Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article offers a revisited look at the classic jurisprudence of the ECtHR and CJEU concerning the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus from the perspective of the phenomenon of judicial dialogue. In this context, it aims to examine whether judicial dialogue contributes to the development of coherent jurisprudence and in consequence of effective judicial redress in cases involving unrecognised entities and individuals. It draws attention to the threats for both the international rule of law and the protection of rights of individuals resulting from inconsistencies within own jurisprudence of the respective court, as well as from lack of coherence in interpretation and application of the same rules of international law by different courts.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Anna Czaplińska
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Power distance is one of the most researched dimensions of culture in Geert Hofstede’s framework. The vast majority of scholars refer to power distance as though it were something self-evident. Despite the hundreds of studies conducted on the basis of power distance, to date no one has seriously tried to propose a reconceptualization of power distance. Against that background, this paper aims to redefine Hofstede’s concept of power distance. It focuses on formulating a sketch of the three-level concept of power distance that essentially refers to Hofstedian tradition, but is at the same time entangled in different ontological and epistemological assumptions on the social world. The proposed way of understanding power distance creates space for, among other things, a more interactionfocused study on power dynamics in various settings. It also provides the possibility of formulating completely new hypotheses concerning psychological and sociological dimensions of exercising power.
Go to article

Bibliography

1. Ailon, Galit. 2006. What B Would Otherwise Do: A Critique of Conceptualizations of ‘Power’ in Organizational Theory. Organization, 13, 6: 771–800. DOI: 10.1177/1350508406068504.
2. Ailon, Galit. 2008. Mirror, Mirror On the Wall: Culture’s Consequences in a Value Test of its Own Design. Academy of Management Review, 33, 4: 885–904. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2008.34421995.
3. Ailon, Galit. 2009. A Reply to Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Review, 34, 3: 571–573. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.40633815.
4. Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.
5. Baskerville, Rachel F. 2003. Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 1: 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4.
6. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, André van Hoorn. 2015. Are Scores on Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Stable Over Time? Global Strategy Journal, 5, 3: 223–240. DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1098.
7. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Tatiana Kostova, Kendall Roth. 2017. An Overview of Hofstede–inspired Country Level Culture Research in International Business Since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies. 48, 1: 30–47. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8.
8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7, 1: 14–25. DOI: 10.2307/202060.
9. Brewer, Paul, Sunil Venaik. 2014. The Ecological Fallacy in National Culture Research. Organization Studies, 35, 7: 1063–1086. DOI: 10.1177/0170840613517602.
10. Brockner, Joel T. et al. 2001. Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 4: 300–315. DOI: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1451.
11. Chiang, Fiona. 2005. A Critical Examination of Hofstede’s Thesis and its Application to International Reward Management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 9: 1545–1563. DOI: 10.1080/09585190500239044.
12. Dahl, Robert A. 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2, 3: 201–215. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830020303.
13. Devinney, Timothy M., Jan Hohberger. 2017. The Past is Prologue: Moving on from Culture’s Consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 1: 48–62. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-016-0034-z
14. Dorfman, Peter W., Jon P. Howell. 1988. Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127–150.
15. Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. London and New York: Routledge.
16. Dudek, Michał, Mateusz Stępień. 2021. Courtroom Power Distance Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer. (forthcoming).
17. Earley, P. Christopher, Miriam Erez. 1997. The Transplanted Executive: Why You Need to Understand How Workers in Other Countries See the World Differently. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Fang, Tony. 2005. From “Onion” to “Ocean”. Paradox and Change in National Cultures. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35, 4: 71–90. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2005.11043743.
19. Forst, Rainer. 2017. Normativity and Power. Analyzing Social Orders of Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Foucault, Michel. 1981. Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of “Political Reason”. In: S.M. McMurrin, ed. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223–254.
21. Ghosh, Apoorva. 2011. Power Distance in Organizational Contexts – A Review of Collectivist Cultures. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47, 1: 89–101.
22. Guinote, Ana. 2010. The Situated Focus Theory of Power. In: A. Guinote. T.K Vescio, eds. The Social Psychology of Power. New York: The Guilford Press, 141–173.
23. Habermas, Jurgen. 1977. Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power. Social Research, 44, 1: 3–24.
24. Haugaard, Mark, ed. 2002. Power: A Reader. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
25. Hayward, Clarissa Rile. 2004. De–Facing Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Hofstede, Geert. 2002. Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55, 11: 1355–1361. DOI: 10.1177/00187267025511004.
28. Hofstede, Geert. 2003. What is Culture? A Reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28: 811–813. DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00018-7.
29. Hofstede, Geert. 2006. What Did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Minds Versus Respondents’ Minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 6: 882–896. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400233.
30. Hofstede, Geert. 2009. Who Is the Fairest of Them All? Galit Ailon’s Mirror. Academy of Management Review, 34, 3: 570–571. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.40633746.
31. Hofstede, Geert, Gert J. Hofstede, Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
32. Kirkman, Bradley L., Kevin B. Lowe, Cristina B. Gibson. 2006. A Quarter Century of Culture’s Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede’s Cultural Value Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 285–320. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202.
33. Kirkman, Bradley L. et al. 2009. Individual Power Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: A Cross–level, Cross–cultural Examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 744–764. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669971.
34. Kwek, Dennis. 2003. Decolonizing and Re–presenting Culture’s Consequences: A Postcolonial Critique of Cross–cultural Studies in Management. In: A. Prasad, ed. Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 121–146.
35. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network–Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Luhmann, Niklas. 2017. Trust and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37. Ly, Annelise. 2013. A Critical Discussion of Hofstede’s Concept of Power Distance, SYNAPS, 28: 51–66.
38. Markus, Thomas A. 1993. Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. London and New York: Routledge.
39. Maznevski, Martha L. et al. 2002. Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The Cultural Orientations Framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 3: 275–295. DOI: 10.1177/147059580223001.
40. McSweeney, Brendan. 2002a. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55, 1: 89–118. DOI: 10.1177/0018726702551004.
41. McSweeney, Brendan. 2002b. The Essentials of Scholarship: A Reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55, 11: 1363–1372. DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055011922.
42. McSweeney, Brendan. 2009. Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries. Organization Studies, 30, 9: 933–957. DOI: 10.1177/0170840609338983.
43. McSweeney, Brendan, Donna Brown, Stravroula Iliopoulou. 2016. Claiming Too Much, Delivering Too Little: Testing Some of Hofstede’s Generalisations. The Irish Journal of Management, 35, 1: 34–57. DOI: 10.1515/ijm-2016-0003.
44. Minkov, Michael, Geert Hofstede. 2011. The Evolution of Hofstede’s Doctrine. Cross Cultural Management, 18, 1: 10–20. DOI: 10.1108/13527601111104269.
45. Minkov, Michael. 2018. A Revision of Hofstede’s Model of National Culture: Old Evidence and New Data From 56 Countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25: 231–256. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033.
46. Morriss, Peter. 2002. Power: A Philosophical Analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
47. Moulettes, Agneta. 2007. The Absence of Women’s Voices in Hofstede’s Cultural Consequences. Women in Management Review, 22, 6: 443–455. DOI: 10.1108/09649420710778682.
48. Mulder, Mauk. 1977. Daily Power Game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Nakata, Cheryl, ed. 2009. Beyond Hofstede: Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49. Pałecki, Krzysztof. 2003. Wprowadzenie do normatywnej teorii władzy politycznej [Introduction to Normativity–centered Theory of Political Power]. In: B. Szmulik, M. Żmigrodzki, eds. Wprowadzenie do nauki o państwie i polityce [ Introduction to the Science on State and Politics], 183–217. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
50. Pałecki, Krzysztof. 2016. Wprowadzenie do dyskusji nad koncepcją opozycji politycznej [Introduction to the debate on the concept of political opposition]. Polityka i Społeczeństwo, 14, 1: 5–11. DOI: 10.15584/polispol.2016.1.1.
51. Parsons, Talcott. 1957. The Distribution of Power in American Society. World Politics, 10, 1: 123–143. DOI: 10.2307/2009229.
52. Parsons, Talcott. 1963. On the Concept of Political Power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107, 3: 232–262.
53. Paulus, Trena M. et al. 2005. Power Distance and Group Dynamics of an International Project Team: A Case Study. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 1: 43–55. DOI: 10.1080/1356251052000305525.
54. Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2016. Catching Up with Things? Environmental Sociology and the Material Turn in Social Theory. Environmental Sociology, 2, 4: 312–321. DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2016.1190490.
