EASTWARD OR WESTWARD?
It is already known that the problems which mankind is now facing, at the
end of a century and of a millennium, hardly could be considered simple. Europe
is trying to find solutions to the consequences of the fall of communism, and
especially to the difficult problems of reintegration of the ex-communist
countries into the free-market economic system and into the Western-type
The enthusiasm and satisfaction generated by the destruction of one of
the most oppressive totalitarian systems were amazing and strongly motivated.
However, the changes the civic way of thinking, the mentalities especially the
economic system as well as their evolution towards requirements of the Western
system have proven to be more difficult and complicated than they were initially
thought to be. Moreover, certain countries, such as Romania, have not yet
succeeded in harnessing the initial enthusiasm and energy. Economic reform, as
well as administrative and social reforms, are encountering difficulties with
long periods of stagnation and various obstacles.
There is also a significant reactionary, conservative force that persists
not only on economic levels but also among the intellectuals and thinkers. This
conservative attitude is supplied, unfortunately, by significant errors made by
political leaders unable to make important decisions and to assume the risks.
One could ask oneself why this conservative attitude exists and how it could be
diminished in the near future? A possible answer could be given by the modern
and contemporary history of Romania.
Looking attentively in historical studies I found that crises and the
problem of connecting to the Western civilization existed during the 19th
century and at the beginning of the 20th century. The 19th century was marked by
the revolutionary movement in 1848 which had a significant consequence for
Romanians: the union of two Romanian provinces in 1859 and the foundation of a
national State based on the European model. Economic consequences as well as
cultural and social changes marked the end of that century.
In the 20th century, after World War I, the necessity of a more
accentuated capitalist development became obvious. Then as now most
intellectuals were oriented in two important directions of thinking on the
(1) those who desired a rapid integration of the new national state into
the community of the Western nations; and
(2) those who were interested in maintaining national identity and in
promoting the rural way of life that was considered the only one capable of
preserving the ancient Romanian traditions. The sympathizers with the latter
cause considered that the Romanian State could be manifestly present in the
European context only by its national specificity, an idea inherited from the
romantic period of the 18th and 19th centuries and initiated by the German
thinking about Der Volksgeist.
As a consequence, the 1920s and 1930s were marked by the publication of
numerous studies trying to define this national specificity. The studies were
written by important thinkers who became, at the end of the 30s, spiritual
leaders of a social movement that gained a political status and much sympathy
among the people. It was an extremist movement of the political right,
Legionarism. In the beginning, it was a cultural movement, understood as an
extension of Romanian traditionalism.
One of its spiritual leaders was Nichifor Crainic (1889-1972) who
elaborated the theses of orthodoxy and published them in the cultural journal, The
Thinking (Gandirea). Another spiritual leader was Nae Ionescu (1888-1940),
philosopher and professor at the University of Bucharest. He was one of the
leaders of the anti-rationalist movement and had a great influence on the
generation of young intellectuals who started their carrier at the end of the
20s. Ionescu proclaimed the destruction of positivism and asserted firmly that
the world must be led by forces that should reject man's cognitive capacities.
Reality was, for him, action. It is religion or a mystic attitude that realize
the purpose of all humankind; through them, one can understand the world.
Orthodoxy was, in Ionescu's thinking, the real religion and the only one adapted
to the way of life of the Romanian peasant. He considered that anybody could
become Catholic or Protestant; but he had no doubt that, if somebody is really a
Romanian, he was born Eastern Orthodox. Orthodoxy is "a natural way of
being in the world" that cannot be acquired by various types of religious
practices. The real Romanian citizen lives in a village which is the center of
the orthodox spirituality; he should avoid town life because it denaturalized
the spontaneous, natural way of living.
Nae Ionescu succeeded in gathering around his personality a group of
outstanding young people who afterwards became famous as cultural personalities:
Emil Cioran (1911-1995), the philosopher of man's tragic destiny, M.
Eliade(1907-1986), the famous historian of religions and Mircea Vulcanescu
(1904-1952), philosopher and sociologist. Many of them collaborated on the
cultural journal, Criterion.
They had no doubt that they were the missionaries of a new spirituality.
