scholarly journals Analyzing Second-Stage Ecological Regressions: Comment on Herron and Shotts

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Adolph ◽  
Gary King

We take this opportunity to comment on Herron and Shotts (2003; hereinafter HS) because of its interesting and productive ideas and because of the potential to affect the way a considerable body of practical research is conducted. This article, and the literature referenced therein, is based on the suggestions in three paragraphs in King (1997, pp. 289–290). Because these paragraphs were not summarized in HS, we thought they might be a useful place to start.

Author(s):  
Gerald Prince

Narratology studies what all and only possible narratives have in common as well as what allows them to differ from one another qua narratives, and it attempts to characterize the narratively pertinent set of rules and norms governing narrative production and processing. This structuralist-inspired endeavor began to assume the characteristics of a discipline in 1966 with the publication of the eighth issue of Communications, which was devoted to the structural analysis of narrative and included contributions by the French or francophone founders of narratology. In its first decades, or what has come to be viewed as its classical period, narratology dedicated much of its attention to characterizing the constituents of the narrated (the “what” that is represented), those of the narrating (the way in which the “what” is represented), and the principles regulating their modes of combination. Though classical narratology had ambitions to be an autonomous branch of poetics rather than a foundation for critical commentary and a handmaid to interpretation, the narrative features that it described made up a toolkit for the study of particular texts and fostered a considerable body of narratological criticism. Besides, by encouraging the exploration of the theme of narrative as well as the frame that narrative constitutes, it contributed to the so-called narrative turn, which is the reliance on the notion “narrative” to discuss not only representations but any number of activities, practices, and domains. In part because of the influence of narratological criticism and that of other disciplines; in part because of its biases and insufficiencies; and in part because of its very concerns, goals, and achievements, classical narratology went through important changes and evolved into postclassical narratology. The latter, which rethinks, refines, expands, and diversifies its predecessor, comes in many varieties, including feminist narratology, which exposes the way sex, gender, and sexuality affect the shape of narrative; cognitive narratology, which examines those aspects of mind pertaining to narrative production and processing; natural narratology, in which experientiality, the evocation of experience, is the determining element of narrativity; and unnatural narratology, which concentrates on nonmimetic or anti-mimetic narratives and tests the precision or applicability of narratological categories, distinctions, and arguments. Other topics—for example the links between geography and narrative or the narratological differences between fictional and nonfictional narrative representations—have lately evoked a good deal of interest. Ultimately, whatever the specific narratological variety or approach involved, narratologists continue to try and develop an explicit, complete, and empirically or experimentally grounded model of their singularly human object.


1993 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome I. Gellman

In what follows I wish to make a contribution to the clarification of the logic of the name ‘God’. I will do so in two stages. In the first stage I will be investigating the meaning of names in general, and how names refer. In the second stage I will attempt to apply the findings of the first stage to the name ‘God’, in light of the way that name functions in religious discourse.


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 29-48
Author(s):  
Marco Improta

Despite a considerable body of literature on Italian ethnoregionalist parties, scholars of nationalism and regionalism have overlooked southernist parties. This article aims to fill this lacuna by examining Italian southernist parties’ identity and electoral performance from 1945 to 2020. Firstly, it investigates southernist parties according to ideological positioning, autonomist or secessionist nature, and territorial area of origin. Then, by relying on official data, it explores the parties’ electoral performance in national, European, and regional elections. The main findings of the study show that, since the end of World War II, Italian southernist parties: a) have been characterized by a more autonomist rather than secessionist nature; b) have followed the typical patterns of the catch-all party; c) have performed better in regional elections. This article provides preliminary information on southernist parties, paving the way for further research on such political formations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1003-1043
Author(s):  
Miguel A. Fonseca ◽  
Francesco Giovannoni ◽  
Miltiadis Makris

AbstractWe consider auctions where bidders’ valuations are positively correlated with their productivity in a second-stage aftermarket. We test in the lab whether bidders recognize the opportunity to signal their productivity through their bidding and, conditional on them doing so, whether disclosing different information about the auction outcomes affects their signaling behavior. Our results confirm that bidders recognize the signaling opportunities they face and also react to differences in the way their bidding behavior is disclosed, although not always in a way that is consistent with theoretical predictions.


2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi

The assumptions on which the Islamization of knowledge project was linked to the movement for restoration of Islam to a position of leadership and dominance in contemporary society may not have all been correct. Knowledge creation and beneficial use of new knowledge are two distinct though complementary processes. Each has its own requirement. Morality rooted in spirituality is decisive in ensuring that new knowledge is used beneficially. But creation of new knowledge requires freedoms of thought and discussion, encouragement of creativity and innovation, and toleration of dissent and diversity. It requires a mindset that can entertain ambiguity, one that does not hasten to discard potential spoilers of legacies long established as sacred ‒ requirements which the sponsors of the Islamization of knowledge project might have failed to give due weight. The project can be revived only by recognizing the primacy of expanding knowledge over the necessity of ensuring proper use of knowledge. It is in the nature of the first, expansion of knowledge (by creating new knowledge) that is universal. Differences of faith or moral vision, so important in the context of the second stage (putting knowledge to good use) need not stand in the way of cooperation and collaboration in the first stage. Have the sponsors of the Islamization project neglected this truth? What could be worse: have they abdicated the first step in their eagerness to do justice to the second? This paper concludes by inviting Islamization enthusiasts to join the rest of humanity in expanding knowledge, while simultaneously working for creating universal awareness of what makes use of knowledge beneficial and prevents the fatal error of allowing laissez-faire in the use of knowledge. I also argue that conceiving of knowledge as a tool for power and hegemony can be frustrating if not outright destructive. Last but not the least, we cannot know all that needs be known and, no less important, not everything is known with the same degree of certainty. Humility requires we recognize our limits. Ambiguity and a degree of uncertainty is built into the human situation. It cannot be wished away. Having adopted a humble stance, the way forward is to share the quest of knowledge and its proper use with all and everyone.


Derrida Today ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-186
Author(s):  
Gerasimos Kakoliris

The aim of my paper is to focus upon those aspects of Derrida's relation to language and textual interpretation that have not been adequately dealt with by either proponents of deconstruction, who take Derrida to have effected a total revolution in the way in which we must read texts, or those critics who view deconstruction as having subverted all possible criteria for a valid interpretation leading, thus, to an anarchical textual ‘freeplay’. This inadequate approach by both proponents and critics is the result of a failure to consider Derrida's deconstructive approach as enacting a process of ‘double reading.’ This ‘double reading’ commences with an initial stage or level which seeks to reconstruct a text's authorial intention or its vouloir dire. This initial level then prepares the text, through the identification of authorial or textual intention, for the second stage or level. At this second stage or level, which is the passage to deconstructive reading per se, the blind spots and aporias of the text are set forth. Through this focus upon the process of deconstructive reading as ‘doubling reading,’ it becomes evident that deconstruction is not as revolutionary as proponents or critics have assumed. For, Derrida's initial reading, or the ‘doubling’ of a text's authorial or textual intention is firmly set within a traditional interpretative form.


Author(s):  
Robert Boncardo

This third chapter tracks Alain Badiou’s reading of Mallarmé, beginning with his extensive treatment of the poet in his first and most politically-committed work, Theory of the Subject, where Mallarmé figures as a liminal figure: an ingenious political conservative whose insights need to be integrated yet surpassed by Badiou, the political radical. The chapter then turns to Badiou’s post-Being and Event work and offers a close reading of the latter book’s treatment of Mallarmé before investigating Mallarmé’s political significance for Badiou in this second stage of his philosophical career. Through a reading of Badiou’s polemic with Czeslaw Milosz in Handbook of Inaesthetics, the chapter argues that Mallarmé becomes an unequivocal comrade for Badiou in his post-Being and Event period: a resolute egalitarian who points the way towards the advent of a generic humanity.


2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-34
Author(s):  
Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi

The assumptions on which the Islamization of knowledge project was linked to the movement for restoration of Islam to a position of leadership and dominance in contemporary society may not have all been correct. Knowledge creation and beneficial use of new knowledge are two distinct though complementary processes. Each has its own requirement. Morality rooted in spirituality is decisive in ensuring that new knowledge is used beneficially. But creation of new knowledge requires freedoms of thought and discussion, encouragement of creativity and innovation, and toleration of dissent and diversity. It requires a mindset that can entertain ambiguity, one that does not hasten to discard potential spoilers of legacies long established as sacred ‒ requirements which the sponsors of the Islamization of knowledge project might have failed to give due weight. The project can be revived only by recognizing the primacy of expanding knowledge over the necessity of ensuring proper use of knowledge. It is in the nature of the first, expansion of knowledge (by creating new knowledge) that is universal. Differences of faith or moral vision, so important in the context of the second stage (putting knowledge to good use) need not stand in the way of cooperation and collaboration in the first stage. Have the sponsors of the Islamization project neglected this truth? What could be worse: have they abdicated the first step in their eagerness to do justice to the second? This paper concludes by inviting Islamization enthusiasts to join the rest of humanity in expanding knowledge, while simultaneously working for creating universal awareness of what makes use of knowledge beneficial and prevents the fatal error of allowing laissez-faire in the use of knowledge. I also argue that conceiving of knowledge as a tool for power and hegemony can be frustrating if not outright destructive. Last but not the least, we cannot know all that needs be known and, no less important, not everything is known with the same degree of certainty. Humility requires we recognize our limits. Ambiguity and a degree of uncertainty is built into the human situation. It cannot be wished away. Having adopted a humble stance, the way forward is to share the quest of knowledge and its proper use with all and everyone.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1132-1149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Malpas ◽  
Keith Jacobs

Through his three films London, Robinson in Space and Robinson in Ruins, Patrick Keiller has sought, inter alia, to provide an incisive commentary on the neo-liberal social order and the way that the spaces we inhabit are experienced and represented. Keiller’s films draw from a variety of sources including: surrealism; political economy; cinematic theory; and architecture. Yet, although there is a considerable body of commentary on his work, there is less analysis that engages in a detailed way with the substance of the work itself – its images and techniques – or with the framework within which it operates. Our aims are twofold: first, to redress that omission here, and especially to attend to what appears to be the divergent character of the most recent film, Robinson in Ruins, when considered in relation to the framework established by the first two – a divergence that directly implicates Keiller’s thematisation of landscape; and, second, to reflect more broadly on the wider significance of Keiller’s films for geography and other critically inspired scholarship.


Author(s):  
Jesús M Porro Gutiérrez

This paper deals with the second stage of Spanish explorations in the Californian area and the Northern Pacific coast, focusing on their cartographical results. The stategic attention to protect the way to the Philippines and the Spice Islands caused new reconnaissances North of California, which triggered several fantasies about the alleged Anian Strait, which supposedly connected both sides of the ocean in the polar latitudes. After illusion of the supposed voyages led by Fuca and Ferrer was over, interest focused on the exploration along the outer coast of the California peninsula, in order to discover some bases for the Manila gelleon's return. Interest in that area was proven by Vizcaino's expeditions, but the search for pearls carried out by Cardona and others was a failure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document