Cross-Cultural Understandings in the Language and Politics of Friendship1/COMPRÉHENSION TRANSCULTURELLE DANS LE LANGAGE ET LA POLITIQUE D'AMITIÉ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Friendship is a frequently-used word but it is difficult to define it clearly. Friendship in its various configurations links people and communities together in some sort of reciprocally beneficial association that forms societies. Thus friendship is a concept that deserves attention. This paper examines some of the similarities and differences about understandings of friendship which both support and challenge traditional western perspectives. The article argues that an exploration of the experiences and interpretations of friendship outside the western philosophical tradition demonstrates a shared understanding about many aspects, but also some subtle differences which, while challenging some of the western concepts, can also be incorporated into developments of the idea of friendship. Key words: friendship, western philosophical tradition, cross-cultural understandings, language of friendship, socio-linguistic approach Resume: L'amitie est un mot frequemment utilise mais il est difficile de le definir clairement. L'amitie lie, dans ses diverses formes, les peuples et les communautes a une sorte d'association reciproquement benefique qui forme la societe. L'amitie est ainsi un concept qui merite l'attention. Le present article examine des similitudes et differences des comprehensions de ce mot, qui supporte et defie a la fois les perspectives occidentales traditionnelles. L'auteur argumente qu'une exploration des experiences et interpretations de l'amitie hors de la tradition philosophique occidentale montre une comprehension partagee sur beaucoup d'aspects, de plus, des differences subtiles qui, tout en defiant des concepts occidentaux, peuvent aussi etre integrees au developpement de l'idee d'amitie. Mots-cles: amitie, tradition philosophique occidentale, comprehension transculturelle, langage d'amitie, approche sociolinguistique The axiom 'O my friend, there is no friend' attributed to Montaigne via Aristotle, has been used as a motif by the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida in his lectures and writings on friendship collected in his book The Politics of Friendship (1997). This citation of the citation of a quotation serves to indicate something of the complexities and contradictions inherent in the everyday term of friendship. The apparent ordinariness of the word friendship conceals ideas about, not only a multiplicity of personal relationships, but also pacts between states, cultural exchanges, business contacts, political alliances and legal communications. Friendship in its various configurations links people and communities together in some sort of reciprocally beneficial association that forms societies. Thus friendship is a concept that deserves attention and that has the capacity to improve relationships in an increasingly conflict-ridden world. The vast literature which seeks to illuminate and define the concept of friendship is located predominantly in the western philosophical tradition. This article, while acknowledging the difficulty of accessing the values, beliefs and ways of thinking of different cultures, examines some of the similarities and differences about understandings of friendship which both support and challenge traditional western perspectives. Drawing on a variety of disciplines the paper uses literature and research from the humanities and the social sciences and findings from cross-cultural conversations on friendship in an attempt to make a link between the theoretical and the empirical. The article argues that an exploration of the experiences and interpretations of friendship outside the western philosophical tradition demonstrates a shared understanding about many aspects, but also some subtle differences which, while challenging some of the western concepts, can also be incorporated into developments of the idea of friendship. THE WESTERN TRADITION OF FRIENDSHIP In the western philosophical tradition, the study of friendship often refers back to the political writings of the Greeks and Romans. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".