Synchronous oxidation and sequestration for As(iii) from aqueous solution by modified CuFe2O4 coupled with peroxymonosulfate: a fast and stable heterogeneous process

Bifunctional heterogeneous catalytic processes for highly efficient removal of arsenic (As(iii)) are receiving increased attention.

Genocide in Sudan as Colonial Ecology

This article presents a novel theoretical and empirical account of the genesis and constitution of genocide in Sudan. To do so, it brings developments in critical genocide studies, notably the colonial and international “turns” and renewed attention to the scholarship of Lemkin, into dialogue with theoretical arguments about processual ontologies, complexity theory, and assemblage thinking. The latter provide a conceptual vocabulary to rethink the kind of ontological phenomenon that genocide constitutes. Rather than a discrete outcome or temporally and geographically bounded “event,” genocide in Sudan is seen as a heterogeneous, process-based, systemic entity. Challenging conventional genocide models generally and dominant narratives about Sudan specifically, the article argues that genocide in Sudan should be conceptualized as an historical internal frontier-based pattern that is constituted by three intersecting colonial forms: postcolonialism, internal colonialism, and neocolonialism. In doing so, it suggests a new way of thinking about the genocide-colonialism nexus. Tracing these three colonialisms, genocide appears not as an aberrant breakdown, violent outburst, or top-down ideological “master plan.” Neither is it a single, linearly unfolding process. Rather, it is emergent from a colonial ecology, its logic and potentiality imbricated with, and incipient within, a temporally and geographically expansive web of actors, processes, structures, relations, discourses, practices, and global forces.

Maternal and paternal functions in the formation of subjectivity: Kristeva and Lacan

The Kristeva–Lacan relationship has been a difficult one, with commentators tending to either collapse the former into the latter or insist on an absolute division wherein Kristeva emphasizes the maternal function over Lacan’s privileging of the symbolic paternal law. In contrast, I argue that Kristeva’s actual position regarding Lacan and, by extension, the semiotic–symbolic relation is far more complicated than even her defenders often realize, before turning to the role(s) that the paternal function play(s) in Lacan’s analysis of the psyche’s movement into the symbolic to show that nevertheless Kristeva’s critique is based on a number of key misreadings regarding Lacan’s conception of (1) the paternal function, (2) the maternal–paternal relation and (3) the movement from the pre-symbolic to the symbolic. Rather than operating through a straightforward binary opposition between a maternal and a (privileged, repressive) paternal function, Lacan actually claims, in a similar vein to Kristeva, that the transmission of the symbolic law occurs through a complex and heterogeneous process wherein both the maternal and paternal functions are multiple and bound to and expressive of the other. This sheds light on the Kristeva–Lacan relationship, defends Lacan against the charge that he affirms a straightforward logic of patriarchy, identifies the multidimensionality inherent in both Kristeva’s and Lacan’s notions of the maternal and paternal functions and shows how the intertwinement of both functions aids the formation of subjectivity generally and the child’s symbolic acquisition specifically.