ࡱ>  PbjbjVV2 <<RF F |X^^^rrr8DrjR( ",BB>[o ghihihihihihih$Vlnh^^^^h^^BBi*,,,^(^B^Bg,^gh,,j`eB|*r$Eb2giHjwbJp&(8pdep^e{",{{{hh^*b{{{j^^^^p{{{{{{{{{F P: TIME \@ "dd.MM.yyyy" 14.06.2011 Intercultural Humanism Idea and Reality OUTLINE Why humanism? What is Humanism? Three steps of Historical Development Main Trends of Modern History The Western Concept Limits and Self-Criticism A New Approach with an Intercultural Intent Why humanism? One of the most urgent challenges for the cultural orientation of today is the encounter of different traditions and world views in the globalizing process. There is a need for global principles in organizing human life according to the global trends in all dimensions of human life. Nearly everybody is confronted with problems in economy, politics, social life and environmental issues which demand global solutions. At the same time the power of being different in understanding and interpreting these problems is unbroken. Moreover, it is even increasing since long-lasting universal cultural patterns of understanding man and world are losing their plausibility. Main trends of Western thinking, which have shaped the features of the modern world have met radical criticism. Alternative traditions have been brought to the fore and claim for recognition. The well-known slogan Provincializing Europe" (Dipesh 2000) indicates the new problem: where now is the empire when it is no longer the West? A province is a part of an empire, otherwise the slogan has no meaning. There are some candidates for this empire luring behind the corner, but nobody knows what they will bring about and whether they are able to shoulder the responsibility for tackling the global dimensions of human life today. The Western domination in intellectual life including the scholarly life in the humanities and social sciences has been radically challenged, but what alternatives have become visible? The criticism of the Western tradition in modernization and modernity is universal and fully accepted, if not even created, in the West (at least its strongholds are Western universities). But when this criticism has done its work, what modes of thinking are able to replace the outdated ideas and ideologies of modernity and their legacy of enlightenment? What we need in understanding our time is a mediation of universality and peculiarity in thinking: a synthesis of commonality and difference in organizing our lives. How can we keep up our identity-forming cultural peculiarities and, at the same time, contribute to the solution of problems from our part we share with all other human beings despite their otherness in traditions, mental attitudes, and modes of thinking and in many other dimensions of human life? In order to find the answer to this question, we can't simply leave our roots and step out of the historically pregiven circumstances of our lives in favour of a new intellectual standpoint, which may bring us closer to the others. We even have to realize that cultural differences have caused a dividing force in intercultural communication: By ethnocentric tendencies in the cultural process of identity formation they play a destructive role preventing transcultural understanding and working together in finding an answer to the urgent problems of our globalizing world. This brings me to the theme of humanism. For a long time humanism was intellectually completely outdated: its radical destruction by Nietzsche in theory and by social Darwinism, the effects of imperialism, and totalitarian ideologies in practice had had a thoroughgoing effect. The relevant comments of Heidegger (1976) and Foucault (1974) may serve as smashing examples up to our days. But as a proverb in German says: Totgesagte leben lnger (people who were declared dead live longer) humanism recently has gained a growing importance in the intellectual discourses on cultural orientation. The main issue and starting point is the question how to handle diversity and difference in human life as it has obviously gained a growing power by migration, the effects of internet communication, general changes in politics, and severe religious conflicts? How to overcome the power of ethnocentric tensions in intercultural understanding? Humanism offers an answer to this question. There is a simple reason for it. Being a human being is common to all people; it defines their commonality, and at the same time, it is realized in a multitude of life forms and their historical changes. This is exactly what humanism in its modern form has done: thematizing the common ground in human life and its values and norms, and at the same time recognizing difference and variety as a manifestation of the cultural nature of humankind. Can the tradition of humanism be revitalized as an approach to a cultural orientation, which may be able to synthesize universal principles of human conduct and peculiar life-forms? In my paper I will try to give a positive answer to this question. What is Humanism? Three Steps of Historical Development Humanism is not a clearly defined concept. It emerged in the West and has influenced non-Western discussions since the end of the 19th century but its meaning widely varies. Therefore it is useful to give to short historical account of its developments. Three steps have to be discriminated: (i) its roots in classical antiquity, (ii) its first establishment in early modern history, (iii) and its modern form since the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century closely related to the intellectual movement of Enlightenment. Its modern articulation is not limited to intellectual life but can be found in fine arts as well. In classical antiquity, mainly in the stoic philosophy, most of the basic terms of humanistic thinking were articulated, like human dignity (dignitas hominis) and natural law (lex naturae) applicable to every human being. There was no systematic theory, which combined these concepts into a coherent idea of the human nature and could be picked up in later times. Nevertheless, highly effective ideas were brought to life, which later on could play a decisive role in humanistic thinking (Cancik, 2011). These ideas had an anti-realistic status, placing the value of humanity against the inhumanity in political and social life. In this idealistic form it could be used to criticize established forms of political domination and social inequality. No wonder that the revolutionaries of the late 18th century developed an imaginary of their visions of a new and humane life and made intensive use of the symbols of the Roman republic. Early modern humanism, which originated in the 14th and 15th century in Italy and spread all over Europe. It referred to classical antiquity and directly brought it into the intellectual awareness of the educated elites. This reference opened up a new space for intellectual discourses. It took place in the form of specializing disciplines, the humaniora (fore-runners of the academic disciplines of the humanities) centered around philology. It was pursued by a new type of intellectuals, the humanistas people who were competent in interpreting the literary legacy of antiquity. Their representative figure is Erasmus von