1,720,981 research outputs found

    Alasia Nuti Reviews Birgit Schippers’ Julia Kristeva and Feminist Thought

    No full text
    Alasia Nuti, an MSc student at the Gender Institute, reviews Birgit Schipper’s new book on Julia Kristeva and feminist philosophy. Ultimately, the most valuable part of the Schipper’s book is that it does what feminism does best: applying ideas in unexplored and unconventional contexts and being original in its dismantlement of reality

    On structural injustice, reconciliation and alienation

    Full text link
    In Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics, Lu argues that justice and reconciliation are analytically distinct but both needed after political catastrophes like colonialism. I argue that Lu’s compelling reconceptualization of reconciliation precisely shows the contrary by making the project of reconciliation indistinguishable from the task of realising structural justice and that we should reject the language of reconciliation in some contexts. Moreover, I contend that, in an important sense, alienation (i.e., the wrong that, according to Lu, reconciliation aims to tackle) must be generated to move towards a structurally just world. Indeed, the project of creating a structurally unjust order does require the alienation of agents from the existing background conditions of their actions

    Book Review: Kristeva Reframed

    No full text
    Kristeva Reframed examines key ideas in Julia Kristeva’s work to show how they are most relevant to students and artists, and how they can be applied in interpreting artworks. With examples from the paintings of Van Gogh and Picasso, the work of contemporary feminist painters, the photography of Bill Henson and the film and animation work of Van Sowerine, Estelle Barrett demonstrates how Kristeva can illuminate the relationship between art and knowledge. Alasia Nuti finds most interesting the chapter on Kristeva’s relationship with feminism and art

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore