Still, one would expect more focused approach there. “Moral Imperialism” (by Brett Bowden) is perhaps also a victim of the above-men- tioned combination (or compendium style), especially in view of its short and uncritical account of the so called ‘Asian values’; or, on the other hand, of extremely sensi- tive topics such as genital mutilation/circumcision which certainly require more space and context as attributed/ allowed in the respective chapter. This book will contribute many new insights into what the editors have called “intercultural discourse”. It is a critical, inter- and transdisciplinary concept which indeed could be of benefit to the “intellectual self-understanding of society in general” (p. 27, “Introduction”). I strongly be- lieve philosophy should not resist this goal too early. As the editors propose, the volume “attempts to bring into philosophical focus central problems and topics of inter- cultural salience” (p. 26, “Introduction”). For that purpose, topics such as the body,5 intersubjectivity (Irigaray), (trans) modernity (Dussel), globalisation(s) and contemporary Critical Theory,6 different cosmopolitanisms, and many other approaches, should remain a part of a genuine and devoted philosophical adventure. Lenart Škof Ksenija Vidmar Horvat (ur.): VLOGA MNOŽIČNIH MEDIJEV PRI OBLIKOVANJU SLOVENSKE EVROPSKE ZAVESTI: KRITIČNE PERSPEKTIVE. Ljubljana, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2012, 286 str. Urednica pričujočega zbornika dr. Ksenija Vidmar Horvat v predgovoru »Evropska zavest, nacionalna iden- titeta« spomni in opozori bralstvo, da evropejstvo in evropska identiteta nikoli v zgodovini nista bili pomen- sko zaprti in do kraja opredeljeni entiteti, čeprav se da- nes, v iskanju evropskih 'korenin' in posebnosti evrop- ske kulture in civilizacije, pogosto opira prav na takšne, mitološke predstave. Nasprotno, Evrop je bilo od nekdaj več, poudarja, konstituirale pa so se glede na raznovr- stne družbene, kulturne in institucionalne kontekste, v katerih se je sklicevalo na kolektivno nadnacionalno in/ ali civilizacijsko pripadnost. In dalje, če je torej multiplost in pretočnost pomena Evrope transzgodovinsko dejstvo, pa sodobni procesi združevanja, globalne mobilnosti in kozmopolitizacije zavesti tej nedoločljivosti dodajajo novo zgodovinsko razsežnost. Potemtakem evropejstvo, naj ga pojmujemo kot kulturno fikcijo ali dejansko v re- snici delujoče polje identifikacijskih povezav, skupnega kulturnega pripadanja in demokratičnega državljanstva, predstavlja pomemben vidik oblikovanja nacionalnih in lokalnih kolektivnih identitet. Nacionalne skupnosti so torej vpoklicane v evropski projekt z namenom ustvariti medsebojno spodbujajočo dinamiko razvoja nacionalnih in transnacionalnih identitet, ki bi prispevala h kreativne- mu zagonu novega prostora evropske družbe. Šele s ta- kšnim prežemanjem nacionalnega in transnacionalnega bi Evropa vstopila na oder globalnega sodelovanja kot akter, ki bi, vsaj po prepričanju uradnih ustanov EU, po- novno pridobil moč in pomen, ki sta mu bila odvzeta s koncem imperialne in kolonialne zgodovine. Zbornik, ki ga imamo pred seboj, se vpisuje v polje preučevanja oblikovanja nacionalne in nadnacionalne zavesti, pri čemer se osredotoči na vlogo medijev pri tej konstrukciji – medijev kot tistih, ki so po B. Andersonu nujni za oblikovanje nacionalne identitete, vprašanje pa je, ali se podoben model preslikava tudi na nadnacional- no raven. Delo izhaja iz znanstvenega izhodišča, da je kultura ključno polje oblikovanja evropejstva, ki bo do- dala skupno identiteto gospodarsko in politično poveza- ni skupnosti. Kulturna raznolikost držav članic Evropske unije je namreč hkrati njeno vezivo in temelj politične participacije, skupna kulturna politika pa predstavlja pri- ložnost za demokratično politiko, ki krepi, razvija in širi prostor evropske javne sfere in sfere javnosti držav članic. Izbor prispevkov opredeljuje pojem slovenska evropska zavest in ga postavlja v konceptualno razlikovalni odnos do evropske identitete. Avtorji in avtorice se sprašujejo, kakšno vlogo pri izgradnji nadnacionalne identitete igrajo mediji – kje in kako se v medijih oblikuje Evropa, kakšna je njena identiteta in kdo jo izreka. Ugotavljajo, da se na- cionalna in evropska identiteta med seboj ne izključujeta, pač pa ena drugi predstavljata orientacijsko točko in de- lujeta hkrati. Zbornik si postavlja vprašanja o vlogi mno- žičnih medijev pri sooblikovanju evropskega prostora de- mokratičnega, participatornega in aktivnega državljanstva in odgovarja, da le participatorno aktivno vzpostavljanje evropskega prostora lahko zagotovi oblikovanje evrop- ske zavesti, ki bo svojo moč in energijo črpala iz zave- danja o skupnih političnih vrednotah pravičnosti, enakosti, solidarnosti in demokratične odprtosti za kulturne razlike. Glavnina razprav, objavljenih v tej knjigi, je nastala v okviru raziskovalnega projekta »Vloga množičnih medi- jev pri oblikovanju slovenske evropske zavesti«, ki je v partnerstvu z Inštitutom za civilizacijo in kulturo potekal pod vodstvom prof. Ksenije Vidmar Horvat na Oddelku za sociologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani med leto- ma 2008 in 2011. Knjiga je razdeljena v tri dele. V prvem OCENE / RECENSIONI / REVIEWS, 603˗607