Rotterdam (1465-1536). Their discourse remained in the context of Christianity, but within this context it gained a liberal mode of argumentation against scholasticist dogmatism. The best example of this new space for liberal discourses is the fight of humanists, started by Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) against an attempt of the church to establish an anti-judaistic trend in the official doctrine of the church and accordingly to erect tribunals of the inquisition in Germany (Reuchlin, 1511). Modern humanism, finally, emerged at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. It was an essential part of a general revision of the basic concepts of understanding the human world. It belonged to the late Enlightenment and presented an idea of the cultural nature of humanity, which initiated new ways of historical, political, and educational thinking (at least partly) still effective as a tradition in the humanities, in higher education and in political culture. Here for the first time (in Germany) we find the term of Humanismus" (Cancik and Vhler, 2009). I will mainly refer to the German case, but its main ideas can be found throughout Europe. Main Trends of Modern History I will analyze this modern humanism as a starting point for a Western contribution to the intercultural discussion on chances and limits of humanism in the orientation-crisis of today. But before I present an ideal-typological desription of this humanism I would like to present it as a result of a complex historical development in the West. In the light of this development a more systematic explication will get the shape of historical experience thus indicating the problems of its future perspective. In order to present Western humanism in this way, I would like to distinguish nine different tendencies, each of which is into related to all others in a very complex way. The first tendency is an anthropologization in the procedures of cultural orientation. It is man him- and herself, who makes sense of the world. This goes along with a second tendency, namely that of a secularization. The cultural principles of practical life have an innerworldly status. (This is a result of very severe and bloody wars between different Christian denominations, culminating in the 30-years-War in Middle Europe [1618-1648], which caused the loss of about 30% of the German population). A third tendency is a universalization of humankind across all different cultures and times. This universalization has been realized by a growing knowledge of the variety and changeability of human life forms. It had an empirical and a normative dimension: empirically it covered the whole realm of historical and anthropological experience, and normatively it attributed basic values to all human beings (in principle). In a very dialectical interrelationship humankind became at the same time naturalized and idealized. The human body could be treated as a part of nature, whereas the human mind was strictly distinguished from nature by ascribing to it a non- or even a super-natural quality. In the German language this quality was conceptualized by the term of Geist". Geist" meant a synthesis of mentality and spirituality with a creative force of bringing about the human world as essentially different from nature. It is the essential force of all cultural activity and its results in the variety of human life forms in space and time. This variety has received its specific cognitive form by a fundamental historization. Humankind was put into the frame of a universal development, within which the unity of humans is realized by the diversity of cultures. Thus humanity became individualized. Every single person and every social community were understood as a unique manifestation of humankind. The cognitive procedure of understanding differences, as it dominated the methodical rules of research in the emerging humanities, is based on this principle of individualization. A specific tendency molded the articulation and reception of fine arts. By aesthetization it achieved a special realm and function in the cultural dimension of human life, liberating the power of imagination from all constrains and limits. Finally, the understanding of human life emphasized its potentialities. The cultural nature of humans is not fixed, but a matter of development and change. Educating humans as a process of cultivating them towards their own humanity therefore belongs to the core elements of modern humanism. It is symptomatic, that in the German language the term of "humanism" emerged in the public sphere as a title of a book on education (Niethammer, 1808). As a result of these different tendencies and their complex and even conflicting interrelationship an idea of a humanized humanity represented by every single person and social community as well was developed. Humanism is nothing but an elaborated form of this idea. The modern concept of humanism In a more systematic perspective humanism can be described as a pattern of thinking about the different dimensions of human life and their cultural regulation. This pattern is based on an anthropological argumentation centered on the principle of human dignity. Both issues anthropology and dignity are clearly articulated by Immanuel Kant. He said that in every cultural orientation of human life three basic questions have to be answered: What can I know? What shall I do? What may I hope for? And he added in a typical expression for modern thinking that all three questions can be summarized into the decisive single one: What is the human being (Kant,1800, p. 29)? According to Kant an answer to this question has to recognize the fundamental cultural quality of every human being: that he or she always is more than only a means to the purposes of others, but a purpose within him- or herself. Kant called this being a purpose within him- or herself (in German: Selbstzweckhaftigkeit) human dignity. Based on this anthropological fundament humanism is a necessary spiritual and mental ferment of civil society culturally based on secular universal values, like freedom of speech, rule of law, equality before the law, religious pluralism in the framework of a universal morality, representation of the dominated in the institutions of domination etc. So humanism has a political dimension. It criticizes feudal forms of political domination and social life, and puts political domination under the rule of law in the form of human and civil rights. Humanism is clearly directed against and opposed to any authoritarian form of political domination. In its social dimension humanism claims for civil equality against the superiority of nobility and later on (in its socialist specification) against any attempt of social suppression. In its intellectual dimension humanism tackles an idea of humankind which addresses the empirical and normative universality of humankind within and by its cultural diversity and changeability. Thus it promotes the categories of historicity and individuality in understanding the human world. With these categories it shapes the scholarly work of the humanities and their hermeneutical strategies of understanding cultural diversity and