No description available.

This thesis is based on an analysis of the life testimonies about homelessness and displacement told by the Cameroonian refugee community in Johannesburg. It seeks to understand not only the experiences and the conditions of migrancy within a specific group of involuntarily displaced persons in an African city but also how these experiences are constructed and reconstructed ‘in the telling’. The main thrust of the thesis is a discourse analysis of the oral narratives and stories that Cameroonian asylum seekers and refugees living in the city of Johannesburg tell about themselves, their past, present and future, their journey to exile and their aspirations, memories of home and sense of identity as forced migrants in a global era. The data for this study was gleaned from a series of interviews with twenty Cameroonian forced migrants and the interviews are used in this thesis as my primary texts. The analysis focuses primarily on the narrative construction of migrant experiences, exploring how Cameroonian forced migrants use varied narrative strategies and patterns to articulate broader exilic discourses such as the construction of memory, identity and spaces. Therefore, through the testimonies collected and recorded from my informants, I was able to access individual lives as well as the subjective and collective experiences of Cameroonian forced migrants, and explore how they interpret and construct these experiences. Also, the testimonies provided a platform from which to examine how Cameroonian forced migrants narrativise exilic experiences, construct identities, remember the past and represent diasporic spaces. The study has produced a number of significant outcomes. Firstly, the testimonies tend to represent exile as a place that provides solutions for the predicaments of displaced persons. Secondly, the study also reveals that migrant narratives can be multidimensional and multi-functional if individual experiences and element of time are taken into account. This is evident from the multiple, shifting and somewhat contesting narratives produced by different respondents. Thirdly, because of these narrative features, the testimonies are often affected by the logic of ambivalence, emerging from the constant subversion and undermining of the same narratives using different narrative patterns, metaphors, images and symbols. Finally, the multiplicity, subversion and the shifts of the narratives therefore draw our attention to the fact that testimonies from the same refugee community have the potentials of generating different interpretations of shared experiences of displacement.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

Darkness & Light is a narrative body of work that reflects upon recent changes in my life. The series begins dark and abstract and becomes lighter and more refined with each artwork, functioning as a visual timeline. The chosen color palettes of each artwork are symbolic of my emotional experiences. Darkness & Light is an up-close, very small facet of the much larger work that is taking place within my community. I am inspired by my life and by others who share my philosophy. Throughout the creation of this body of work, I collaborated with various individuals within my community to create a collective design that viewers might find inspiring. The involvement of community within my work has changed the way I view art education.

I examined whether interpersonal similarity, an indicator of social closeness, influenced children’s epistemic trust in others’ testimony. Three- to 5-year-olds met two puppet informants, one of whom matched their preferences and physical attributes. Children were encouraged to request novel objects’ names from either informant, after which both informants provided conflicting labels for the unfamiliar objects. Physical and psychological commonalities with an informant differentially guided children’s learning preferences. Children subsequently heard the two informants differ in their accuracy when labeling familiar objects. For half the children the similar informant was accurate and the dissimilar informant inaccurate. Additionally, for half the children the inaccurate informant was blindfolded. Only 5-year-olds were more forgiving of the informant’s inaccuracy when blindfolded (i.e., justified), as compared to wearing a scarf (unjustified inaccuracy), and only for the dissimilar informant. These findings suggest that children’s reasoning about an informant’s state of knowledge varies with social closeness. Implications for children’s recall, mentalistic reasoning, and forgiving of mistakes are discussed. / text

