( dr. Daniel Habit , well-known specialist in cultural anthropological research , from
Munchen has been invited to sustain a conference about the sense and symbols of
the European collective imaginaire , at the National University of Fine Arts ,
History and Art Theory Department / the key-subject created naturally , a vivid
impact among students , universitarians and other specialists )
As distinct realities , cultural values and the European identity speak the language of their own particular circumstances . They are positively focused on how could be enlarged the political discourse , without being neither neglected , nor subdue to an universal factor of judgement : the economical purpose .
As to discover in what really consists the spirit of European identity , the cultural anthropology has to rebuit and to describe its typical ancient formative myths ( like the famous one , evoking “ The Rape of Europe “ , so often used by artists , historians and politologists ) . Furthermore , one has to understand its symbolical , even parodical interpretation , all across the ages till nowadays .
The anthropological analysis ( and deconstruction of the subject ) made by Daniel Habit in his discourse , concluded that the main question resides on how societies / nations choose to fail or succeed trying to ( re )construct that ancient ideal of European unity .
On the other hand , in the first half of the 1900’s there was still a trend in anthropology
( the Great Chain of Beeing ) seeing the European culture as the pinnacle , and to define all cultures in relation to how far they ‘ve learn the alphabet of survival .
History is moreover reduced to a kind of a universal mental map , fragile enough to demonstrate the origins and signs of humanity ( e.g. the Germans had the Nazi gene in the ’30 and ‘40s , yet it has now nearly vanished ; therefore , everything in human behaviour , in politics and economics is due to our genes ) .

Unfortunately , the sense of culture is somehow reduced and totally exposed to an unpredictable term – as Fukuyama said before – ideology .
One thing anthropologists learn very fast was that you must suspend all moral inquieries about the culture you’re studying . Why ? Because otherwise you won’t get anywhere with it . It’s a purely utilitarian decision . This is part of the reason why they ‘re so reluctant to communicate with various cultures / peoples ; they still need to “ talk “ with their inner thought .
Somebody has to find the right answer to an old question : how could we avoid the ideological prejudice when we try to explain the errors of the past ? . And in addition ,
how could we differ between ideology , science and personal beliefs ? . As Francois Furet said once , we need a clear list of all our “ truths and personal dilemmas “ .
To understand and explain the past is no longer a pure and habitual operation ; it became an expectful experience .
That’s why the theme choosen by our guest ( inventing Europe ) was very valuable , engaging him in something much profound than any other discourse about the so-called forgotten roots of mankind .
Among the people present were also involved in discussions students , art historians and critics , universitarians ( prof. Ruxandra Demetrescu , Vlad Bedros , Ada Stefanut or A.Branea ) and journalists .


Armand Steriadi