historical change in the form of methodically ruled cognitive processes of research. In this dimension humanism fundamentally opposes any form of dogmatism and fosters free and unlimited discourses as a medium for discussing any issues of common interest. By its anthropology humanism has a strong impact on education in a wider sense of human self-cultivation ("Bildung"). Every person should have a chance to develop his or her abilities in a holistic way, so he or she will represent the cultural creativity of the human mind under the specific conditions of his or her life in an individualistic manifestation. Humanistic education opposes any utilitarianism which instrumentalizes human development by enforcing social utility at the cost of creating an independent personality. Finally one should not forget that humanism had a special relationship to fine arts: It sets it into an unlimited autonomy of free expression against pregiven rules of formation, dependent upon political and social interests. Fine arts gets a cultural place in human life as a necessary condition for realizing human freedom and self realization. This humanism is a multifaceted realm of ideas. But what about reality? Nobody can deny that since the end of the 18th century the life form of a civil society with humanistic elements like the principle of human dignity has been established in many countries, mainly but not only in the West. This life form has its limits and it is permanently endangered by a lack of common sense. But in general its worldwide attraction is evident and its practical impact is widening. Political humanism has been realized in many modern constitutions and their references to human and civil rights. Its humanization of political domination has received many backlashes and perversions, but nevertheless, we can observe a general historical trend to its widening and deepening. Social humanism from its very beginning had to confront its idea of civil equality with new class formations and with strong tendencies of delimitating the lower classes from the benefits of civil society like the new institutions of education. A special problem of social equality was the exclusion of women from political rights and social independence; but in the long run civil society is overcoming the unbalanced relationship between the sexes. A special problem has emerged from the humanistic principle of individualism; rather easily it could lead to a weakening of social responsibility and solidarity so that it still has to complement itself by fundamentally recognizing the intersubjective dimension of human personality. Intellectual humanism has been established in the theoretical and methodical constitution of the humanities and social sciences as long as they work with hermeneutics as a cognitive strategy to come to terms with cultural diversity and difference. Its principles of recognizing differences had to fight against nationalistic biases. And in an intercultural perspective it still has to be applied and enforced against strong ethnocentric tendencies in forming cultural identity. Educational humanism finally made its way into higher education. But at the same time it established limits of social access. This is evident in the case of the German humanistic gymnasium. But not only here elitist attitudes were confronted with the universalistic approach of general education. The idea of focusing education around the idea of a free personality is still under pressure in the name of social utility. Limits and Self-Criticism I would like to bring this tradition of Western humanism into the current intercultural discussion on how to meet the challenge of globalization on the level of transculturally valid principles of cultural orientation. In order to do so, it is necessary to sharpen our view on its limits and realize its self-criticism. I have already indicated some of these, but they should be listed up in a more systematical way: Politically and socially modern humanism has its limit in the unsolved problem of securing a social status for being a full member of a civil society. Without the social status of a person who can earn his or her own livelihood all the advantages of human dignity can't be fully evolved. Additionally, modern humanism has to face the danger of a growing social inequality and as consequence a dissolution of common sense. Intellectually modern humanism finds its limits (a) by not sufficiently being aware of human inhumanity, (b) by its illusionary relationship to classical antiquity, (c) by keeping ethnocentric elements in its idea of humanity and universal history, (d) by a limited concept of reason, and (e) by the highly problematic relationship of humans to nature. These five points need a short explanation: (a) Classical humanism is aware of the potentials of every human being to become inhumane, to suppress, to subjugate, to instrumentalize and to de-humanize other human beings. But in the framework of its idealistic anthropology and theory of history, this potential of inhumanity was covered and not systematically taken into account. Instead, its followers believed in progress as a long-lasting historical process of humanizing human life-conditions. Herder (1784-91, pp. 588f.) for instance, said in his philosophy of history: The course of history demonstrates that by the growth of true humanity the destructive demons of the human race have really dwindled. After the crimes against humanity culminating in the Holocaust, which gave the 20th century its historic signature, such optimism has become impossible. Only a humanism which can meet the challenge of these crimes and can look into the face of the Holocaust is feasible for a future-directed orientation of human life (Rsen, 2008). (b) The classical humanism had to demonstrate that its idea of humanity was a realistic one. This was done by a constitutive reference to classical antiquity. The humanists of the late 18th and early 20th century believed that in this specific time mainly in classical Greece the fulfilment of the ideas of a humane life form was achieved. We know that it didn't, and that the historical reason for the feasibility of humanism was a great illusion. (c) The classical humanistic concept of a universal history pretended to give place for cultural differences in the course of history without the prejudice of Western superiority. Nevertheless, this humanism had to place itself into the course of history, and by doing so it could not avoid privileging the Western civilization, although its criticism of Western imperialism is evident, mainly in Herders thinking. Yet if we take just one look at the characterization of Africans in the anthropology of this time (for instance in Kants anthropology) we can see the part of ethnocentrism, which is still in effect. (d) Post-colonialism has brought about a radical criticism of the Western concept of reason. It has interpreted this concept as a means of domination subjugating all other forms of intellectual life, which follow different ideas of the human mind and spirit. Classical humanism has made use of the concept of reason. But it did not simply reproduce the attitude of governing the world inherent in the