ARTISTIC DOMINANTS AS A TOOL FOR STUDYING AN ARTIST’S CREATIVE IDENTITY: A CASE STUDY OF ANDRIY BOKOTEY

A Cultural Ambassador East and West: J. Hillis Miller’s <i>Lectures in China</i>

This essay provides an overview of the current state of nineteenth-century Latin American literary and cultural studies. It begins by reviewing some of the key critical interventions in the field, including Doris Sommer’s Foundational Fictions and Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, and argues that Sommer’s and Anderson’s postulations helped turn the critical gaze away from a vision of nineteenth-century Latin American literature as subsidiary to the subsequent, supposedly superior literary movements of the fin de siglo and the twentieth century. Critics of nineteenth-century Latin American literature have increasingly focused on previously less-studied texts, on those not typically considered literary, and on other cultural phenomena that can be both read as texts and alongside written texts, such as music and visual imagery. The essay also resists binarisms and implicit hierarchies and conceptualizes nineteenth-century Latin America in terms of Bourdieu’s field of cultural production, while taking into account Bottero and Crossley’s “concrete connections” among actors in that field. In that way, I conclude that the two chief critical tendencies today in nineteenth-century Latin American literary studies may be categorized as a focus on the circulation of ideas and on the circulation of objects.

Translation has played a very important role in Chinese literature, theory, and criticism. Modern Chinese literature is almost a translated literature, for, through a sort of cultural translation, traditional Chinese literary and critical discourse was deconstructed and has manifested itself in a new form. But translating Western journals into Chinese is only a recent practice, adopted since the turn of the century, because Chinese theorists realize that many insightful theoretical concepts and ideas first appear in journal articles. The article lays more emphasis on why Chinese scholars take the initiative of translating some leading Western humanities journals, such as New Literary History, Critical Inquiry and boundary 2, into Chinese. To the author, founded earliest among all the three above-mentioned and having close relations with Chinese literary scholarship, New Literary History most strongly influences Chinese scholars' literary study and critical thinking. And its academic norms and strict selection of manuscripts have certainly set a fine example in China's literary study and theory and criticism as well as the editing of journals of literary and cultural studies in the Chinese context. Chinese literary and cultural studies, due to the translation of these journals, will move closer and closer toward the international community, thereby having equal dialogues with the latter. Since most of the articles published in the above-mentioned journals anticipate their authors' substantial research and profound thinking of cutting-edge theoretical issues, they will certainly provide illumination to Chinese scholars' theoretical reflections. The article also points out that globalization has broken through the demarcation between nations and countries, and between center and periphery, with transnational corporations functioning as an "empire" everywhere. In this way, globalization has also benefited people who want to get out of their isolated domain, enabling them to communicate more effectively in such a "global village." It has therefore enabled Chinese scholars to more conveniently communicate with the international scholarship on any theoretical and academic topic, including literary and cultural studies. In today's context, they translate Western and international theoretical journals into Chinese, for the purpose of making China's literary and theoretical studies closer to the international community and allowing it to communicate more easily with the same. Maybe in the near future, when the Western and international colleagues want to know what has been going on in China's literary and cultural studies, and what new ideas we Chinese theorists have put forward, they will also start, in collaboration with their Western colleagues, to translate some excellent Chinese theoretical journals into the major Western and international language: English.

Globalization has indeed exerted strong influence on China’s literary and cultural studies. The present essay first of all deals with the controversial issue of globalization with the author’s reconstruction of it from a Chinese perspective on the basis of his previous observations. Then it discusses cultural studies, including studies of elite culture and its products challenged by popular culture, in China. It lays particular emphasis on the currently prevailing Cultural Studies introduced from the West into China at the beginning of the 1990s. The author addresses the following issues: how Cultural Studies is introduced into the Chinese context, how it is integrated with domestic elite culture studies and literary studies, how it is institutionalized in the Chinese context, and how it is developing into the phase of carrying on equal dialogues with the Western scholarship in the age of globalization. To the author, Cultural Studies has a lot in common with literary studies, especially in the Chinese context, so these two branches of learning should not necessarily be opposed to one another. A sort of dialogue and complement rather than opposition between literary and cultural studies could be realized. Even in the age of globalization, when many of the other disciplines of the humanities are severely challenged, comparative literature, merging with cultural studies, is still flourishing as it is closely related to the debate on the issue of globalization. Although both the two disciplines are closely related to the advent of globalization and have travelled from the West to China, they have after all been “glocalized” in the Chinese context with certain Chinese characteristics. That is why they still survive the age of globalization.

Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion

This paper examines the boundary and status of as well as issues surrounding ‘cultural studies’ (munhwaronjeok yeongu) as an interdisciplinary study and renewal of traditional literary studies. Basically, cultural studies is essentially inclusive and trans-disciplinary. Although cultural studies is in a particular proximity with other fields of research, it neither shares values with nor falls under major disciplines such as Korean literary studies (gungmunhak), Anglo-American cultural studies, or their tributaries including history of everyday life and micro-history. It observes and critically analyzes political aspects and structures of dominance reflected in cultural phenomena. Cultural studies has always been sensitive to ‘democracy from below’ and its culture, and sought ways to make intellectual action against commodification and marginalization of knowledge and cultural system. Until recently, this task has been fulfilled by studies of ‘cultural (munhwaronjeok) literary history,’ cultural history, or popular culture. This paper also outlines the methodology and perspective of cultural studies by discussing the issues and problems regarding texturalism and other theories. It also argues that the neo-liberalist ‘Regime’ has profound influence on interdisciplinary studies in terms of how Korean literary scholars and critics are employed or supported; the transformation in the writing process and the system of struggle for recognition; as well as governing our bodies and micro-relationships.

This essay addresses a set of reflections and questions situated in the interstices between history and historiography, literary and cultural studies, as well as the history of science. These reflections arise from my work on texts that deal with the Haitian Revolution and related topics, such as the abolition of slavery, the precarious relationship between metropolis and colony, and between Enlightenment and colonialism, at the turn of the eighteenth century - more precisely, between 1792 and 1815.The complex set of events that has come to signify the Haitian Revolution1 - wars of independence, abolition of slavery, civil war - becomes, I will argue in the following, a paradigmatic example of current issues and significant changes in postcolonial (francophone) studies that emphasized and partly redefined the links to transnational and cultural studies, positively asking for interdisciplinary approaches. It shows the need to adopt a transnational perspective or, in other words, a perspective on entangled histories, as well as the tum to non-canonical texts in postcolonial studies. These ideologically ambivalent texts make explicit the colonial legacy of the post/colonial, while they do not lend themselves to an easy reading in line with established postcolonial tropes. (This paradigmatic status of the Haitian Revolution and associated matters is true for postcolonial studies in general but even more so for francophone post/colonial studies.)After a brief excursus into what I call somewhat emphatically 'the Haitian tum', I will focus on the work emerging from literary studies, particularly studies of (literary) texts in a number of publications and projects on the Haitian Revolution around its bicentenary. The scarcity of material on the event and the difficult access to parts of it, as well as its blatant ideological functions, raise conceptual and methodological questions for everybody aiming to undertake research on the Haitian Revolution. A prior search for suitable theoretical and methodological approaches would seem to be indispensable.A whole set of questions arises (which I will specify only for my fields of study): To what end can these texts be read in literary, cultural, and postcolonial studies and what does a postcolonial approach add to the understanding of colonial texts? A related issue concerns the ways in which knowledge about these events is produced. What role is ascribed to literary texts in the process of knowledge-production, and what role do literary studies assume in the interdisciplinary venture of mapping and analysing this production of knowledge? Finally, we have to take into account the new directions which literary and cultural studies can introduce when they creatively address the scarcity of accessible written sources.The Haitian Turn, or Post-2004 Scholarship on HaitiThis part of my essay's title refers to the proliferation of studies on the Haitian Revolution as well as its paradigmatic readings in relation to interconnectedness, circulation, histoire croisee, which introduce a vision beyond bi-directional models of centre and periphery. The publications on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of the revolution in 2004 made this paradigmatic shift very clear and put Haiti back on the map of global history. These studies also shed light on certain pitfalls of postcolonial studies as addressed in recent critiques.2 As the British scholar Charles Forsdick points out,interwoven commemorative moments [...] have insured that slavery and its legacies have acquired a necessary prominence in debates of political, philosophical, social and cultural manifestations of postenlightenment modernity.3Main concerns of this 'Haitian tum' or - putting it less emphatically - this new post-2004 awareness are to re-read the insufficiencies of the French Revolution and its unaccomplished universalism through the Haitian Revolution, to reconstruct the multiple relations in the so-called periphery of the Caribbean and the Americas and thus to subvert the centre-periphery model. …

