Search results

In October 2011 the Government brought in measures to reduce the revenue provided by the Feed in Tariff (FIT) system. This change came under a lot of opposition due to the potential affects that it would have upon the industry. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential benefits of the FIT and the impact that the Governments Comprehensive Spending Review had upon the industry and its uptake by the householders.

For the study and to calculate the benefits of the FIT, a predictive modelling tool was built that could calculate the potential income and savings for a household. A photovoltaic (PV) installation was then monitored for over a year and the results of the predictive modelling tool were compared to actual results produced from the system to show how accurate the modelling tool was. The impacts of the Governments comprehensive spending review and the potential impacts in the industry were then calculated and discussed.

The FIT is still a good incentive for people investing in PV. However, the reduction in the FIT may impact the “Rent a Roof” system and this in turn will impact most heavily on lower income families. The research also concluded that the changes in the political agenda have had a major impact on the FIT for both the industry and the community. Thus, the solar FITs will continue to be an attractive incentive in place to pay for heating through renewable means and thus ensuring reducing the own carbon footprint. Concomitantly, well-developed ownership schemes need to be put in place.

The reduction in the FIT was the right move by the Government as it should prevent the increase in energy bill prices which will affect the people without PV at this point in time. It also has been set so that it is still generous enough to encourage the industry and stimulate installation as there is still profit but not in a way that should put people off. The UK may just have to take time to realise that the FITs are still a good deal after the very generous tariff that preceded them.

This chapter compares interdisciplinary research that engages genomic science from economics, political science, and sociology. It describes, compares, and evaluates concepts and research findings from new and rapidly developing research fields, and develops a conceptual taxonomy of the social environment.

A selection of programmatic and empirical articles, published mostly since 2008 in leading economics, political science, and sociology journals, were analyzed according to (a) the relationship they pose between their discipline and genomic science, (b) the specific empirical contributions they make to disciplinary research questions, and (c) their conceptualization of the “social environment” as it informs the central problematique of current inquiry: gene-environment interaction.

While all three of the social science disciplines reviewed engage genomic science, economics and political science tend to engage genomics on its own terms, and develop genomic explanations of economic and political behavior. In contrast, sociologists develop arguments that for genomic science to advance, the “environment” in gene-environment interaction needs better theorization and measurement. We develop an approach to the environment that treats it as a set of measurable institutional (rule-like) arrangements, which take the forms of neighborhoods, families, schools, nations, states, and cultures.

Interdisciplinary research that combines insights from the social sciences and genomic science should develop and apply a richer array of concepts and measures if gene-environment research – including epigenetics – is to advance.

This chapter provides a critical review and redirection of three rapidly developing areas of interdisciplinary research on gene-environment interaction and epigenetics.

Michael E. Brown's book, The Concept of the Social in Uniting the Humanities and Social Sciences, demonstrates that prominent attempts to account for the social dimension of human affairs rely on an unstated notion of a “course of activity,” that is diametrically opposed to the conceptualization of sociality that is presumably intended to realize it. I want to focus on the idea of a “course of activity” in order to locate his work in and clarify its importance to the development of dialectical reason from Heraclitus through Hegel and beyond. Of special importance is the bearing of his research on the critique of contemporary theories of agency and sociality, and, since considerable attention has been paid, in this regard, to the arts and humanities, some of what I will say about this refers to art and its avant-garde moments—-particularly in my work on Dada and Brown's account of two avant-garde theatrical performances. 

This chapter examines what is entailed by separating agency from individuality and what it means for the idea of a “course of activity,” (going on) and its relation to the concept of sociality. This also bears on questions of ontology, as Brown's course of activity is generative and nonrepeatable. The course of activity and nonrepeatability are linked to both avant-garde practice and theoretical notions that reframe our temporal understandings. These include the avant-garde of dada and surrealism, and the reformulations of bourgeois time of Jean Duvignaud, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, and Jean-Paul Sartre. The question raised here is that of a teleological understanding—how we link the present course of activity with future events.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

To elucidate issues involved in the problem of scale, in particular the relations, analytical and dialectical, among first-person experiences of theorist and theorist’s object-complex of individual actor, group, society, motives and causes, intended and unintended effects, and so forth, as these experiences are manifest in an aesthetics of the judicial moment of perception, and enunciated as first-person accounts directly or indirectly, of third-person accounts, sometimes via explicit but usually via virtual or even vicarious second-person accounting practices.

Discussion begins with some classical formulations by neo-Kantian theorists (Simmel, Durkheim, Weber) regarding relations of “individual and society.” Brief citations of various twentieth century responses to the problem of scale follow. Attention then becomes more intensively focused on the basic problem of first-person experience and accounts with respect to the problem of scale, using Coleman’s “foundations” work as guidepost for navigating issues of effects of cognition, consciousness, and action in still mostly obscure processes of aggregation. This leads to explication of the thesis of “impossible individuality,” in present-day theoretical contexts and in the context of post-Kantian romanticism, with special attention to Hölderlin and the feeling/knowing dialectic, Benjamin’s treatment of temporality with respect to metrics of history, and the question what it means to “theorize with intent.”

The discussion ends with some tentative resolutions and several lacunae and aporia which are integral to the current face of the problem of scale (i.e., processes of aggregation, etc.).

The discussion builds upon the work of many others, with first-person illustrations.

“The issue we confront today is not primarily one concerning a special day for an individual. The issue is in reality whether our nation can summon the will and vision to recognize a great and historic period in its history by designating the birthdate of one who made major contributions to the period a national public holiday.”

Max Weber called the maxim “Time is Money” the surest, simplest expression of the spirit of capitalism. Coined in 1748 by Benjamin Franklin, this modern proverb now has a life of its own. In this paper, I examine the worldwide diffusion and sociocultural history of this paradigmatic expression. The intent is to explore the ways in which ideas of time and money appear in sedimented form in popular sayings.

My approach is sociological in orientation and multidisciplinary in method. Drawing upon the works of Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci, Wolfgang Mieder, and Dean Wolfe Manders, I explore the global spread of Ben Franklin’s famed adage in three ways: (1) via evidence from the field of “paremiology” – that is, the study of proverbs; (2) via online searches for the phrase “Time is Money” in 30-plus languages; and (3) via evidence from sociological and historical research.

The conviction that “Time is Money” has won global assent on an ever-expanding basis for more than 250 years now. In recent years, this phrase has reverberated to the far corners of the world in literally dozens of languages – above all, in the languages of Eastern Europe and East Asia.

Methodologically, this study unites several different ways of exploring the globalization of the capitalist spirit. The main substantive implication is that, as capitalism goes global, so too does the capitalist spirit. Evidence from popular sayings gives us a new foothold for insight into questions of this kind.

Using the philosophical lenses of revisionist ontology and the politics of personhood, this paper explores the notion of Black Founders of the United States. I introduce the concept critical intellectual agency to argue that Black Founders brought unique contributions to the American experience. Their efforts were twofold. First, Black Founders established separate Black institutions that would become staples in Black communities after emancipation. Second, Black Founders challenged the supposed egalitarian beliefs of White Founders through media outlets. To illustrate, I focus on one Black Founder, Benjamin Banneker and his letter to Thomas Jefferson to illustrate how Black Founders philosophically responded and challenged White Founders prejudicial beliefs about Blackness. This paper seeks to challenge social studies teachers’ curricular and pedagogical approaches to Black Americans during the colonial period by providing a heuristics and language to explore the voices of Black Americans in U.S. history.