modern concept of reason. Instead, humanism has given it a hermeneutical potential thus opening it up to a new awareness of the variety and difference of human forms of life. It is, however, still an open question whether this potential of understanding is really free from any will of domination, and whether it sufficiently opens up a space for recognizing those forms of human life which are not committed to this kind of reason. (e) One aspect of the problematic character of the Western concept of reason lies in its way of shaping the human relationship to nature. It is the form of an unconditional domination. Today the catastrophic consequences of this relationship have become evident. Western humanism has not completely confirmed and legitimated this attitude of domination. Yet, its idea of the humans' relatedness to nature has been rather vague. In the dim light of this ambiguity, traditional Western humanism has proved unable to develop an idea of what a humane relationship between man and nature is like (Rsen, 2006). The intellectual development in the West after the formative period of modernization showed a growing renunciation from the tradition of humanism albeit several attempts for its renewal. The most prominent representative of this anti-humanism is Friedrich Nietzsche. This renunciation culminated in the idea that man becomes subjugated under non- or super-human instances like the superman, the  to be, or anonymous structures of social or mental life. This was the end of the anthropological turn; man became decentered in the philosophical interest in understanding the world. In politics we can observe similar trends of weakening and discrediting the tradition of humanism: There was if at all only a weak protest against the power of inhumane political movements like fascism and communism. On the contrary: communism even could claim for the tradition of humanism and ascribe  real humanism for its suppression and liquidation of social formations and movements which did not fit into its idea of historical progress (Scherrer, 2011). In recent times two intellectual movements substantially contributed to the marginalization and dissolution of humanism: a) postmodernism negated any approach to universal values, and b) postcolonialism accused the Western idea of modernity of legitimating the suppression of non-Western countries. Humanism has been criticized as a means for political domination and for robbing other people and cultures of their dignity of self-determination. (It is another question whether this criticism itself did not make use of humanistic principles, thus confirming humanism in its turn against it.) The fascinating success of biogenetics and brain-research, finally, supported a new attempt of replacing the culture-centered modes of thought (which includes humanism, of course) by nature-centered ones. A New Approach with an Intercultural Intent Any approach to revitalize humanism for a new intercultural understanding has to begin with a clear distancing attitude: It cant use the Western humanistic paradigm of humanity in its historical peculiarity as a parameter of intercultural comparison. Neither can it be looked at as an aim in the future perspective of intercultural communication. This would be an epistemological as well as a political mistake. It would only support non-Western suspicions of a continuation of Western intellectual domination and therefore could not lead to a transcultural agreement on basic values and principles of coming together in understanding the common cultural nature of man and of the power of being different. But on the other hand, the ethics of humanism on the level of principles, and not so much on the level of historical experience concerning their practical use can be understood as a solution of synthesizing commonness and diversity of humanity, which may meet the problem of cultural orientation challenged by globalization. In many Western countries and in non-Western countries as well, basic elements of this ethics have been established in the life form of a civil society, where different traditions can be lived by their followers in a peaceful way. The universality of dignity and corresponding ideas of humankind and humanity can be adapted into historically different contexts Here they can unfold their mental and spiritual attractiveness for contributing to the tendencies of humanizing humans in all dimensions of their practical lives. Humanistic principles are, of course, not at all a privilege of Western history. They can be found and strengthened in many other traditions as well (Meinert and Zoellner, 2009; Huang, 2010; Meinert, 2010; Longxi, 2010; Reichmuth, Rsen and Sarhan, 2010). Vis--vis this historical fact the question has to be raised: What keeps and brings theses different traditions together without dissolving their diversity? The answer to this question is one of the most urgent issues of the humanities and social sciences of today. I would like to propose a twofold strategy: (a) by a decomposition of the Western paradigm into single elements, which can found everywhere in different culture-specific constellations; (b) by a conceptual frame of integrating this variety of humanistic approaches to practical life. Such a concept would not dissolve the variety of cultural manifestations of these approaches in favor of one single universal idea, instead it would keep them up by their integration. For this purpose we need a new philosophy of history which opens space for historical pluralism and addresses the unity of humankind at the same time. (a) The following basic elements of a humanistic worldview should be taken as necessary contributions to an interculturally valid idea of coming to terms with the demand of synthesizing the unity of humankind and the variety of its cultural manifestations in the realm of historical experience: an outstanding position of the human being as a source for cultural orientation; this includes the idea of an essential dignity of every human being; an equality of every human being in respect to his or her essential dignity; a fundamental reference to the term of otherness in understanding the human existence and the conceptualization of the human self; a clear distinction between the individual and the social community, within which he or she pursues his or her life; a relationship of the human being to an exuberant dimension of life, understood as a point of reference beyond the pregiven circumstances and conditions of practical life; a recognition of the changeability of human life-forms as a chance for establishing humane life conditions; an emphasis on education dedicated to the idea of moral responsibility and an ability to pursue one's own life according to universal values. (b) The variety of life forms in time and space can be historically brought into an order, which emphasizes this unity and difference at the same time. The basis of such an order are anthropological universals. They are the roots for humanism in the cultural nature of humankind, and they form a frame for temporal change and regional indifference. I would like to outline this cultural anthropology of humanism in the following way:  In all