Not available / text

O presente trabalho, mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pretendeu sistematizar os conhecimentos atuais sobre prova testemunhal no direito e, em seguida, submetê-los ao crivo da ciência, notadamente da epistemologia e da psicologia. Assim sendo, apresentam-se, na segunda parte, as premissas do novo direito probatório, demonstrando que o presente trabalho somente tem sentido mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pois somente esse preocupa-se com a qualidade epistêmica da busca da verdade procedida em um processo concreto. Na terceira parte, procede-se com uma ampla pesquisa no direito, incluindo doutrina e jurisprudência de países de civil law, a fim de que se verifique o estado atual da arte a respeito da prova testemunhal no direito, como ela é praticada hoje. Na quarta parte, apresentam-se as principais correntes a respeito da epistemologia do testemunho, notadamente o presuntivismo e o não presuntivismo, a fim de verificar qual das correntes é praticada no direito e qual, na opinião do autor, deveria ser. Na quinta parte, utilizando-se metodologia científica das áreas da saúde, apresentam-se as principais conclusões atuais da psicologia do testemunho, a fim de que se verifiquem quais são as suas fragilidades e quais são os pontos que devem merecer atenção em sua prática. Na sexta parte, utilizando-se os conhecimentos abordados nas quarta e quinta partes, avaliam-se as premissas demonstradas na terceira parte, a fim de que se proponha uma reconstrução da prova testemunhal no direito consentânea com o modelo objetivo de direito probatório e, principalmente, com os conhecimentos mais atuais da ciência. / The present thesis, by adopting an objetive model of evidence law, intends to summarize the current knowledge about witness testimony in law and, in what follows, evaluate it using the science, mainly the epistemology and the psychology. For doing so, it begins, on the second part, with the premises of the new way of working with evidence, showing that the present work has a purpose only by adopting an objetive model of working with evidence, once that only by doing so the proceedings are worried about the epistemic quality of the search for the truth done in a concrete procedure. On the third part, the aim is to proceed with a wide investigation in law, including jurisprudence and precedents of the civil law courts, analysing the current knowledge about witness testimony, in the way its practiced today. On the fourth part, the two main lines of thought on epistemology of testimony, presuntivism and no-presuntivism, are presented, being analysed which one is usually adopted by civil law systems and which one should be, in the author's opinion. On the fifth part, using scientific methodology of the health field, the work presents the main current conclusions of the psychology of testimony, in order to verify what are the fragilities and the points that need attention in the practice of witness testimony. On the sixth part, using the knowledge presented on the fourth and fifth parts, the premises presented on the third part are evaluated, with the purpose of proposing a reconstruction of the witness testimony in law using the objective model of evidence and, mainly, the current knowledge in science.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

O presente trabalho, mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pretendeu sistematizar os conhecimentos atuais sobre prova testemunhal no direito e, em seguida, submetê-los ao crivo da ciência, notadamente da epistemologia e da psicologia. Assim sendo, apresentam-se, na segunda parte, as premissas do novo direito probatório, demonstrando que o presente trabalho somente tem sentido mediante a adoção de um modelo objetivo de direito probatório, pois somente esse preocupa-se com a qualidade epistêmica da busca da verdade procedida em um processo concreto. Na terceira parte, procede-se com uma ampla pesquisa no direito, incluindo doutrina e jurisprudência de países de civil law, a fim de que se verifique o estado atual da arte a respeito da prova testemunhal no direito, como ela é praticada hoje. Na quarta parte, apresentam-se as principais correntes a respeito da epistemologia do testemunho, notadamente o presuntivismo e o não presuntivismo, a fim de verificar qual das correntes é praticada no direito e qual, na opinião do autor, deveria ser. Na quinta parte, utilizando-se metodologia científica das áreas da saúde, apresentam-se as principais conclusões atuais da psicologia do testemunho, a fim de que se verifiquem quais são as suas fragilidades e quais são os pontos que devem merecer atenção em sua prática. Na sexta parte, utilizando-se os conhecimentos abordados nas quarta e quinta partes, avaliam-se as premissas demonstradas na terceira parte, a fim de que se proponha uma reconstrução da prova testemunhal no direito consentânea com o modelo objetivo de direito probatório e, principalmente, com os conhecimentos mais atuais da ciência. / The present thesis, by adopting an objetive model of evidence law, intends to summarize the current knowledge about witness testimony in law and, in what follows, evaluate it using the science, mainly the epistemology and the psychology. For doing so, it begins, on the second part, with the premises of the new way of working with evidence, showing that the present work has a purpose only by adopting an objetive model of working with evidence, once that only by doing so the proceedings are worried about the epistemic quality of the search for the truth done in a concrete procedure. On the third part, the aim is to proceed with a wide investigation in law, including jurisprudence and precedents of the civil law courts, analysing the current knowledge about witness testimony, in the way its practiced today. On the fourth part, the two main lines of thought on epistemology of testimony, presuntivism and no-presuntivism, are presented, being analysed which one is usually adopted by civil law systems and which one should be, in the author's opinion. On the fifth part, using scientific methodology of the health field, the work presents the main current conclusions of the psychology of testimony, in order to verify what are the fragilities and the points that need attention in the practice of witness testimony. On the sixth part, using the knowledge presented on the fourth and fifth parts, the premises presented on the third part are evaluated, with the purpose of proposing a reconstruction of the witness testimony in law using the objective model of evidence and, mainly, the current knowledge in science.