Over the past two decades cognitive literary studies (CLS) has emerged as a new subfield of literary studies. Despite the success of cognitive theories in some areas of research such as in narratology, however, the impact of CLS on the academic discipline of literary and cultural studies as a whole has not been as profound as predicted. Major schools of research, e.g. postcolonial studies or gender studies, remain virtually untouched, and the vast majority of literary scholars are still sceptical or indifferent towards this area of research. Reasons for this scepticism include, for example, epistemological and methodological uncertainties concerning the interdisciplinary intersection of science and literature. But scholars have also begun to address another lacuna in contemporary research that may prove to be of equal or even more profound consequence: the lack of a solid and widely accepted conceptual and analytical bridge between cognitive approaches and the wide field of cultural studies. It is a well-known fact that the study of culture in its many theoretical guises has taken a lead role in philology departments around the globe. Though not every scholar welcomes this development, it would certainly be unwise to ignore the general impact of cultural studies on philology. For this reason, my paper argues that CLS not only needs to engage in a productive interdisciplinary dialogue between literary scholars and cognitive scientists but it also needs to incorporate cultural studies into this dialogue. In other words, an important challenge lies in making cognitive approaches relevant for cultural analysis.This paper engages with current attempts to face this challenge. It provides a survey of approaches that aim to build a conceptual bridge between culture and cognition and thus take a step towards extending cognitive approaches into the field of cultural studies. For this purpose, I adopt the distinction between so-called ›first‹ and ›second generation‹ approaches in order to group this research heuristically into two academic camps: (1) approaches that emphatically foreground so-called second generation cognitive science as their prime source of inspiration, i.e. approaches that engage with enactive, embedded, extended, and embodied aspects of cognition; and (2) studies which do not explicitly situate themselves within this paradigm and rather seek innovation by turning to more ›classical‹, foundational ›first generation‹ concepts of mental representation, information- and text processing. By discussing examples from both lines of research, including work by Kukkonen/Caracciolo (2014), Strasen (2013), Sommer (2013), and Hartner/Schneider (2015), my survey attempts to provide an impression of the wealth of creative thinking currently at work in CLS. In this context, the paper discusses some of the major challenges cognitive approaches are facing today; it traces a selection of current developments in the field, including work on the concept of ›cultural models‹, the notion of the ›intercultural mind‹, and the attempt to programmatically ground conceptualizations of cognition in our bodily interactions with culture and the environment.All in all, I argue that despite the efforts towards a systematic cognitive investigation of culture sketched in this survey, the project of cognitive cultural studies in general is still in its infancy. Its work is conducted by a comparatively small group of enthusiasts and constitutes a highly-specialized academic niche within a multitude of postclassical approaches to literature. Whether it will be possible to interest the much larger body of ›traditional‹ literary and cultural scholars in cognitive approaches, in my opinion, will to no small degree hinge on the field’s ability to move beyond abstract theoretical reflection. While there is obviously nothing intrinsically wrong with specialized fields of research beyond the mainstream, I believe that cognitive approaches have the potential to reach a wider audience. However, this may depend on the ability of CLS to develop concepts and methods capable of analysing concrete cultural phenomena in their social and historical context.