cultures at all times and places in the world human life is morally regulated by a clear distinction between good and evil and related principles of human conduct. The ability for such a distinction and its application to human agency presupposes a certain idea of what it means to be a human being: humans are defined as persons; they are individuals with a physical and psychic continuity. As such they are responsible for what they do or fail to do - at least on the level of everyday life. This responsibility furnishes every human being with the quality of dignity (as we would express it in our modern language). This dignity demands respect and recognition in all social contexts of life. This idea of a substantial moral quality of every human being is based on another anthropologically universal quality of humans, namely the ability to change ones own perspective of perception and interpretation by taking over the perspectives of others. The humanistic idea or of dignity of man is anthropologically rooted in the human ability of making decisions in the tension between good and evil and in the ability for empathy. This anthropological quality demands forms of human cooperation, which, across all cultural differences, are important for the social organization of human life. Out of these roots grows the tree of human culture with its numerous branches and leaves. Therefore the cultural anthropology of humanism needs a historical addition and complement so that it may be possible to identify humanism in the main trends of universal history Thus humankind may finally become the face of history. The philosophical outline of such a universal history is very abstract, but I think it is necessary for being open for the richness of historical experience and at the same time for the purpose of giving this richness an encompassing meaning. Universal history can be philosophically conceptualized as a process of humanizing humankind. This process is evident and can easily be made plausible in respect to historical experience by a threefold periodization. The first period is that of archaic societies. They are the oldest ones. In the framework of a humanistic philosophy of history they can be generally characterized by their cultural definition of what a human being is, namely: only the people of one's own community own this quality. The people living beyond one's own sphere of life are not perceived as humans; they are lacking essential elements of one's own humanity. The second period is that of axial- time societies. The term axial time implies a fundamental change in human worldview. It goes along with changes in the other dimensions of human life as well, of course. Taking all these developments together one can speak of the new life form of so-called advanced civilizations. They came about at different times in different places (but roughly between 600 BC and 600 AC). As life forms they share essential elements, qualities and factors, which define their epoch-making historical novelty. For the purpose of my argumentation the most important quality in this change is the universalization of the idea of humankind. Now not only one's own people are humans with their special abilities, but (principally) all the other members of the human race are endowed with this quality as well. The evolutionary step of axial times brought about an increase in transcendence and in subjectivity. Both together give humanity a new cultural shape. From the perspective of humanism this shape indicates an increase in humanity. The moral quality of being a human becomes humanized. A very speaking example for this axial time humanism is Confucianism and its moral principle of ren (benevolence) (Huang, 2010; Meinert, 2010). Morality bears its own universalism, expressed by the golden rule. In both respects humanity broke the constraints of ethnicity. This is expressed in central statements of the different axial time religions (we call them world religions to characterize their new universalistic approach). In the Christian relationship between the single individual and God all differences among men vanish; and it is possible to say that the killing of one single human being tackles humankind in general. The third period is that of modernization and globalization. The step to modernity took place all over the world. It was taken under the strong influence of Western culture, but above this it was more and differently practiced than only a process of Westernization. To describe it one should follow the proposal of Shmuel Eisenstadt (2000) one of the most prominent representatives of axial time theory  and speak of  multiple modernities instead of one single unifying modernity (Sachsenmaier and Riedel, 2002). This can be done on the level of philosophy of history since the change to this epoch is a change in the logic of the already achieved (multiple) universalisms in understanding humanity. I think that we can identify a lot of factual and theoretical evidence of the specific character of modernity as a shift from exclusive to inclusive universalisms in understanding humankind. An established and encompassing paradigm of this inclusive humanism is not yet in view. But single elements of it can already be identified. A universalistic dimension of understanding humankind has already been established in the previous epoch of axial times I cant see any reasons for giving it up in favour of any kind of relativism. (Relativism may be useful to criticize dogmatic universalisms, but vis--vis the globalization process; it would be an intellectual hands-up in the clash of civilizations. Yielding to it would forsake the efforts of solving intercultural tensions to the power game of politics.) But what about the problematic inclusive character of this universalism? How can its historically pregiven logic of exclusion be changed into a completely contrary one? We can find signs and examples of a historical process of establishing inclusive universalisms in conceptualizing and understanding humanity. To my mind one of the strongest indications for this is modern Western humanism and the growing interest in its achievements. Though this humanism has its shortcomings, which I have listed up above, its strong merits can't be overlooked: it has brought about ideas of inclusiveness, which could be interculturally accepted. But this would only mark a beginning of the common way with all the limits and failures we now know about. It is a question of intercultural communication today whether these failures and shortcomings can be overcome and how an inclusive idea of humanity can profit from non-Western traditions and their applications to the problems of cultural orientation all people of today do share. Antweiler, C., 2011. Mensch und Weltkultur. Fr einen realistischen Kosmopolitismus im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Bielefeld: Transcript (English translation in preparation). Arnason, J. P. Eisenstadt, S. N. and Wittrock, B., eds., 2005. Axial Civilisations and World History. Leiden: Brill 2005. Brunner, O. Conze, W. and Koselleck, R., eds., 1971-1997. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. 8 vols. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta Stuttgart. Cancik, H. and Vhler, M., eds., 2009. Humanismus und Antikerezeption im 18. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1: Genese und Profil des europischen Humanismus. Heidelberg: Winter 2009. Cancik, H., 2011. Europa Antike Humanismus. Humanistische Versuche und Vorarbeiten. Edited by Hildegard Cancik-Lindemaier. Bielefeld: Transcript (distributed in North America by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London). Chakrabarti, D., 2000. Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Eisenstadt, S. N., 2000. Multiple Modernities. Daedalus 129/1 (2000), pp. 1-30. Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., 1986. The Origins and diversity of axial age civilizations. Albany: State University of New York Press. Foucault, M., 1974. The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon. Heidegger, M.: Brief ber den "Humanismus". In: Gesamtausgabe, 1976. I. Abteilung: Verffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970. Vol. 9: Wegmarken. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, pp. 313-364 (English Translation: Letter on Humanism. In: M. Heidegger, 1998. Pathmarks. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press). Herder, J. G., 1784-91. Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Text. In. W. Pross, eds., 2002. Herder. Werke. Vol. III/1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Huang, C.-C., 2010. Humanism in East Asian Confucian Contexts. Bielefeld: Transcript. Humboldt, W. v., 1792. Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grnzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen. (English translation: Humboldt, W. v., 1854. The Sphere and Duties of Government (The Limits of State Action) London: John Chapman. (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=589&Itemid=99999999) Humboldt, W. v., 1807. ber den Charakter der Griechen, die idealische und historische Ansicht derselben. In: A. Flitner and K. Giel, eds., 1961. Wilhelm von Humboldt. Werke in fnf Bnden. Vol. 2: Schriften zur Altertumskunde und sthetik. Die Vasken. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 65-72. Kant, I. 1797. Metaphysik der Sitten, A. 93 (English translation:  HYPERLINK "http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm" http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm [9.5.2011]) Kant, I. 1800. Logik. A, 26. Translated by R. S. and Hartmann and W. Schwarz. New York: Dover 1974. Kozlarek, O. Rsen, J. and Wolff, E., eds., 2011. Shaping a Human World Civilizations, Axial Times, Modernities, Humanisms. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming). Longxi, Z., ed., 2010. The Concept of Humanity in an Age of Globalization. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming). Meinert, C. and Zoellner, H.-B., eds., 2009: Buddhist Approaches to Human Rights. Bielefeld: Transcript. Meinert, C., ed., 2010,. Traces of Humanism in China Tradition and Modernity. Bielefeld: Transcript. Mller, K. E., 1983. Einleitung. In: K. E. Mueller ed., 1983. Menschenbilder frher Gesellschaften. Ethnologische Studien zum Verhltnis von Mensch und Natur. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 1983, pp. 13-69, cit. p. 15. Nida-Rmelin, J., 2006. Humanismus als Leitkultur. Ein Perspektivenwechsel. Munich: C.H. Beck. Niethammer, F.-I., 1808. Der Streit des Philantropismus und Humanismus in der Theorie des Erziehungsunterrichts unserer Zeit. Jena: Frommann. Reichmuth, S. Rsen, J. and Sarhan, A. eds, 2010. Humanism and Muslim Culture: Historical Heritage and Contemporary Challenges. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming). Reuchlin, J. 1511. . Recommendation whether to confiscate, destroy and burn all Jewish books. A classic treatise against anti-semitism. Translated, edited and with a foreword by Peter Wortsman, 2000. New York, Mahwah, NJ : Paulist Press 2000. Rsen, J. and Henner, L. eds., 2009: Humanism in Intercultural Perspective. Experiences and Expectations. Bielefeld: Transcript. Rsen, J. and Jordan, S., 2008. Mensch, Menschheit. In: F. Jaeger, ed., 2008. Enzyklopdie der Neuzeit. Vol. 8: Manufaktur-Naturgeschichte. Stuttgart: Metzler 2008, col. 327-340. Rsen, J., 2006. Humanism and Nature Some Reflections on a Complex Relationship. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 2/2 (2006), pp. 265-276. Rsen, J., 2008. Humanism in response to the Holocaust destruction or innovation? Postcolonial Studies 11/2 (2008), pp. 191-200. Rsen, J. 2011. Temporalizing Humanity Towards a Universal History of Humanism. In: J. Rsen M. I. Spariosu and L. Zhang eds., Exploring Humanity Intercultural Perspectives on Humanism. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming). Sachsenmaier, D. and Riedel, J., eds., 2002. Reflections on Multiple modernities. European, Chinese and other interpretations. Leiden: Brill 2002. Said, E. W., 2004. Humanism and Democratic Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press. Scherrer, J., 2011. Die pervertierte Macht der Menschlichkeit - Humanismus in der Sowjetunion. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming). Schiller, F., 1795. Ueber die aesthetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reyhe von Briefen. Stuttgart: Cotta (English translation: On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letter [http://www.bartleby.com/32/501.html]) Todorov, T., 2002. Imperfect garden. The legacy of humanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Zhang, K., 2010. Inventing Humanism in Modern China. In: C. Meinert, ed., 2010. Traces of Humanism in China. Tradition and Modernity. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 131-149.  English Translation: Letter on Humanism. In: M. Heidegger, 1998. Pathmarks. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.  A German example: Nida-Rmelin, J., 2006. Humanismus als Leitkultur. Ein Perspektivenwechsel. Munich: C.H. Beck.  My argumentation is based on different publications which are first results of a research project on Humanism in the Era of Globalization An Intercultural Dialogue on Humanity, Culture, and Values which took place at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities at Essen, Germany, from 2006 till 2009 and was sponsored by the Stiftung Mercator. See Rsen, J and Henner, L. eds., 2009: Humanism in Intercultural Perspective. Experiences and Expectations. Bielefeld: Transcript.  An example: Zhang, K., 2010. Inventing Humanism in Modern China. In: C. Meinert, ed., 2010. Traces of Humanism in China. Tradition and Modernity. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 131-149.  The best documentation of this change is the encyclopedia Geschichtsliche Grundbegriffe. Brunner, O. Conze, W. and Koselleck, R. eds., 1971-1997. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. 8 vols. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta Stuttgart.  The French case is brilliantly presented by Todorov, T., 2002. Imperfect garden. The legacy of humanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  For more details see Rsen, J. and Jordan, S., 2008. Mensch, Menschheit. In: F. Jaeger, ed., 2008. Enzyklopdie der Neuzeit. Vol. 8: Manufaktur-Naturgeschichte. Stuttgart: Metzler 2008, col. 327-340.  