Search results

The growing public anxiety towards the end of the twentieth century that men were “in crisis” was articulated in popular-cultural texts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the TV family sitcom Modern Family, in order to explore the ways that it constructs the masculine post-9/11.

The approach used is that of cultural studies, a field which draws together theorisation and analytical methods from a variety of disciplines.

Despite the variety of family structures represented in the series Modern Family, its narratives continue to foster traditional notions of patriarchal power. However, the presence of alternate versions of “family” and “masculinity” suggests an awareness of other possibilities.

This paper may model to its readers a way of approaching and analysing other popular-cultural texts for their representations of masculinity.

An understanding of the dynamics of masculinity and its alternative forms of masculinity may be likely to have a material impact in the social sphere.

By drawing together theory and analytical approaches from a variety of relevant disciplines, the paper demonstrates that, in the wake of the events of 9/11, there are twin impulses simultaneously to adhere to a familiar, dominant notion of masculinity, yet to propose alternate forms of the masculine.

In 1993, inspired by Sansone's (1998) book on the origin of sport, I speculated about sport mascots and cultural performance in an article published in the Journal of Sport & Social Issues (Sydnor-Slowikowski, 1993). It was a tentative piece that combined some of Sansone's ethological thesis with performativity/performance studies to contemplate contemporary collective/social authenticity, imperialist nostalgia and to critique racist ideologies linked to sport mascots, such as that of Chief Illiniwek, the University of Illinois’ stereotyped mascot of a mythical Native American.

December 10, 1969 Master and Servant — Redundancy — Dismissal — “Offer of suitable employment” — Offer at certain grade made in writing — Employer's refusal to guarantee in writing nature of work within grade — Whether “particulars specified in … offer” — Whether refusal of offer of employment “unreasonable” — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c. 62), s. 2(4)

Many people fear the approach of 1984. Why? Because in their minds too many of George Orwell's dark prophecies in his 1948 novel, 1984, appear to be coming true.

May 28, 1968 Factory — Floor — Maintenance — Slippery substance — Obligation to keep floor free from “so far as is reasonably practicable” — Extent of statutory duty — Whether necessary for plaintiff to show that reasonable occupier would have foreseen presence of substance on floor — Whether occupier's duty discharged by provision of proper system of cleaning of floor — Whether discharged by entrusting work resulting in substance on floor to responsible workman — Onus of proof — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz.II, c.34), s.28(1).

This chapter is about the modern, Western education system as an economic system of production on behalf of the capitalist mode of production (CMP) and globalization towards a single, global social space around market capitalism, liberal democracy and individualism.

The schooling process is above all an economic process, within which educational labour is performed, and through which the education system operates in an integrated fashion with the (external) economic system.

It is mainly through children’s compulsory educational labour that modern schooling plays a part in the production of labour power, supplies productive (paid) employment within the CMP, meets ‘corporate economic imperatives’, supports ‘the expansion of global corporate power’ and facilitates globalization.

What children receive in exchange for their appropriated and consumed labour power within the education system are not payments of the kind enjoyed by adults in the external economy, but instead merely a promise – the promise enshrined in the Western education industry paradigm.

In modern societies, young people, like chattel slaves, are compulsorily prevented from freely exchanging their labour power on the labour market while being compulsorily required to perform educational labour through a process in which their labour power is consumed and reproduced, and only at the end of which as adults they can freely (like freed slaves) enter the labour market to exchange their labour power.

This compulsory dispossession, exploitation and consumption of labour power reflects and reinforces the power distribution between children and adults in modern societies, doing so in a way resembling that between chattel slaves and their owners.

The classic essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak takes leftist western intellectuals to task for essentializing subaltern subjectivity. I say this as someone who is guilty of this very thing and is struggling with this very question in my work as qualitative researcher. While Spivak concludes the essay with a resounding, “No,” she does provide us with a blueprint for conduction effective qualitative analysis using Derridean deconstruction. But after the deconstruction is done, how might I think about intellectual uncertainty and regret? Reflecting on a study of domestic workers I disbanded, in this paper I examine these questions and further query the limits of intellectual representation. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This essay uses ethnography as an approach.

Through an engagement of the seminal essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” I argue that in the ethnographic relationship, researchers will be sure to come up against their own limitations, but that does not mean they should refrain from the work. Rather, being open to seeing our errors, and working through uncertainty and regret, reveals something vitally important about the participants of our study and about ourselves.

This essay adds to the academic discussion on the ethics of researching subaltern subjects, and expands on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of contradictory consciousness.

In Bouwen (2001), René Bouwen discusses the case of an R&D department in a metal refinery developing a new refining process, only to have it at first rejected by the Operations department as too difficult and time-consuming to implement notes. Yet later, when it was reintroduced at an opportune moment in a discussion — occurring within the context of a task force established by the Business Unit manager to study new innovations — the too revolutionary new process was accepted for implementation. About this event René Bouwen remarks: “The implementation of innovation really means a ‘crossing of the boundaries’ between the departments […]. The innovative breakthrough can be attributed to a frame-breaking interaction […]. Frame-breaking thinking does not occur in isolation but as a consequence of close interaction with significant others who provide the necessary challenge and safety to pose a new framework […]. The crossing of the communities of practice allows for the new technological innovation to emerge […]. Only ‘interruptions’ in one's modus operandi create opportunities for new exploration of meaning among oneself and significant others” (p. 362). He then goes on to discuss another case, a second example from the domain of rural development in the Southern Andes in Latin America. Here, a whole multiplicity of different “communities of practice” (Wenger, 1998) is involved: a local NGO supported by representatives from the local Indian population, an international NGO, officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, local university geology researchers, the local water management authority, and social scientists from a neighboring university. Starting from the principles of “multiparty collaboration,” this last group organized a platform for all those involved to come together.