), theologians (Joseph Ratzinger, Jorge M. Bergoglio), and cultural anthropologists (Hent de Vries, Tomoko Mazuzawa). It seems to me that with the introduction of the concept of postsecularism by Jurgen Habermas, we gain a new analytical tool to interpret the present human condition. As we will see, the traditional categories such as secularization and desecularization, privatization and deprivatization, return of religion or politicization of religion are not anymore adequate to describe the new position of religion in public sphere and its relation to secular reality. In a
multidisciplinary tools for interpreting the current picture. I use the Czech Republic as an example, since both Western and Eastern European paradigms of the coexistence of secularization, post-secularization and re-composition of religion can be found there. My particular question remains as to how the rising emphasis on spirituality is compatible with the inability to offer a common and effective response to the situations of crisis in society. I also ask what can be done about the underplayed dimensions of religion, ones that could aid us in taking the changes seriously
Platonism for the 20th century ( Dalferth 2012 , 181). The Egyptologist Jan Assmann describes it as a sympathetic theory but admits that although many of the analytical tools are helpful, he does not really believe in this myth of a global philosophical and religious turn: “In my view, the stress on the alleged and in many cases undeniable synchronicity of Axial moves has led to an unnecessary mystification of the historical evidence” ( Assmann 2012 , 398).
Two of the key notions emerging in the period of the Axial Age are the concept of transcendence and the concept
dialog impossible. These are probably the main reasons why linguistic violence and manipulation have ceased to be the exclusive domain of political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists. They have become an increasingly examined topic in linguistics, a science that has the methodological tools for critical text analysis and allows for a better understanding and uncovering of mechanisms of language manipulation to demystify and demythologize social and political discourse ( van Dijk 2008 ; Dubrovskiy 2003 ; Dzyaloshinskiy 2006 ; Kara-Murza 2000 ; Petrova
for the end of the “communist dictatorship,” is considered as the dawn of his political career ( Kovacs 2014 ). Therefore, ever since the rightwing party came to power for the second time in 2010, Fidesz has devoted particular concern as well as economic resources to implementing its own specific vision of history.
In order to fully comprehend the government’s politics of memory, the latter must be considered as a full-blown tool of political action. The ultimate goal here is to present Fidesz as the best legitimate political actor that can restore Hungary
principles of democracy, the opposition did not manage to unite and present a single contender capable of standing against the powerful leader of the ruling party. Instead of focusing on facts, during the campaign, the candidates frequently reached for tools involving symbolic messages intended to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, drawn from national culture or history.
Each nation has a catalog of famous characters to which people constantly refer. They include both the heroes and the traitors of the nation – the models fit to be emulated or condemned. During the
cognitive frames are using the concepts of nationality and ethnicity, more specifically, how these social facts are constructed and eroded in response to mass media and the process of political securitization ( Obershall 2000 , 983).
The concept of cognitive frame is a tool that helps to make sense of the world. As introduced by Goffman, the meaning of frames has implicit cultural roots but it is regarded as primary and taken for granted by users. Individuals are capable users of this social frame, irrespective of whether they are aware of them or not ( Goffman 1974
the notion of diplomacy with the state, we can distinguish several of its basic meanings.
In academic sources, as well as in diplomatic practice, the word “diplomacy” is most commonly understood as the tool or process for the promotion of a state’s foreign policy interests through negotiation or other nonviolent means (with the exception of the means of international law). Methods of international law, including, e.g., solving of disputes before an international court, are – as a rule – considered a separate tool of performance of the state’s foreign policy. For
into claims of the national wholes, but it did not contradict them. The boundaries between the identities of one language circuit and the other were blurred and, in the cultural sense, they did not seem to compete. Thus, the initial illusory concept of nationalism was broadened as a tool for positive integration of the individual ethnic groups, which does not complicate, and which facilitates, the process of general fraternization.
The combination of idealistic notions integrating language and constitutional identity was maturing in its speculative, yet politicized
necessary – for any social group, such as ethnic, cultural or religious group. It provides basic hermeneutical tools for understanding the world and ourselves. An epistemic framework is also a hermeneutical resource for individuals to interpret and respond to new situations.
According to Bhargava, epistemic injustice means that “concepts and categories” providing self-understanding and orientation are replaced or marginalized by a dominant power, in his case the colonizer. It was, Bhargava wrote, “... important/for the colonizer/to conquer not only the land and goods of