Man as a person, i.e., as the subject of a morally-practical reason, is exalted above all price. For such a one (homo noumenon) he is not to be valued merely as a means to the ends of other people, or even to his own ends, but is to be prized as an end in himself. This is to say, he possesses a dignity (an absolute inner worth) whereby he exacts the respect of all other rational beings in the world, can measure himself against each member of his species, and can esteem himself on a footing of equality with them." Kant, I. 1797. Metaphysik der Sitten, A 93 (English translation:  HYPERLINK "http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm" http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm; 9.5.2011])  In the German case this is paradigmatically documented by Wilhelm von Humboldt's political manifesto: Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grnzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen from 1792 (English translation: Humboldt, W. v., 1854. The Sphere and Duties of Government [The Limits of State Action] London: John Chapman.) [http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=589&Itemid=99999999; 9.5.2011])  Edward Said who has radically criticized the Western form of understanding cultural differences, nevertheless has praised this humanism (and indeed, it is a precondition for his critique): Said, E., 2004. Humanism and Democratic Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press.  In the German humanistic tradition this is paradigmatically documented by Friedrich Schiller's letters on the aesthetic cultivation of humankind (Ueber die aesthetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reyhe von Briefen 1795, Stuttgart: Cotta (English translation: On the Aesthetic Education of Man in a Series of Letter [http://www.bartleby.com/32/501.html; 9.5.2011]) "#$N $ = > e f x    2 3 Ff$CDEA`a²¨›¨z›mcccccYhcaaJmH sH h$BaJmH sH hfhreaJmH sH hreaJmH sH hfhfaJmH sH hG8aJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hi aJmH sH hfh 5>*aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hfh CJ aJ mH sH h0CJmHnHuhfh CJjhfh CJU"$NVdv  $ 9[,l6Z!% & Fdh & Fdh & Fdh & Fdh & Fdhdh$dha$a23EF56cd,19XYZӼ󬜌~~~qggh$BaJmH sH hfhy&aJmH sH hfh H*aJmH sH hfh 6>*aJmH sH hfh 6>*aJmH sH hfh 5>*aJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH h-aJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH hfhfaJmH sH hfh aJmH sH ' !!! !!!!!""I#S#%%%%&&&&'''''(_(`($+%+?+Q+++3,߶߶߬ߏ߂xndߏߏ߶߶hGLaJmH sH hcaaJmH sH hBeaJmH sH hfhy&aJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH hM\aJmH sH hZaJmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfh H*aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH h<8aJmH sH hPaJmH sH '%a((&++!-.812X3H467/7&;i> A0CDnJNLMMNOWQR & Fdhdh & Fdh & Fdh3,?,,,,,,,,-7-G-// /)///00%0&0(0/0H1I111,2:2l3r3335555555666667歺h\=aJmH sH h= aJmH sH h`aJmH sH hcaaJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH h&aJmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH h,aJmH sH hf aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hfhy&aJmH sH .7/7\8]8^89999999$;%;;;<<s=t=====p>>AAAAAADDEEEE䶬tfhfh H*aJmH sH hOhpf0JmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH h7xaJmH sH hN}aJmH sH h}aJmH sH hpfaJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfh\=aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hfh 5aJmH sH %EEEEEjF}FGGnJJKKNLbLcLMMMNOOQ9QWQeQRRRRRTTTTTTγܣܖ܊wne\enhN\mH sH h j\mH sH hO\mH sH $jhfh 0JU\mH sH hfh \mH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfh 5>*aJmH sH hfhfo6aJmH sH hfhy&aJmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH h aJmH sH $RRTVOXZ}\_be^illhFdhEƀKdhC$Eƀ^dh TTTTTVV?XMX Y YYY)YHYIYeYfYYYYY(\,\-\.\ bbbWcdϤypygZMhfh aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH h9\mH sH h zo\mH sH hfh zo\mH sH hfhfo\mH sH $jhfh 0JU\mH sH hfh,+aJmH sH hfh H*\mH sH hfh H*\aJmH sH h,+\mH sH h \mH sH hfh \mH sH h9mH sH h9h9mH sH dLd&e(eeTfUff:h6iXi'j(jijjjjjllllZmzm{mpporprtrurstLuMuuuuuuuIvJvSvTvvvvv锇zzzzzzzzhfhfoaJmH sH hfh[aJmH sH h[aJmH sH hfh 5>*aJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hfhy&aJmH sH h9aJmH sH hV0aJmH sH hfhPiaJmH sH hfh aJmH sH h @aJmH sH 0llotuwxIyyzz;{{5|}}V:$ & Fdhdh & Fdhv}}}€ЀҀZ؉z|h2[)*Ǐȏ (6󽰽wwmhiz,aJmH sH hFnaJmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH hAaJmH sH h?4aJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfhCaJmH sH hCaJmH sH h[aJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH hfh 0JaJmH sH hfh aJmH sH '68TVbґjlH>?jPؘ(+/089֚ޚոոոծ՚ծՌuhhfh.aJmH sH h.aJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfh 6aJmH sH hZUaJmH sH h'aJmH sH h6 aJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH hFnaJmH sH hfh aJmH sH h&QjaJmH sH hiz,aJmH sH hmaJmH sH %ߝ >Ià鿻zsl`XIhFkhFB*mH phsH hFmH sH hAuhF6mH sH  hFhF h4hF hhFhhF6 hF]hFmH sH hOhFmH sH  hhFhFmH sH hhFmH sH hFhFaJmH sH %jhfh 0JUaJmH sH hfhfoaJmH sH hfh aJmH sH hOaJmH sH Ià3yݤЦ'^`gd=lV^`VgdFlgdFl]_Ec2z{أĽtldXdQIQhFhF6 hFhFhYnhF6mH sH hFmH sH hFmH sH hYnhFaJmH sH hFaJmH sH hhFaJhhF6aJhYnhF6hFkhF6hFhFmH sH hF hYnhFhYnhFB*phhFB*phhZhF6B*phhFkhFB*mH phsH h=B*mH phsH KwyƤȤ̤ܤݤ 0Ih¥ڥ0cei˽wi^VVhhF6hhFmH sH hhF6]mH sH h<8hFmH sH  hhFhYnhF6h0hF hYnhFhYnhF]h_hF]mH sH hF]mH sH hYnhF6]mH sH hFmH sH hF\mH sH hNLhF6\mH sH h_\mH sH hNLhF\mH sH ЦѦئ'3=>t{ !#8ʾ緰yjyyycc[hD>hF6 h]hFhOhF6\]mH sH hOhFmH sH hF]mH sH hOhF]mH sH hOhF] hF]hOhF6] hOhF hFhFhhF6mH sH hhF6mH sH hFmH sH hF\mH sH hFmH sH  hhFhF hF6#'{QZʫ3qЭ^y-ױZ<г+dh^`gd=l8:?@vx֩#$CDOQ^`e3ZfqͳpbpbZRhFmH sH hmH sH hFB*aJmH ph sH $hAuhF6B*aJmH ph sH hFhFaJmH sH hN}0JOJPJQJnH tH hN}mH sH h0hFmH sH h0h00J6mH sH h0h06mH sH jh06UhF6mH sH h0mH sH hFmH sH  hF6 h9hFhF qʫ13M¬٬8:Z]pqЭLN^ޮ㹲xmahYnhF6mH sH hWLhFmH sH hFkhF6hYnhF6hWLmH sH h hWLmH sH h4hFmH sH hhF6hF hhF hYnhFhhF6mH sH hhF6\mH sH hF\mH sH hFmH sH hFmH sH hhF6mH sH %`yȰ->ձױ*+8?@BDEF̺𧜧|n`T|h]hF\mH sH h]hF6\mH sH hhF6\mH sH hhF\mH sH hhFmH sH hF\mH sH hF6\mH sH hF\mH sH hhF6\hhF\h= hF6\ hF\hYnhF\h= hFmH sH h-hF6mH sH hFmH sH h{mH sH  FJKYZ\_bڲ<cdjг+?´ô ǻǴljׅ}vvrnrd_ h ]hCIChF6]h hG hF<hFhF<hF6hFh? hF6mH sH hFhF6h4hF6mH sH h8g hFhF h4hFhEhF6mH sH hFmH sH hjd2mH sH hFmH sH hEhFmH sH hF\mH sH hhF\mH sH ! 4kmεGd{ǿǴxk_WLAhfhfmH sH hfh mH sH h{OmH sH jh 0JH*Uhfh aJmH sH hfhi aJmH sH hi aJmH sH h aJmH sH  hhFhhF6h$BhF6mH sH h$BhFmH sH h hF6 h hFh hF]mH sH h hF6]mH sH h hFmH sH h h ]mH sH )=]a1=v; $   V^`VdhǶȶжѶӶԶնض()*LTUFf  ')lʿ෫yyyyyymh-h 6mH sH h-mH sH h{mH sH h{h 6mH sH h{h{mH sH h{h mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h 6]mH sH h<8h mH sH h<8h-mH sH h mH sH hd7mH sH hfmH sH hfmH sH &ǹȹɹ̹Ϲֹ۹ܹ;<=>ZyĺźкѺ1мzozozgzoZhZh 6B*phhNB*phhZh B*phhZhZB*phhZ6mH sH hZh 6mH sH hZhZmH sH hZh mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h$Bh 6mH sH h$Bh$BmH sH h$Bh<8mH sH h$Bh mH sH jh$Bh 0JH*U 13[]^ƻһ%&8:;=AHIJMNTUmopuǻװ}xsxsxsxnxsdx_x hW\h= h 6\ h .7\ h \ h= \hWh= \mH sH hWh \mH sH hWmH sH h ;mH sH h= h= mH sH h= h mH sH hWh 6mH sH h mH sH hWmH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h B*mH phsH h B*ph%uvw¾þľ;ѾӾ34ST_`abȼxjbjXjQx hN}hN}hN}hN}0J6hN}hN}6jhN}6UmH sH  hN}h hN}h'hN}h_ u6 hN}h0 hN}h_ uhN}mH sH h mH sH h mH sH h\=mH sH jh 0JH*Uh}h mH sH h}h= \mH sH h}h \mH sH hWh 6\ h \ hW\bɿ߿Lkpq  12p÷tldXdPth}mH sH h}h 6mH sH h mH sH h}mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH hN}mH sH hX)6h 6mH sH h jmH sH hX)6mH sH hX)6\]mH sH hX)66\]mH sH h 6\]mH sH  hX)6hX)6hX)6h ]hX)6h 6]hOh 6] hOhO hOh p $&;lrt-ʺүҝ{sksksks_sh}h 6mH sH h}mH sH h mH sH hNmH sH Ujh 0JH*Uh'h ]mH sH hN}]mH sH h']mH sH h'6]mH sH h'mH sH hN}mH sH hCNmH sH h 6]mH sH h}6]mH sH h}mH sH h mH sH hOmH sH $ In the following presentation I make use of a part of a text, which will be published elsewhere (Temporalizing Humanity Towards a Universal History of Humanism. In: Rsen, J., Spariosu, M. and Zhang, L. eds., 2011. Exploring Humanity Intercultural Perspectives on Humanism. Bielefeld: Transcript [forthcoming]).  