This essay deals with cultural studies, including elite culture and its products (literature and the performing arts), as well as studies of film and TV and other expressions of popular culture in the mainland of China. It lays particular emphasis on the currently prevailing concept of Cultural Studies introduced from the West at the beginning of the 1990s. The author addresses the following issues: how Cultural Studies was introduced into the Chinese context, how it was integrated with existing practices of cultural history and comparative literature studies, how it was institutionalized in China, and how it was developing into a position from where it can engage in a dialogue with Western scholarship against the background of increasing globalization. According to the author, Cultural Studies has much in common with literary studies, especially in the Chinese context. Therefore, these two branches of learning should not necessarily be seen as opposed to one another. Literary and cultural studies are complementary rather than exclusionary towards each other.

Previous articleNext article No AccessReportCompeting Strategies for Modernization in the Ecuadorean Andes1Marcelo CruzMarcelo CruzUrban and Regional Studies /Geography, University of Wisconsin at Green Bay, Green Bay, Wis. 543 11‐7001, U.S.A. Search for more articles by this author Urban and Regional Studies /Geography, University of Wisconsin at Green Bay, Green Bay, Wis. 543 11‐7001, U.S.A.PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 40, Number 3June 1999 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/200028 Views: 7Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref History © 1999 by The Wenner‐Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reservedPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Cecilia Van Hollen Navigating HIV, Pregnancy, and Childbearing in South India: Pragmatics and Constraints in Women's Decision Making, Medical Anthropology 26, no.11 (Feb 2007): 7–52.https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740601021186Eric Keys, William J. McConnell Global change and the intensification of agriculture in the tropics, Global Environmental Change 15, no.44 (Dec 2005): 320–337.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.004

Public Health NursingVolume 30, Issue 2 p. 91-93 Editorial Public Health Nursing Certification Exam on the Verge of Extinction? Act Fast! Barbara B. Little D.N.P., M.P.H., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., C.N.E., Corresponding Author Barbara B. Little D.N.P., M.P.H., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., C.N.E. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland Correspondence to: Barbara Little, Florida State University, College of Nursing. E-mail:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChristine L. Vandenhouten Ph.D., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., Christine L. Vandenhouten Ph.D., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MarylandSearch for more papers by this authorCrystal De-Vance-Wilson M.S.N., M.B.A., P.H.C.N.S.-B.C., Crystal De-Vance-Wilson M.S.N., M.B.A., P.H.C.N.S.-B.C. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MarylandSearch for more papers by this author Barbara B. Little D.N.P., M.P.H., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., C.N.E., Corresponding Author Barbara B. Little D.N.P., M.P.H., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., C.N.E. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland Correspondence to: Barbara Little, Florida State University, College of Nursing. E-mail:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorChristine L. Vandenhouten Ph.D., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C., Christine L. Vandenhouten Ph.D., R.N., A.P.H.N.-B.C. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MarylandSearch for more papers by this authorCrystal De-Vance-Wilson M.S.N., M.B.A., P.H.C.N.S.-B.C., Crystal De-Vance-Wilson M.S.N., M.B.A., P.H.C.N.S.-B.C. Florida State University College of Nursing, Tallahassee, Florida University of Wisconsin Green Bay Professional Program in Nursing, Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Maryland School of Nursing, Baltimore, MarylandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 March 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12024Citations: 1 All authors are members of the ACHNE Education Committee. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume30, Issue2March/April 2013Pages 91-93 RelatedInformation

Political theory plays a subordinate role in contemporary literary and cultural studies. This is in error, because it can contribute to a differentiated understanding of the correlation of literary and political order, particularly when it comes to empire. This chapter unfolds this thesis on the basis of the political theory of Herfried Münkler and its application to the Habsburg Empire. Münkler’s theory of empire, seen as a major contribution to the developing field of critical imperial studies, as well as his writings on the subject of political myths and narratives prove to be a complex and coherent theoretical tool that allows us to link main concepts such as form, myth and narrative thereby strengthening the crossroads between political, cultural and literary studies. They also illustrate significant relevance for a comprehension of literary and political orders of the twentieth century. In three consecutive steps, the political theory of Münkler can be grasped in ways that are relevant to literary and cultural studies: empire and imperial mission; imperial mission, form and myth; and myth building and demythologising through narration. In regards to the last this chapter goes beyond Münkler in order to emphasise the epistemological power of literature, especially in the form of the post-imperial novel.KeywordsEmpire and literary theoryLiteratureHabsburg mythRobert MusilJoseph RothHerfried MünklerPolitical theory