They cited Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Sestov, Heidegger, Unamuno, Berdiaev; they
were interested in orphism, theosophy, Oriental mysticism and ancient religions;
they talked about the providential mission of their generation; and they
criticized capitalist mediocrity and materialism with all its forms. Their
mission was to realize the unity of the Romanian soul and to determine the
spiritual reconstruction of Romania even as their forerunners had achieved the
political union. Their desire to push Romania away from its lethargic state of
inactivity was obvious. E. Cioran1 wrote that he felt humiliated by
the fact that he was a citizen of a country living like a plant, in a vegetal
manner. Romania had nothing to say to Europe for a thousand years. Like Ionescu
and Crainic, they were attracted to the Romanian village, the place of the
Romanian spirituality; they, too, appreciated the role of Orthodoxy in the
modelling of the national experience.
During the 30s, Crainic and Ionescu changed the emphasis of their
movement from a religious and cultural attitude to a political one. They
expressed their admiration for Fascist politics, especially in the Italian form,
and made "autochthonism", defined as a combination of ethnicity and
religion, the spiritual product of their personal version of a corporatist
state, named "ethnocracy".
The accent on ethnicity and the admiration of the Fascist movement made
Carainic change his focus from the venerated East to Rome. In Mussolini's Italy
he found the model of an active state based on Christian spirituality that could
efficiently combine historical tradition and political experience without the
exaggerations of capitalist liberalism. Byzantium was replaced by Rome. This new
type of orthodoxy attracted the younger generation, who "became activists
by desperation", as Vulcanescu named them. Ideologically they opposed the
main group who were looking for interior harmony in an almost idyllic
atmosphere. An interesting aspect of this cultural and political movement is the
fact that they wanted, in the same measure as their antagonists, to connect
Romania to the coordinates of Western civilization. Its solution was based on
emphasizing national specificity and posturing as if afraid of losing the
national identity while integrating into the European realm through a process
that seems quite similar to our contemporary false problems concerning
globalization. The problem discussed so much at this turn of the millennia is
that of the danger of losing national identity during the process of
globalization; this problem also concerned our forerunners. They did desperate
things not because they believed in what they did but because they wanted to
believe in them, says Vulcanescu.2
The opposition, having liberal conceptions and sympathies, promoted and
supported the idea that all sorts of traditionalisms should be abandoned because
they were considered the main obstacle against modernization. To maintain at any
cost a rural culture, to eulogize the peasant life, to idealize it as well as
the Orthodox religion, which was declared to be the unique preserver of Romanian
specificity, were not aspects not appreciated by the non-traditaionalists.
Among the representatives of interwar cultural life, who joined together
in order to attack the extremist position led by Crainic and his Orthodoxist
colleagues, we can mention: Eugen Lovinescu (1881-1943), the main literary
critics of that period, and Mihai Ralea (1896-1964), who was the leader of an
influential cultural journal, Viata Romaneasca (Romanian Life), one of
the spiritual leaders of the moment and a supporter of the pro-European
movement. They denounced Orthodoxy as a serious obstacle to express the national
specificity just because of its fundamental Byzantine-Slavic characteristic.
Another liberal personality of the period was Stefan Zeletin (1882-1934), a
philosopher and sociologist.
Lovinescu and Zeletin, as well as Ralea, believed that Orthodox Church
did not serve the national interests because it would have denied its proper
Romanian substance. Lovinescu named it "the most active ferment of the
orientalization of Romania" and considered it an "obscurantist
religion stuck in dogmas and formalism"3 which had imposed on
the Romanian people a foreign language, (Slavon) and had thrown the people into
the "Slavic sea" which had almost swallowed them. Into this situation
came the first Romanian thinker on the European level: Dimitrie Cantemir
Enclosed in our dogmas, nothing that was happening in Europe could reach
our territory. While the world was rebuilding its bases, nothing was growing in
our country; we kept staying hidden in our small pit-houses of wood and reed.4
The author discovered the positive influence on our culture and
civilization caused by foreign representatives of the Catholic and Protestant
Churches. The first religious translations were published in Transylvania, at
Brasov (1482) by Protestants.
In Moldavia, the eastern province of Romania, the political, economic and
cultural relations with Poland from the 15th to 19th centuries allowed a more
profound penetration of the Catholic way of thinking. The Moldavian
historiographers visited the old and famous Polish universities such as the
Jagellonian University in Cracaw and learned the Latin language. By doing so,
these intellectuals were able to understand and to interest themselves in
proving the Roman origin of the Romanian people. At the same time, they promoted
the colloquial written Romanian language among the Moldavian boyars.