55. Phillips, Tim. 2018. The Concepts of Asymmetric and Symmetric Power Can Help Resolve the Puzzle of Altruistic and Cooperative Behaviour. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 93, 1: 457–468. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12352.
56. Rapoport, Amos. 1990. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
57. Romm, Norma R.A., Cheng–Yi Hsu. 2002. Reconsidering the Exploration of Power Distance: An Active Case Study Approach. Omega, 30: 403–414. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00060-9.
58. Spector Paul E., Cary L. Cooper, Kate Sparks. 2001. An International Study of the Psychometric Properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A Comparison of Individual and Country/Province Level Results. Applied Psychology, 50, 2: 269–281. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00058.
59. Sztompka, Piotr. 2019. O pojęciu kultury raz jeszcze [On the Concept of Culture Once Again]. Studia Socjologiczne, 1: 7–23. DOI: 10.24425/ 122488.
60. Taras, Vas, Bradley L. Kirkman, Piers Steel. 2010. Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences: A Three–decade, Multilevel, Meta–analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 5: 405–439. DOI: 10.1037/a0018938.
61. Todeva, Emanuela. 1999. Models for Comparative Analysis of Culture: The Case of Poland. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 4: 606–623. DOI: 10.1080/095851999340297.
62. Triandis, Harry C. 1993. Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes. Cross–Cultural Research, 27, 3–4: 155–180. DOI: 10.1177/106939719302700301.
63. Tung, Rosaline L., Alain Verbeke. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the Quality of Cross Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1259–1274. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2010.41.
64. Tyler, Tom R., E. Allan Lind, Yuen J. Huo. 2000. Cultural Values and Authority Relations: The Psychology of Conflict Resolution Across Cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6: 1138–1163. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.1138.
65. van den Bos, Kees et al. 2013. Delineating a Method to Study Cross-cultural Differences with Experimental Control: The Voice Effect and Countercultural Contexts Regarding Power Distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 4: 624–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.005.
66. Venkateswaran, Ramya T., Abhoy K. Ojha. 2019. Abandon Hofstede–based Research? Not Yet! A Perspective From the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Asia Pacific Business Review, 25, 3: 413–434. DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2019.1584487.
67. Venaik, Sunil, Paul Brewer. 2016. National Culture Dimensions: The Perpetuation of Cultural Ignorance. Management Learning, 47, 5: 563–589. DOI: 10.1177/1350507616629356.
68. Warf, Barney, Santa Arias, eds. 2014. The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
69. Zhang, Yi, Thomas M. Begley. 2011. Power Distance and Its Moderating Impact on Empowerment and Team Participation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 3601–3617. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.560877.
70. Zimmerling, Ruth. 2005. Influence and Power: Variations on a Messy Theme. Dordrecht: Springer.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mateusz Stępień
1
ORCID: ORCID
Michał Dudek
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This reading of Jerzy Stempowski’s essay ‘Rubis d’Orient’ (published in 1954 under the pseudonym Paweł Hostowiec) is based on the assumption that his work can be divided into two phases, the Appolonian and the Dionysian. While the essay ‘In the Dniester river valley’, with its idealized world of a timeless idyll, seems to be the most salient manifestation of the Appolonian phase, ‘Rubis d’Orient’ marks Stempowski’s turn towards temporality and historical time. The intrusion of tragedy and Dionysian motifs is accompanied by a change of style and structure, increasingly complex and metaphoric. This transition, the article argues, is nowhere clearer than in ‘Rubis d’Orient’, which, moreover, reads like an art manifesto. This, in turn, puts Stempowski's subsequent essays and his catastrophist views in a new perspective.
Go to article

Bibliography

●Bollon P., Cioran, l’hérétique, Paris 1997.
●Braudel F., Morze Śródziemne i świat śródziemnomorski w epoce Filipa II, t. 1–2, przeł. t. 1: T. Mrówczyński i M. Ochab, t. 2: M. Król i M. Kwiecińska, Gdańsk, 1976–1977 (oryginał francuski La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II ukazał się w r. 1949).
●Cioran E.M., Syllogismes de l‘amertume, Paris 1952.
●Cioran E.M., Sylogizmy goryczy, przeł. Kania, Warszawa 2009.