Science on Stage in Early Modern Spain

The article explores why, despite various laudable exceptions, popular fiction still has not received as much attention as its importance would merit. The answer I propose is that popular fiction is caught in the middle between cultural and literary studies. Popular fiction, I argue here, is characterized by a double otherness: as popular fiction it is not what people in cultural studies are chiefly interested in, but what they tend to leave to their colleagues in literary studies; and as popular fiction it is not what people in literature departments are particularly interested in, but what they tend to leave to their colleagues in cultural studies. The former, I argue, is an unconscious form of othering, since most scholars in cultural studies would no doubt agree that popular fiction is important and needs to be investigated. It is simply not what most of them concentrate on. The latter, by contrast, is a conscious form of othering, a means by which scholars of literature continue to define their object of study in a very traditional way.

It has been less than two years since the Journal of Literary Disability (JLD) was launched but much has happened in the emerging field during that short time. Consequently, by way of an introduction to this, the first issue under the new title Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies (JLCDS), Iwould like to reflect on some of the recent interdisciplinary progress. Iam compelled to focus on the example with which Iam most familiar-namely, the British academy-but have been assured by the rest of the board that comparable progress has been made internationally. Indeed, any of my colleagues could have provided acomparably optimistic introduction and those in the US, for example, could have provided something far more extensive. That said, we, the journal's readers, writers, reviewers, and editors, are by no means complacent. We are well aware that even in the US disability studies is still too frequently, if not generally, ignored in departments of literary and cultural studies. But with the support of Liverpool University Press (LUP), Project MUSE, and the Centre for Disability Research at Lancaster University, we will endeavour to ensure that the field of literary and cultural disability studies continues to expand across the academy. When writing the introduction for the inaugural issue of the journal Imade reference to the progress of literary disability studies in the UK. Iwas, therefore, bound to mention the University of Leeds, given the work of professors such as Colin Barnes and Mark Priestley, the development of the Disability Studies Archive UK and the Centre of Disability Studies, as well as the literary scholarship of Edward Larrissy and, amember of the journal's editorial board, Stuart Murray. Indeed, the latter of these literary scholars was contributing to the field in various ways-supervising the now-completed literary disability research projects of Clare Barker and Suzanne Ibbotson; teaching aliterary and cultural disability studies module;1 and working on Representing Autism: Culture, Narrative, Fascination, which was published last summer. While Iwould have argued, predictably perhaps, for still further endorsements of the interdisciplinarity of literary disability studies in the Department of English, my real concern was that the University of Leeds represented an exception to aperplexing rule of exclusion elsewhere in the British academy. Since writing that introduction Iam glad to say Ihave been made aware of other institutions in the British academy that are contributing to the progress of literary and cultural disability studies. Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), for example, agreed to host the launch of the journal at Emerging Fields: Developing aCultural Disability Studies, the inaugural Conference of the Cultural Disability Studies Research Network, formed by Irene Rose, Rebecca Mallett, and Claire Molloy in 2007. The journal was represented at the event by Lucy Burke, Jane Goetzee, and Irene Rose. George McKay was the most prominent speaker and Iwas honoured to give the opening plenary presentation on the importance of literary disability studies as aresponse to literary representations of impairment and disability. Lucy Burke gave another plenary presentation about her work on the representation of Alzheimer's disease, samples of which can now be found in both the inaugural issue of the journal and her special issue Representations of Cognitive Impairment, which contains an essay about depictions of autism by Irene Rose that was also heralded at the conference. Furthermore, David Feeney presented an early version of the essay on blindness, aesthetics, and Irish drama that is included in the present issue.2 Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) must also be recognized as an exemplary institution in the British academy, given Lucy Burke's work as guest editor, author, and peer reviewer for the journal, not to mention Gavin Miller's contribution to JLD 2. …