During the 18th century, the Romanian people in Transylvania united with
the Roman Catholic Church and, under the influence of the European
Enlightenment, they proved and increased their interest in knowledge and the
scientific proof of the Latin origin of our language.
Taking into consideration these aspects, as well as others, E. Lovinescu
considered that Romanian society has the obligation to re-direct the political,
economic and cultural axis from the East towards the West which is a radical
change from ex oriente lux to ex occidente lux.5
In order to make this significant change, Lovinescu considered that a
modification of the mindset should be performed before making any economic
changes. His main idea was that the ideological revolution precedes the economic
one. However, today, our actual situation seems to tend the other way. A group
of people from political associations and civil society consider that first a
changed mentality is necessary, but under the pressure of time the first step
should be economic, followed or accompanied by a cultural one.
Lovinescu considered that the only chance to achieve this purpose was to
synchronize Romanian society to the West through a process of imitation. The
process should take place first at a psychological level. The author used
Gabriel Tardes's conception of imitation.6 The end of the 19th
century demonstrated that imitation was useful and successful. It was
implemented from the higher to lower levels. It is based on the main
sociological idea: imitation of a superior civilization followed by an
assimilation process. In this situation, the economic and political forces that
effected the change and synchronized the Romanian society to the West, were the
liberal forces and the liberal bourgeoisie.
Another pro-Occidental thinker was S. Zeletin.7 In The
Romanian Bourgeoisie8 Zeletin offered an applied, rational and
well-argumented study of the imperative of developing the Romanian capitalist
society. Zeletin was an advocate of modernization with his vision of
corresponding to the facts. He observed that even inside the peasantry changes
had been made which were seen as natural and irreversible. The only solution for
Romania is to increase and stimulate development of life in all domains.
Zeletin also noticed the existence of a paradox at the psychological
level: if the liberal economy promotes a renewed Western spirit within the
economic domain, the cultural one is significantly anti-bourgeois. Thus, during
the interwar period, a relationship could be achieved between the progressive
economic and the conservative cultural processes. Zeletin was referring to the
forms of nationalism and xenophobia which he considered real and dangerous
obstacles to the effort of "building a modern capitalist nation".
These suggestions point out the Romanian situation during the interwar
period which seem similar, mutatis mutandis, to the situation at the move
into the next century. There is, of course, a significant distinction: the
current economic situation is disastrous, causing serious cultural and
ideological consequences. The great similarity between these two periods is
based on the wish of the majority that Romania be reintegrated into the European
civilization in order to be able to participate in the process of globalization.
In analyzing the cultural ideas and their evolution, I consider Romania
to be passing through a period of crises where major political phenomena make it
necessary to rethink certain ideological and cultural aspects.
What roles should Romania play? What attitude should it adopt? These are
actual political problems. But how does the Romanian citizen respond to the need
of adapting to the Western mentality? How much is he or she prepared for this
harsh impact of a significantly different civilization and mentality? These are
questions which the cultured man should answer if interested in the formative
aspect of cultural interaction.
A possible answer can be found, once again, by studying our forerunners.
In the following pages, I will refer to the cultural thought of Tudor Vianu,
namely, on the cultural condition and its civilizing role in our century.9
Vianu was interested not only in the philosophy of culture, but also in
its sociological dimension, teaching the first courses of the sociology of
culture in Romania at the University of Bucharest in 1933. Culture is a dynamic
force which he recognized as a force that activates the spirit and has a
teleologic role. Culture promotes man in "his role of self-creator of his
destiny".10 Therefore, culture is an act of human freedom; the
man of culture does not accept passively the society in which he lives, but he
tries to change it; thus, culture becomes a social phenomenon. It is necessary
to assimilate, transmit and change culturally. As these phenomena take place
only inside society, it is obviously necessary to know the situation of culture
at a certain moment: its characteristics, the basic ideas which govern it and
the direction of its progress.
It is necessary to know and analyze the cultural values, how they act,
and evolve their rank in a hierarchy. Approaching culture from a philosophical
point of view, one can also understand certain past phenomena as well as predict
At 32 years of age, Vianu wrote About Rationalism and Historism,11
in which he described the entire evolution of philosophical and cultural ideas
between the 17th and the 19th centuries. He remarked that the passage from the
17th to the 18th century brought Europe a significant change of philosophical
perspective from the general and universal to the particular and individual.