●Crilot J.E., Słownik symboli, przeł. I. Kania, Kraków 2000.
●Freise M., Epitafium Rzymowi, [w:] tenże, Czesław Miłosz i historyczność kultury, Kraków 2016, s. 233–274.
●Grochowska M., W czasach szaleństwa. Hertz – Fiłozofow — Stempowski — Moltke. Z posłowiem Anny Wolff-Powęskiej, Warszawa 2019.
●Hansen-Löve A.A., Eine Ästhetik der Kalyptik. Apollinische Motive bei Vladimir Nabokov, [w]: Gedächtnis und Phantasma. Festschrift für Renate Lachmann [Die Welt der Slaven. Sammelbände, Bd. 13], red. S. Frank, E. Greber i inni, München 2001.
●Hansen-Löve A.A., Der russische Symbolismus. System und Entfaltung der poetischen Motive, Band 3, Wien 2014.
●Hansen-Löve A.A., Entfaltungen der Gewebemetapher. Mandel’štam-Texturen, [w:] Anschaulichkeit (bildlich), O. Egger, Der Prokurist, 16/17, Wien–Lana 1999, s. 71–152.
●Iwaszkiewicz J., Spotkania z Szymanowskim, Kraków 1976.
●Karpiński W., Książki zbójeckie, Warszawa 1996, s. 49–58 (pierwsze wydanie ukazało się w 1988 r.).
●Kieniewicz J., „Intermarium” po latach, [w:] tenże, Spotkania Wschodu, Gdańsk 1999, s. 194–220.
●Korek J., Paradoksy paryskiej „Kultury”. Ewolucja myśli politycznej w latach 1947–1980, Stockholm 1998.
●Kotarska J., „On karbunkułem świetnym i ognistym”. W kręgu metaforyki szlachetnych kamieni, „Ruch Literacki” 4 (1997), s. 537–550.
●Krakowiak M., „Historia zerwana z łańcucha”, czyli katastrofizm Jerzego Stempowskiego, „Ruch Literacki” 1–2 (1994), s. 45–58.
●Lachmann R., Gedächtnis und Literatur. Intertextualitä in der russischen Moderne, Frankfurt am Main 1990.
●Lachmann R., Rhetorik und acumen-Lehre als Beschreibung poetischer Verfahren. Zu Sarbiewskis Traktat De acuto et arguto von 1627, [w:] Slavistische Studien zum VII. Internationalen Slavistenkongress in Warschau, München 1973, red. J. Holthusen i inni, s. 331–357.
●Mandelsztam O., Słowo i kultura. Szkice literackie, wybór i tłum. R. Przybylski, Warszawa 1972.
●Nasiłowska A., Klasycyzm [w:] Słownik literatury polskiej XX wieku, A. Brodzka i inni, Wrocław 1992, s. 453–460.
●Nietzsche F., Narodziny tragedii z ducha muzyki, [w:] tenże, Narodziny tragedii, czyli hellenizm i pesymizm, przeł. Leopold Staff, Warszawa 1907 (niem. oryginał Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik ukazał się po raz pierwszy w r. 1871).
●Schumann W., Edelsteine und Schmucksteine. Alle Arten und Varietäen der Welt. 1600 Einzelstücke, München 2002.
●Sieroń-Galusek D., Moment osobisty: Stempowski, Czapski, Miłosz, Katowice 2013.
●Sedmidubský M., Das Idyllische im Spannungsfeld zwischen Kultur und Natur: Božena Němcovas Babička, [w:] A. Guski, Zur Poetik und Rezeption von Božena Němcovas Babička, Berlin 1991, s. 27–79.
●Starobinski J., Montaigne en Mouvement, Paris 1982.
●Vincenz A., Helikon sarmacki. Wątki i tematy polskiej poezji barokowej, Wrocław 1989.
●Wohlfart G., Narodziny tragedii Nietzschego, przeł. z języka angielskiego A. Przybysławski, „Sztuka i filozofia” 15 (1998), s. 45–57.
●Zemła M., Der ‘polnische Essay’ und seine kulturmodellierende Funktion. Jerzy Stempowski i Czesław Miłosz, München 2009.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Małgorzata Zemła
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Ludwig–Maximilians–Universität, München

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more