Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Critical Responses (critical + response)
Selected AbstractsLiteracy, Knowledge Production, and Grassroots Civil Society: Constructing Critical Responses to Neoliberal DominanceANTHROPOLOGY & EDUCATION QUARTERLY, Issue 4 2009Erika MeinArticle first published online: 14 DEC 200 Within the context of neoliberal globalization, portrayals of "literacy" and "knowledge" are increasingly emphasized for their instrumental value for individuals and markets. At the same time, locally situated movements have emerged to challenge, resist, and transform these representations. This article examines a grassroots movement in Mexico, the Feria Pedagógica (Pedagogical Fair), as one such site of contestation. Grounded in nonmainstream notions of "civil society," this movement represents an alternative educational space where literacy practices are tied to the construction of counterhegemonic identities and epistemologies.[literacy, civil society, social movements, popular education, Mexico] [source] Critical response from Professor Michael J. SamwaysJOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, Issue 6 2003Michael J. Samways No abstract is available for this article. [source] The Deukalion and Pyrrha Myth in Paul Celan and Christoph RansmayrGERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS, Issue 2 2003Scott G. Williams This article examines the rewriting of Ovid's version of the Deukalion and Pyrrha myth by Paul Celan and Christoph Ransmayr. The myth relates how Jupiter destroys the world by deluge and how Deukalion and Pyrrha repopulate the earth. This myth of destruction and renewal finds resonance in the poetry of Celan and the novel Die letzte Welt by Ransmayr, one at the start of the literature of the post-war years, the other closing the second half of the century. In the case of Celan, this article highlights a connection to the classical tradition little noticed in the critical literature. In turn, it also helps lift a corner of the veil on some of his enigmatic poetry. Ransmayr's version of the myth is embedded in his rewriting of Ovid's Metamorphoses. The analysis of that version also elucidates the sparse reference to the Holocaust in the novel. There are similar metaphoric responses to the myth in both contemporary writers. Furthermore, the critical response to both writers reflects the tumultuous relationship of German-language literature and history since 1945. [source] THE PRICE OF METAPHORHISTORY AND THEORY, Issue 1 2005JOSEPH FRACCHIA ABSTRACT In his critical response to our skeptical inquiry, "Does Culture Evolve?" (History and Theory, Theme Issue 38 [December 1999], 52,78), W. G. Runciman affirms that "Culture Does Evolve." However, we find nothing in his essay that convinces us to alter our initial position. And we must confess that in composing an answer to Runciman, our first temptation was simply to urge those interested to read our original article,both as a basis for evaluating Runciman's attempted refutation of it and as a framework for reading this essay, which addresses in greater detail issues we have already raised. Runciman views the "selectionist paradigm" as a "scientific""puzzle-solving device" now validated by an "expanding literature" that has successfully modeled social and cultural change as "evolutionary." All paradigms, however, including scientific ones, give rise to self-validating "normal science." The real issue, accordingly, is not whether explanations can be successfully manufactured on the basis of paradigmatic assumptions, but whether the paradigmatic assumptions are appropriate to the object of analysis. The selectionist paradigm requires the reduction of society and culture to inheritance systems that consist of randomly varying, individual units, some of which are selected, and some not; and with society and culture thus reduced to inheritance systems, history can be reduced to "evolution." But these reductions, which are required by the selectionist paradigm, exclude much that is essential to a satisfactory historical explanation,particularly the systemic properties of society and culture and the combination of systemic logic and contingency. Now as before, therefore, we conclude that while historical phenomena can always be modeled selectionistically, selectionist explanations do no work, nor do they contribute anything new except a misleading vocabulary that anesthetizes history. [source] The Unfreedom of the Moderns in Comparison to Their Ideals of Constitutional DemocracyTHE MODERN LAW REVIEW, Issue 2 2002James Tully The paper is a critical survey of the last ten years of research on the principles of legitimacy of constitutional democracy and their application in practice in Europe and North America. A constitutional democracy is legitimate if it meets the test of two principles: the principles of democracy or popular sovereignty and of constitutionalism or the rule of law. There are three contemporary trends which tend to conflict with the principle of democracy and thus diminish democratic freedom. There are three responses to the lack of legitimacy of these three trends. The first is to downplay the principle of democracy in order to endorse the three trends. The second is to uphold the principle of democracy, in the form of deliberative constitutional democracy, in order to criticise aspects of the three trends and to call for further democratisation. The third trend deepens this critical response by tying the test of democratic legitimacy more closely to case studies of attempts by citizens to exercise their democratic freedom. [source] Response to three-component seismic motion of arbitrary directionEARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, Issue 1 2002Julio J. Hernández Abstract This paper presents a response spectrum analysis procedure for the calculation of the maximum structural response to three translational seismic components that may act at any inclination relative to the reference axes of the structure. The formula GCQC3, a generalization of the known CQC3-rule, incorporates the correlation between the seismic components along the axes of the structure and the intensity disparities between them. Contrary to the CQC3-rule where a principal seismic component must be vertical, in the GCQC3-rule all components can have any direction. Besides, the GCQC3-rule is applicable if we impose restrictions to the maximum inclination and/or intensity of a principal seismic component; in this case two components may be quasi-horizontal and the third may be quasi-vertical. This paper demonstrates that the critical responses of the structure, defined as the maximum and minimum responses considering all possible directions of incidence of one seismic component, are given by the square root of the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of the response matrix R, of order 3×3, defined in this paper; the elements of R are established on the basis of the modal responses used in the well-known CQC-rule. The critical responses to the three principal seismic components with arbitrary directions in space are easily calculated by combining the eigenvalues of R and the intensities of those components. The ratio rmax/rSRSS between the maximum response and the SRSS response, the latter being the most unfavourable response to the principal seismic components acting along the axes of the structure, is bounded between 1 and ,(3,a2/(,a2 + ,b2 + ,c2)), where ,a,,b,,c are the relative intensities of the three seismic components with identical spectral shape. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Producing Parsons' reputation: Early critiques of Talcott Parsons' social theory and the making of a caricatureJOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, Issue 2 2010B. Robert Owens This article examines the critical responses to Talcott Parsons' first major work, The Structure of Social Action (1937), and his two subsequent books, Toward a General Theory of Action and The Social System (both 1951). Because Parsons' work was the subject of such virulent debate, we cannot fully understand Parsons' impact on the discipline of sociology without understanding the source and nature of those early criticisms. I trace the responses to Parsons, first through book reviews and private letters and then in the more substantial statements of C. Wright Mills, George Homans, and Alvin Gouldner, from the largely positive but superficial reception of Structure to the polemics that followed Parsons' 1951 works. In the late 1930s and 1940s, Parsons' reputation grew steadily but there remained no careful reception of Structure, fostering resentment toward Parsons in some quarters while precluding a sophisticated understanding of his work. After 1951, a few critics capitalized on that tension, writing sweeping rejections of Parsons' work that spoke to a much broader audience of sociologists. That dynamic, coupled with Parsons' own indifference toward his harshest critics, produced a situation in which many sociologists simply chose not to read Parsons in the 1950s and 1960s, reinforcing a caricature and distorting perceptions of Parsons' place in mid-twentieth-century American sociology. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] What We Think About Donne: A History of Donne Criticism in Twenty MinutesLITERATURE COMPASS (ELECTRONIC), Issue 4 2008Paul A. Parrish This paper is part of the second Literature Compass panel cluster arising from The Texas A&M John Donne Collection: A Symposium and Exhibition. [Correction added after online publication 24 October 2008: ,This paper introduces the second Literature Compass panel cluster' changed to ,This paper is part of the second Literature Compass panel cluster'.] Comprising an introduction by Gary Stringer and three of the papers presented at the symposium, this cluster seeks to examine the current state of Donne Studies and aims to provide a snapshot of the field. The symposium was held April 6,7, 2006. The cluster is made up of the following articles: ,Introduction to the Second Donne Cluster: Three Papers from The Texas A&M John Donne Collection: A Symposium and Exhibition', Gary A. Stringer, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00551.x. ,Donne into Print: The Seventeenth-Century Collected Editions of Donne's Poetry', Ted-Larry Pebworth, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00552.x. ,"a mixed Parenthesis": John Donne's Letters to Severall Persons of Honour', M. Thomas Hester, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00553.x. ,What We Think About Donne: A History of Donne Criticism in Twenty Minutes', Paul A. Parrish, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00554.x. *** The standard paradigm of critical responses to John Donne from the seventeenth century to the present is not seriously contested: during his own day Donne was reasonably well known, albeit a somewhat controversial poet. As the century progressed, Donne became increasingly out of fashion, and throughout the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century, Donne had largely disappeared from the public and critical eye. The ,rescue' of Donne in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has led to an interest that has continued largely unabated to the present, though often without the unbridled enthusiasm that characterizes some responses early in the twentieth century. In the past few decades, Donne's work has been viewed through the lenses of virtually every critical and theoretical approach one could identify. More recent efforts, particularly as exemplified by the Variorum Edition of the Poetry of John Donne, have not so much challenged the standard paradigm regarding Donne criticism as to add to our knowledge and understanding by filling in gaps and shading in historical transitions, the better to provide a more comprehensive understanding of what we have thought about Donne for more than four centuries. [source] Love's Usury, Poet's Debt: Borrowing and Mimesis in Shakespeare's SonnetsLITERATURE COMPASS (ELECTRONIC), Issue 3 2007Christopher Thurman This essay was runner-up in the 2006 Literature Compass Graduate Essay Prize, Shakespeare Section. In Shakespeare's sonnets, sustained self-reflexive deliberation on the nature of poetic representation is at times figured in terms of the nascent capitalism of early modern England: an intersection of ,mimesis' and ,economics' that is manifested in images of usury found in a number of the sonnets. This article surveys critical responses (by David Hawkes, James Dawes, Thomas Greene, John Mischo, Howard Felperin and others) that offer some insight into this aspect of Shakespeare's work. In doing so, the article attempts to reconcile potentially divergent perspectives on Shakespeare; it also suggests new ways in which the sonnets can be read, revisiting the relationship of the speaker/poet not only to certain figures in the sonnet sequence (the ,fair youth' and the ,dark lady') but also , perhaps more importantly , to his own poetic enterprise. [source] A bundle of sticks: the debate over Yolngu clansTHE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, Issue 3 2000Ian Keen A critique of the clan model as applied in northeast Arnhem Land ethnography has, in turn, drawn a number of critical responses. This article defends the original critique, and takes up points raised in the responses. According to that critique a mismatch between elements of the clan model and Yolngu constructs related to identity, country, and ancestors has generated anomalies. An account of metaphors and other tropes both in Yolngu constructs and anthropological concepts and models supported this contention. This article discusses key points at issue: enclosure and boundaries of groups, descent, the homology of segments, taxonomic levels, corporateness, sets, and networks, the enduring nature of patrifilial identities, and the power of processual models to deal with anomalies. The debate has implications for related models in other regions, and for the nature of anthropological description, translation, and generalization. [source] | ||||||||||