This passage is not sudden and is specific to all the domains of spiritual life.
From Rousseau to Hegel, European thinking traverses several peaks. The
author, Vianu, critically analyzed the role of reason. Starting with Kant and
Rousseau, the supremacy of reason established by 17th century Cartesian
classicism is strongly eroded. This type of thinking, structured on the
universal, which is static, narrows during the following century. Rousseau and
Condorcet change the focus towards a certain dynamism which points up the role
played by the particular individual.
Herder and Humboldt preached a new cultural ideal -- the individual
soul. Until that time, humankind had been the only bearer of culture, the
Romantics considered that man as an individual to be the cultural agent. Kant
considered humanity to be a bearer of culture. For Kant humanity encompassed a
quality had by every man; the purpose of humanity was continual progress. On the
contrary, Herder considered the individualizing process to be very varied and to
cause various individual cultures. Humanity was, for him, a harmonious
fulfillment of all possibilities; the purpose of the whole of humankind should
be what each man is and can become. Herder stressed that the human purpose is
not only the progress of rational thinking, but also a harmonious development of
all human qualities and values. If at a political level the state was for Kant
the framework where the individual could live according to the rational
imperatives. Herder rejects the universalism in nature that demands that life
should be harmoniously developed under local, individual conditions.
Humbold deepens the meaning of these ideas. He agrees with the liberal
attitude on an almost negative influence of the state which is supposed to
assure the protection and safety of its citizens, but he rejects any
interference to the privacy of each person. "The highest ideal of men's
co-existence is the one which would assure each man the possibility to fulfil
himself from himself and only for himself."12
The new idea that dominated in the early 19th century was that mankind
divided into particular cultures without obvious connections among them. This
new historicist concept of culture was Herder's most important innovation.
But Hegel is the one who achieves the accord between the two conceptions
which had been on opposite sides until then: the universalist rationalism and
the individualizing historicism. Reason (Spirit) is, for Hegel, a principle
immanent not only to general reality, but also to history. Considering that
Reason should be autonomous and its substance is freedom, Hegel obtains the
interiorization of the idea of freedom which is not a social but interior and
metaphysical. When the Spirit, passing through a step-by-step self-awareness,
realizes itself in the form of the State, this social form is the embodiment of
spirit or freedom.
The individual becomes free when the reasons of his will coincide with
the reasons of the Spirit as it is manifested in the form of the State. Thus,
Hegel succeeds in combining rationalism (which gives a unique and progressive
sense to history) with historicism (individual appreciation of originality at
certain moments). The rationalist philosophy of culture supposes a unique
progress of humankind towards a universal ideal of domination. Historicism
distinguishes among various cultures due to their originality; the ideal is not
the progress of humanity, but a harmonious development of individuality.
Nietzsche criticized the historicist and etatist Hegelian vision as it
appeared at the end of the 19th century in the studies of certain thinkers, like
David Strauss. The basic idea was that reason completely develops itself
throughout history, thereby clarifying in this way the sense of culture. The
result was an agreement on the status of facts, a satisfaction that could cause
non-activism and the consent for the idea of sure and continuous progress.
Strauss becomes, in Nietzsche's opinion, the model of the cultural Philistine (Bildungs
Philister). The only solution for Nietzsche is the super-historical attitude
after having taken an ahistorical position.
The super-historical man does not accept his fulfillment as a continuous
becoming, but considers that the world ends and reaches its purpose in each
particular moment. As a consequence, life is considered from an absolute point
of view. An historicism assures us of the universe in which the super-history is
possible; it gives us the belief in the absolute value of creation. This
super-historical attitude can be achieved only in art and religion, for science
can study only processes of becoming. Hence, Nietzsche established an artistic
and religious ideal for culture.
Nietzsche definitely exceeded the progressist rationalism of the 18th
century. He also opened the modern cultural crisis which had long been evolving.
The sense and purpose of culture would no longer depend, for Nietzsche, on the
fulfillment of reason, but on the intensification of the creative forces
oriented towards the absolute and eternal being. Each people and period have
their ideal generated by the specificity of their metaphysical conscience. Each
culture is an individual totality.
