Tenor of Discourse and Modality Examination in Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah

This study has examined the tenor of discourse and modality in two excerpts from Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah. The study aims at decoding the writer’s subtly encoded messages through both the interrelationships established among the participants of the selected excerpts and his use of modality. To attain such objectives, the investigation uses the descriptive quantitative and qualitative methodology. The research has arrived at valuable findings. Among several others presented in the subsection entitled interpretation of findings, the study has unveiled that power among the participants of the excerpts is unequal, contact infrequent, and affective involvement low. The tenor or social role relationship played by such participants as Major Sam, Chris Oriko, and Ikem Osodi is a formal one describing a formal situation. This implies that Achebe’s message in these excerpts is a serious one depictive of the real political unrest and the dominantly unmanageable discontent of Nigerians by the time he wrote these texts. The social role relationship carried out by the salespeople and their potential customers depict an informal tenor highlighting Achebe’s claim for a change in the Nigerians’ mind, and indirectly in the Africans’ ways of life. The overriding use of modalization over modulation in the analyzed excerpts highlights the way the writer creates a less authoritative, more suggestive tenor balancing, by this means, the power inequality inherent in the modulation.

“How Will You Give Back?”: On Becoming a Compañera as a Feminist Methodology from the Cracks

Issues of power, inequality, and representation in the production of knowledge have a long history in transnational feminist research. And yet the unequal relationship between ethnographers and participants continues to haunt feminist research. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork with the cooperative Sulá Batsú in Costa Rica between 2015 and 2019, in this essay I argue that centering solidarity and working through discomfort creates relationships that can reinvent and endure the persistent imbalance of power between researcher and participant. I conceptualize a solidarity-based methodology that is uncomfortable, tossing between "us and them," the objective and the subjective, akin to Gloria Anzaldúa’s “nepantla,” a liminal space of both fragmentation and unification, of both anguish and healing: a methodology from the cracks. In this essay, I reflect upon my experiences as a Puerto Rican feminist researcher focusing on Sulá Batsú, specifically on my relationship with the coop’s general coordinator. I conducted ethnographic fieldwork with the coop, including participant observation, in-depth interviews, and textual analysis of their research, briefs, blog posts, presentations, and promotional literature.

Advancing health equity through a theoretically critical implementation science

While implementation science is driven by theory, most implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) do not address issues of power, inequality, and reflexivity that are pivotal to achieving health equity. Theories used in anthropology address these issues effectively and could complement prevailing implementation science theories and constructs. We propose three broad areas of theory that complement and extend existing TMF in implementation science to advance health equity. First, theories of postcoloniality and reflexivity foreground attention to the role of power in knowledge production and to the ways that researchers and interventionists may perpetuate the inequalities shaping health. Second, theories of structural violence and intersectionality can help us to better understand the unequal burden of health disparities in the population, thereby encouraging researchers to think beyond single interventions to initiate partnerships that can impact overlapping health vulnerabilities and influence the upstream causes of vulnerability. Finally, theories of policy and governance encourage us to examine the social-political forces of the “outer context” crucial for implementation and sustainability. The incorporation of critical theories could enhance implementation science and foster necessary reflexivity among implementation scientists. We contend that a theoretically critical implementation science will promote better science and, more importantly, support progress toward health equity.

Distributive Justice

This chapter develops the implications of liberal relational egalitarianism for the distribution of goods produced by social cooperation. It shows that there are not only strong instrumental reasons to set stringent limits to inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity, on grounds of both non-domination and social status, but, contrary to what both many critics and proponents of relational equality argue, strong non-instrumental, expressive reasons to do so, as well: since participants in social cooperation are equals, all inequalities in social goods need to be justified by justice-relevant reasons even where they do not lead to domination or social status inequality. Rightly understood, relational egalitarianism thus requires a concentric attack on material inequality in society as well as on its sources in power inequality, through a plurality of rationales.

Avoiding the bullies: The resilience of cooperation among unequals

Can egalitarian norms or conventions survive the presence of dominant individuals who are ensured of victory in conflicts? We investigate the interaction of power asymmetry and partner choice in games of conflict over a contested resource. Previous models of cooperation do not include both power inequality and partner choice. Furthermore, models that do include power inequalities assume a static game where a bully’s advantage does not change. They have therefore not attempted to model complex and realistic properties of social interaction. Here, we introduce three models to study the emergence and resilience of cooperation among unequals when interaction is random, when individuals can choose their partners, and where power asymmetries dynamically depend on accumulated payoffs. We find that the ability to avoid bullies with higher competitive ability afforded by partner choice mostly restores cooperative conventions and that the competitive hierarchy never forms. Partner choice counteracts the hyper dominance of bullies who are isolated in the network and eliminates the need for others to coordinate in a coalition. When competitive ability dynamically depends on cumulative payoffs, complex cycles of coupled network-strategy-rank changes emerge. Effective collaborators gain popularity (and thus power), adopt aggressive behavior, get isolated, and ultimately lose power. Neither the network nor behavior converge to a stable equilibrium. Despite the instability of power dynamics, the cooperative convention in the population remains stable overall and long-term inequality is completely eliminated. The interaction between partner choice and dynamic power asymmetry is crucial for these results: without partner choice, bullies cannot be isolated, and without dynamic power asymmetry, bullies do not lose their power even when isolated. We analytically identify a single critical point that marks a phase transition in all three iterations of our models. This critical point is where the first individual breaks from the convention and cycles start to emerge.

Some refinements of numerical radius inequalities

UDC 517.5 In this paper, we give some refinements for the second inequality in where In particular, if is hyponormal by refining the Young inequality with the Kantorovich constant we show that where and . We also give a reverse for the classical numerical radius power inequality for any operator in the case when

Dis-mantling stigma: Parenting disabled children in an age of ‘neoliberal-ableism’

The concept of ‘stigma’ is a dominant presence in many disciplines, yet it frequently remains ill-defined, individualist, and dislocated from matters of power, inequality and resistance. Extending a budding literature on rethinking the sociology of stigma, I draw upon interviews with parents of children with Down’s syndrome to revisit one of sociology’s most enduring concepts. I explore how parents articulate new imaginaries of difference which depart from narratives of disability as tragic and pitiful, and promote notions of dignity and worth. Parents talk of their children as a reason for celebration and pride, discuss their experiences of convivial community relations and public interactions, and praise evolving configurations of disability in popular media. Yet parents simultaneously highlight painful, convoluted and exhausting experiences with institutions (education, healthcare, welfare) as part of what they believe to be a wider (structural) hostility to disability that forces them into a series of ‘fights’ and ‘battles’. Whilst parents resist deficit framings of their children, and their lives more broadly, they lament dwelling in a society whereby disabled people, and their families, navigate enmity and indifference. In this article, then, I dis-mantle common conceptions of stigma by revealing not only its interactional properties, but also its political economy, in which disabled people are devalued, discounted, and cast as disposable in an age of ‘neoliberal-ableism’ (Goodley 2014).