<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=190566"><dc:title>Laozi’s intercultural reception</dc:title><dc:creator>Costantini,	Filippo	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>Chinese philosophy</dc:subject><dc:subject>Daoism</dc:subject><dc:subject>Laozi</dc:subject><dc:subject>Latin America</dc:subject><dc:subject>translation</dc:subject><dc:description>At the turn of the 20th century, Latin American publishers began producing Spanish translations of Asian philosophical and religious classics, reflecting a growing fascination with Oriental cultures. This surge in publications was fuelled by emerging transnational esoteric, intellectual, and artistic networks. Among these texts, the Laozi stands out for its remarkable adaptability, undergoing multiple interpretative shifts to align with diverse cultural and intellectual frameworks.
This paper investigates the intercultural reception of the Laozi in Latin America, fo­cusing on how European intellectual networks mediated its translation, interpretation, and domestication in the region. Through a comparative analysis of three paradigmat­ic retranslations—Edmundo Montagne’s anarchist-spiritual rendition, Adolfo Carpio’s metaphysical reading, and Onorio Ferrero’s traditionalist interpretation—the study traces the text’s transatlantic trajectories and its reframing for Latin American audiences. Each translation reflects a distinct interpretative approach shaped by the author’s intellectual background and objectives. Collectively, they demonstrate how translators negotiated European frameworks while addressing local intellectual concerns, from critiques of Western modernity to postcolonial re-evaluations of non-Western epistemologies that remained entangled with colonial knowledge hierarchies.
By analysing these cases, this paper highlights the complexities behind the reception of Daoism in Latin America, underscoring the entrenched power imbalances within the broader intellectual networks that linked the region with Europe. These dynamics con­tributed to the global circulation and reinterpretation of this Daoist classic, revealing how even anti-colonial critiques often relied on Eurocentric paradigms to legitimize non-Western thought.</dc:description><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-10-29 15:42:27</dc:date><dc:type>Članek v reviji</dc:type><dc:identifier>190566</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
