Changing Societies & Personalities, 2018
Vol. 2, No. 1

http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2018.2.1.026

EDITORIAL

The current issue includes papers, which analyze the roots of transformations 
in various spheres: in the art of dance in the 20th and 21st centuries; in mass 
attitudes in the Nordic countries; in the model of management in China; and in 
the perception of the canonical philosophical texts.

In the paper Philosophical Pursuits in Dance Practice of the 21st Century: 
Body Concepts, Maria Kozeva & Galina Brandt stress that each time has its own 
dance culture with its own content, form, and ascribed meaning, and explore 
transformations in the art of dance in the 20th century in parallels with the 
philosophy of body. They explain the shifts in the form and content of the dance 
as radical change in understanding of the dancing body itself. The authors refer 
to the theories of prominent philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, 
Maurice Merleau‑Ponty, Gilles Deleuze, Jean Baudrillard, and Michel Foucault 
who radically changed philosophical discourses concerning the nature of the 
body, conceiving it “as a dynamic existential unit participating in a socio‑cultural 
context and subject to various influences and interactions”. Kozeva and Brandt 
argues that in modern dance originated in the USA the body is neither an ideal 
image for the expression of abstract humanistic ideas, “but rather that of a real 
person living in modern reality, trying to understand, define and express itself 
within this reality”. The authors observe several radical reforms in the art of 
dance in the 20th century, and conclude that today dance provides a body the 
freedom to express itself in every possible way.

Olga Iakimova in the paper Exploring the Dynamics of Xenophobia in the 
Nordic Countries notes that since the 1990s, xenophobic, deeply conservative, 
and extreme right‑wing political movements have emerged as increasingly 
strong electoral forces in much of Europe. At the same time, the Nordic countries 
have a long reputation of the most tolerant countries in the world. Nevertheless, 
recently, xenophobic and anti‑European parties has won a large share of the 
vote. At the same time, immigrants are widely perceived as an “outgroup”. 
Iakimova stresses that today xenophobia departs from the behavioral norms 
of civilized society, in which people are expected to relate with one another 
with respect and dignity, and raises a question: “Why do people engage in 
xenophobic behavior even in the world’s richest countries in times largely free 
of armed conflicts, natural disasters and poverty?” In the search for an answer, 
she observes various theories, which provide interpretations of xenophobia, 

Published online 3 April 2018 © 2018 Elena Stepanova
stepanova.elena.a@gmail.com



5Changing Societies & Personalities, 2018       Vol. 2, No. 1

explains the reasons to prefer the particular theory, and checks its relevance to the 
analysis of the roots of xenophobia in Nordic countries.

Larisa Piskunova & Lu Jia Jin in Confucianism as the Axiological Basis for 
China’s Management Model reflect on the problem of organisational culture 
paying special attention to its socio‑cultural and national factors. They explore 
the influence of Confucian and Neo‑Confucian ideals and values as the basis of 
the Chinese intellectual tradition, practice of thought, and behavioural patterns 
over management models in contemporary China, and point out that “Chinese 
and Western management theorists actively explore the specificity of China’s 
management model in terms of its spiritual foundations, social order and traditional 
economic life”. The authors present the interpretation of the ethical‑philosophical 
foundation of Confucianism, and analyze its role in the formation of the Chinese 
management model.

The main concern of Aireen Grace T. Andal in her paper Decanonized Reading: 
Intellectual Humility and Mindfulness in Reading Canonical Philosophical Writings 
is the canonization of philosophical thinkers (mostly Western ones), their ideologies, 
and texts. Such concern causes her to raise a question: “How should readers from 
different backgrounds renegotiate and locate their own identities relative to those of 
the canonical texts?” She means also that the readers and scholars of those texts 
should keep skeptical view on them. The author stresses that the understanding of 
culture, values, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, disability, colonial peripheries, etc. 
presented in canonical texts should not be taken for granted but “are highly in need 
of reexamination”. From the author point of view, the non‑Western philosophical 
texts should not be dismissed from the curriculum of the departments of philosophy. 
At the same time, as the problem cannot be solved by simply adding more texts, the 
author presents her own vision on what and why is to be done using examples from 
various universities’ curriculum.

In the Book Review section, the critical observation of the book Religious 
Complexity in the Public Sphere: Comparing Nordic Countries (Inger Furseth, ed., 
Springer, 2017) is presented. In the review, the significant place of religion in people’s 
lives is pointed out, and the types of the visibility of religion in the public space of the 
Nordic countries are discussed.

Discussions on the topics raised in the current issue will be continued in 
the subsequent issues of our journal, and new themes will be introduces. We 
welcome suggestions for thematic issues, debate sections, book reviews and 
other formats from readers and prospective authors and invite you to send us 
your reflections and ideas!

For more information, please visit the journal web‑site: https://changing‑sp.com/

Elena Stepanova,  
Editor-in-Chief