By the end of the 19th century the conclusion was that modern culture as
a whole could be systematized in a plurality of types, but it did not tend
towards an accomplished unity from the historical point of view. In Nietzsche's
view real cultural creation aims at the absolute through an ahistoricism; only
when reaching the immobility of the eternity, can we discover the mystery of
absolute creation. A logical consequence, remarks Vianu, would be that the human
creation should belong to an ontological vision and not to a vision submitted to
the process of becoming. But Nietzsche had another view: he considered that we
could not feel the creative impulse in the position of eternity because human
creation loses its sense in comparison to the Absolute Being. The
self-knowledge, diving into the depth of our particularity, should represent the
basis of culture when desiring to achieve such creativity; self-knowledge should
be a premise as well as a result.13
The transition from Rousseau's thinking to Nietzsche's is a dialectical
process. Where Rousseau doubts the existence of a value of civilization and
requires the rules of human nature, Herder considers that natural laws do not
operate in human society, but only at the level of individual cultural
existence, marking thus the rise of historicism. Nietzsche has another
conception of culture which is based on the philosophical category of action.
Cultural action (deed) is a creative human supplement by which thereby reality
completes its meaning. Culture completes nature, which receives human qualities.
Nietzsche stimulated cultural originality by stressing an activist conception in
which culture is the completion of nature.
OF VALUES OR CRISIS OF MODERN CULTURE?
Nietzsche's vision of human society is based on the idea of a large
crisis. In fact, a series of thinkers (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Marx) thought
that human thinking confronted a period of crisis.14
Vianu finds an explanation even at an axiological level which receives
and develops the fundamental idea analyzed in the above-mentioned article. He
discovers15 that an obvious differentiation of values takes place in
modern culture, generating a real autonomy of values. In fact, this is the great
conquest of modern culture. If certain values had been potentia hierarchy during
the Medieval Age, with Classicism and Enlightenment imposing a subordination of
the other values, then during the modern period the consciousness of the
irreducibility of values caused can increase of their individual freedom and
autonomy. The consequences of this autonomy were:
1. the impossibility for the values-bearer to cover the totality of life:
Each individual has the liberty to live under his proper value;
2. the suppression of the center of culture: The modern man has always a
peripheral position as he subordinates to an autonomous value. He seems to live
in an inner vacuum as he is not oriented towards a significant center.
Analyzing the trials to get back to a centered culture (the theories
proposed by Comte, Berdiaev, Maritain), Vianu draws the conclusion that this
return is no longer possible because "irreversibility is a fundamental
characteristic of the historical evolution". If processes are reversible in
nature, they are not in history. Any summing up of values makes impossible any
return (which supposes the elimination of those values summed up afterwords).
This idea should be taken into account even now. There are thinkers who
propose a reorganization of civil society, a moral behavior based on the ideas
prevalent before World War II. This process would suppose the elimination from
the psychological data of the post-communist society of all the aspects
accumulated during the fifty years of communism. It is really an illusion to
think that somebody could wipe out such an accumulation, nor am I convinced that
it would be a good idea! This experience of a part of the world did affect the
psychic structure in a certain manner; it is an experience that should not be
forgotten. Besides its tragedies and bad influences, it offered new visions on
human existence, namely, special psychological attitudes that have to be
recorded. They belong to the history of mankind for certain geographical
Coming back to Vianu's conception, he wonders if the cultivated man
subordinated to a unique value can or cannot express and reflect the entire
unity of life. The Romanian thinker believes that distinction and
differentiation can contribute to regaining the totality.
The creative act, Kant considered, does not come from outside; it is an
inner, spiritual, creative excess; it is a psychic synthesis. In addition, the
soul is a teleological structure in Dilthey's vision. Thus, the unity of purpose
assures the form of the life of the soul. That purpose is a value. The
teleological structure of the soul, in the gestalt vision, is in a hierarchy and
is led by a super value but is capable of cooperating with other values. Taking
into account all these aspects, Vianu proposes a new activist attitude towards
culture. Cultural activism proposes as many aims as it can assume; it
understands culture as a deed of human freedom; the creative act is an
expression of freedom.
Having in mind Max Scheler's conception of human types specific for
various cultural periods, Vianu considers that the type of man who thinks
responsibly should be the model for this new activist moment of culture. The
Promethean myth and type of man would be, in Vianu's vision, the embodiment of
this active and creative attitude.16
Vianu discovers the presence of the Promethean motive in Romantic poetry
and modern philosophy and makes an analysis from the perspective of this motive.