A speaking example is Humboldt, W. v., 1807. ber den Charakter der Griechen, die idealische und historische Ansicht derselben. In: A. Flitner and K. Giel, eds., 1961. Werke in fnf Bnden. Vol. 2: Schriften zur Altertumskunde und sthetik. Die Vasken. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 65-72.  I mainly refer to Antweiler, C., 2011. Mensch und Weltkultur. Fr einen realistischen Kosmopolitismus im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Bielefeld: Transcript (English translation in preparation).  Klaus E. Mueller had characterised this excluding particular universality of being a human being in archaic societies with the term Eigenweltverabsolutierung" (setting one's own world as absolute). Mller, K. E., 1983. Einleitung. In: K. E. Mueller ed., 1983. Menschenbilder frher Gesellschaften. Ethnologische Studien zum Verhltnis von Mensch und Natur. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 1983, pp. 13-69, cit. p. 15.  The following part is mainly based on the work of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., 1986. The Origins and diversity of axial age civilizations. Albany: State University of New York Press; see Arnason, J. P. Eisenstadt, S. N. and Wittrock, B., eds., 2005. Axial Civilisations and World History. Leiden: Brill 2005; Kozlarek, O. Rsen, J. and Wolff, E., eds., 2011. Shaping a Human World  Civilizations, Axial Times, Modernities, Humanisms. Bielefeld: Transcript (forthcoming).  It is important to note that evolution does not mean that the older forms of cultural orientation dissolve and vanish. They remain in very different manifestations, including vast regions of the subconscious. But they change their place in the framework of culture. Ethnicity in modern time e.g. is different from ethnicity in archaic societies.  Most characteristic are the word of St. Paul: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3,28).  See Quran 5,32: We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.-.9:<=>Ufjl:<Nivw;<CFGIĻįȯįܤȊwlhhmH sH h>5mH sH hh mH sH  hh hVUh 6hVUhVUmH sH hVUh mH sH  h9h h96 h 6hNh9h hNmH sH h9mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h mH sH h mH sH *&)+;<B$ 8 : ÿ~v`Ph B*\aJmH phsH *h40JB*OJQJ\^JmH phsH h mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h h mH sH h hmH sH h h mH sH hh 6hCh h hh hhhmH sH h4mH sH hh mH sH hOmH sH hCmH sH : @ A B v w              D Z \ n p r z      мЦtmd[d[d[d[U[d hAuaJhAuhAuaJhAuh aJ hAuh hAuh 6mH sH hAumH sH h mH sH *h40JB*OJQJ\^JmH phsH *h 0JB*OJQJ\^JmH phsH 'h4h 6B*\aJmH phsH h B*\aJmH phsH hZLB*\aJmH phsH h4B*\aJmH phsH    <     $ % 5 U        v׻׻׻ױשי}wsh h CJ h CJh CJOJQJmH sH jhSUhSh-hE26mH sH hE2mH sH UhWLmH sH hZUmH sH h'mH sH jh 0JH*Uh mH sH h B*aJmH ph sH $hAuh 6B*aJmH ph sH )  See the contributions of Dipesh Chakrabarty, Muhammd Arkoun and Longxi Zhang in Rsen, J and Henner, L. eds., 2009: Humanism in Intercultural Perspective. Experiences and Expectations. Bielefeld: Transcript.     Intercultural Humanism  Idea and Reality PAGE  PAGE 1 .02HJLNPdhh]h&`#$$&dP]^a$$a$*,.24@BDFHLNPhfh aJmH sH hShuI0JmHnHuh h 0Jjh 0JU0&P 1F. A!n"#$% ^% 666666666vvvvvvvvv66666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmHnHsHtHN`N StandardxB*CJ_HmHphsHtHhh  berschrift 1$<@&#5B*CJ KH OJQJ\aJ phVV  berschrift 2$d@&>*B*mH phsH JA`J Absatz-Standardschriftart\i\ 0Normale Tabelle :V 44 la 0k 0 0 Keine Liste 0)@0  SeitenzahlCJFF  Verzeichnis 1  _ 5CJ0(0  Zeilennummer8 @"8 Fuzeile  p#:@2:  Kopfzeile  p#:&@A: FunotenzeichenH*F@RF  Funotentext B*CJph`Cb` Textkrper-Zeileneinzug ^ B*CJphVqV berschrift 1 Zchn5CJ KH OJQJ\aJ :: Funotentext Zchn0B0 TextkrperDD Textkrper Zchn B*CJphTT SprechblasentextCJOJQJ^JaJ`` Sprechblasentext ZchnB*CJOJQJ^JaJph@O@ addmd1^CJOJQJ^JaJo(4U@4  Hyperlink >*ph@'@@ $B0KommentarzeichenCJaJ:: !$B0 Kommentartext CJFF  $B0Kommentartext Zchn B*ph>j> #$B0Kommentarthema"5\D1D "$B0Kommentarthema Zchn5\T BTpf0 berarbeitung$B*CJ_HmHphsHtHPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!ZI'Utheme/theme/theme1.xmlYMoE#F{oc'vGuرhR-q;ޝfvg53NjHH8PTj%.H 3މ$i#ZA}Hϼ_3z^!/پlCplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@ 4aE)c"㑠Xs%_-ifH}bȊ~x :rvm$,z=2?/?3q?o <*Ç4&$GhǠ+9Fwl& \*ToN1˼!o U듻HL|#.Enh^%3'IX\Lʸ}xwq7Ira(ލ#É!IB? B;:vݥCQJ ȉ٦m_U:FΪ". ᇄ9f' U$8fe`U 9 I hmR|$@ߒo`(YneE Eh`-~ЍpVa4(F{\Uw!Mӫ-:"DmENiOQW>QOB =*OEEE@'0okV(znS#26PSFv%4z9"̔F5+.ANa®{H(3ҡD)p3˕5teM}dAbAAƴМ?sF+Y\Ɉگ¬:3:[28q^5X,  tN&@6- "d>znNJ ة>b&2v^KyϼD:,AGm\nziá)x]n|%l؟&gl効IP k9: lhWYDs/7Wbe Ivt]Kc⫲K+v1+|D~O@%M&M[ۼrst+똥ʭN<-q!y*Un;*&/HrT VrF:_*P҈}-p !FP9giڧ!!{PLB.KeLDĕ{D {"uSM2`p'}2h!oN )ź{ Ju 4 +o罷~1yVR+hei"ڊ5r381,Q >HGψ cP|j+41Kv@@ Nv&eMNjyI{Z.3iŽBSgO(,q]Go)i ~UFρH~lPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!ZI'Utheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] _ $#$359<J%Ppz={5>Һ Ju >w<%Һ  9DQQQTa3,7ETdv68qF 1ubp-:  Pbdeghiklnoprstvwxyz|}~%Rl'Pcfjmqu{"#CҺ X9@DKMT!!`X8@0(  B S  ? _Hlk292215025 _Hlk2847672320ӺӺs$@jsNjӺ%%Ӻ9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity "#)\]cfgnIS4= (%()(.(vMM,Z/ZZZ\&\ffisrsRtWttt{{{ {{{{|S_,7;Fnv|όԌaex}΍{؏ڑy|Zapv˕Е֕`enx*35YڗΘИT\ś".9^aàȠ͠٠¡С١ۡr{U_`cdnpstyæFK&,.8JLqu~ǫ(3ŮʮϮۮܮ ڱIJϲӲ޲hݳ߳s{-.DFR\jָݸ[a۹кӺ+2  11T4]45g6< <<<7IDI3a>aiinnoo`և|3zLyڑђYqJLMDF^kwbcߛDa>*jjПGc`cPmǥǧ&9#' SUjIfкӺ333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333uv#EEF3E30В{Qg5q4M:ЙNm->םП+?ȥ=ѦBUoĪӪJeֱE\˳II}кӺ#23@@` a %(&(.(/(----1111111111%3%35599<<<<RRzz+0ׇׇIȐ̐'#$CDQabcdà ӺcG/]R<-[2B{T 42(>޴Z!$|yEI' r1|wgHcZj&;0 '\%v`hk>h4ZrqE9W,+i 6 f [Uh|T= e!(n;(iz,-QD-E2jd2?4>5X)6 .7d7\=p>*GuI#KN{OP5QSASZUiVM\!^caadBepfPi&QjnjFnofo zoAu_ uN}y&AZL: 7x @\ZG8.9UgJGLNre&OCYV '<8=>|oC|,Om0}CN8gF\S j ;WL`L|4f{VU_{O2*$BV0'G gdgnword-docGUID`Ddgnword-eventsink&{005ABBDE-8846-498A-9A41-A8B3666CB995}84041304@$Mi$$MN Z [ \ ] s t u{}Һ@V@d@h@@@(@0@@ @UnknownJuleInge G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @Calibri7. Verdana7K@Cambria5. *aTahoma?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"q:tF:tFw5G^S+G^S+nx20dRR 3qHX $Py&2! xx]C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Joern\Anwendungsdaten\Microsoft\Vorlagen\A 4 normal 3333-a.dot07 Jrn Rsen Jrn Rsend                 Oh+'0l  ( 4 @LT\d07 Jrn RsenA 4 normal 3333-a.dot Jrn Rsen2Microsoft Office Word@7@Ls*@Ls*G^՜.+,D՜.+,0 hp|  +SR 07 Titel4 8@ _PID_HLINKSA : http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm : http://praxeology.net/kant7.htm   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F"|*1TablelpWordDocument 2 SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore;{*|*P2HZU4GFHH==2;{*|*Item PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003-Dokument MSWordDocWord.Document.89q