He thus discovers that Prometheus himself, as a mythological god, appears in
works of some of the romantic poets: Shaftesbury who compared the artist to
Prometheus, Goethe who did not finish his Prometheus , Rousseau, Shelley
and Byron or Goethe again with his Faust, because even the pact with evil
contains obvious Promethean elements. There are also Promethean aspects in
Kant's and Fichte's philosophy. The latter insisted on the Promethean dimension
of the theory of culture. This is the practice of all our spiritual abilities in
order to reach a complete freedom. To make the world conform to man, to change
things according to human conception -- this is a Promethean vision.
In this way, Vianu's activism is not limited to an ethical value, but is
governed by the religious value of love for others, by the Promethean aspiration
towards the fulfillment of human destiny. That is why, in his opinion, the
Romanian culture has been in a continuous process of adaptation. Revolutionary
and democratic rationalism proposed the ideal of national freedom for the
Romanian Provinces; the process of occidentalization took place as a result of
this cultural rationalism, doubled through the process of becoming conscious of
creative freedom. Vianu considers that the need to find and maintain national
identity is not solved by a continuous theoretical redefinition -- "We are
what our deeds are". It is not the historicism which offers us definitions
about our own national identity, but the facts which the cultural deeds can
I consider this conception as a plausible answer even for our current
situations. The model of Promethean humanity has been actualized for two
centuries especially at a global level. The problem of cultural and national
identity in the context of globalization takes us back to a historicist and
individualist vision that Vianu suggested we overcome even in 1944. We must
consider that the interwar period was a kind of negative, catastrophic example
of violence and brutal individualist definitions that dominated Europe,
encouraging political extremist actions and imposing totalitarian governments.
The individualist definitions of separation and opposition are dangerous
any time and anywhere as they generate extremist movements. An opposite
attitude, based on collaboration and mutual understanding, could be supported by
the activist model and the Promethean man.
1. E. Cioran, Schimbarea la fata a Romaniei (The transformation
of Romania) (Bucharest: Publishing House Vremea, 1936), pp. 7-58.
2. M. Vulcaescu, Tendintele tinerei generatii (Tendencies of the young
generation), Lumea noua (New world), nr. 14 (Bucharest, 1934).
3. E. Lovinescu, Istoria civilizatiei romane moderne (History of
Romanian modern civilization), vol. I (Bucharest: Publishing House Ancora,
1924-1926), pp. 5-10.
4. Ibid., p. 10.
5. This problem is also our contemporary problem after the political
events of December 1989.
6. G. Tardes, Les lois de l'imitation (The laws of imitation)
7. He received a Ph.D. in philosophy at Erlangen, Germany; specializing
in English philosophy and also in economics; he wrote a great many articles on
8. Stefan Zeletin, Burghezia romana (The Romanian Bourgeoisie)
(Bucharest: Publishing House Cultura National, 1925).
9. Tudor Vianu (1897-1964) is one of the most valuable personalities of
our culture during very different political periods of our history. He was an
aesthetician, a philosopher of culture and values; he worked as a professor at
the department of Aesthetics at the University of Bucharest. After World War II
and especially during the first period of the communist government, he was
Director of the Library of the Academy and an official representative in various
international structures. Having received a Ph.D. from Germany, Vianu was one of
the important cultural voices in the Romanian culture for a large period of the
10. T. Vianu, Sociologia culturii (Sociology of Culture), in Opere
(Complete Works), vol. 8 (Bucharest: Publishing House Minerva, 1979), p.
11. T. Vianu, Conceptia rationalista si istorica a culturii (The
Rationalist and Historicist Conception of Culture), in Arhiva pentru
stiinte si reforma sociala (Archive for Sciences and Social Reform)
12. Apud. T. Vianu, op. cit. in Opere (Complete Works) vol.
8 (Bucharest: Publishing House Minerva, 1979), p. 35.
13. Ibid., p. 42.
14. H. Arendt, Between Past and Future, (La crise de la
culture) (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), pp. 58-121.
15. T. Vianu, Introducere in teoria valorilor (Introduction in the
Theory of Values), lin Opere (Complete Works), vol. 8 (Bucharest:
Minerva, 1979), pp. 60-130.
16. T. Vianu, Sociologia culturii (Sociology of Culture), in Opere
(Complete Works), vol. 8 (Bucharest: Minerva, 1979), pp. 410-427.
17. T. Vianu, Filosofia culturii (Philosophy of Culture), in Opere,
(Complete Works), vol. 8, p. 311.