No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Dedicated to recording, portraying, and indicting the social inequities that he witnessed in nineteenth century Victorian England, one of Charles Dickens' many concerns was the roles assigned to women both in the public and private spheres. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the narratives of Amy Dorrit and Miss Wade in Dickens' Little Dorrit and Esther Summerson in Bleak House to explore the ways in which each woman conforms to, subverts, or rejects her socially prescribed roles as she seeks to create her own identity while simultaneously complying to the duties and roles assigned her. This study focuses on the oral and written narratives of these women exploring their words, stories, and symbolic imagery. It also contextualizes their narratives while answering the critical question: How does individual identity emerge amid rigorously circumscribed social roles? / Graduation date: 1995

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the institutional history of Clark Wissler's professional career as an anthropologist and to determine his influence upon American social science in this context. By focusing on specific historical contexts in which Wissler affected social science research in America, the study attempted to show the extent of Wissler's influence and impact on the development of social science. As well, the study considered and offered an explanation of how Wissler became a relatively obscure figure in the history of American anthropology after a period of considerable impact on the discipline. Primary data for this study were several pieces of correspondence and personal papers in the collection of "Wissler Papers" at the Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.This study revealed that Clark Wissler occupied a unique position among American social scientists. That position Was unique in terms of Wissler's activities in a strictly institutional context as "Curator" of the American Museum of Natural History's Department of Anthropology; but more so, the position at the museum (one of the regional centers of American anthropology until the Second World War) led directly and indirectly to Wissler's influence upon social science research through ancillary positions with research foundations and institutes during the formative years of modern social science. What the study indicated, in this context, was that personal relationships often influenced ties between individuals in an institutional framework. Also, in the development of anthropology as an academic discipline in America, the more extensive that one's institutional network was -- in terms of personal and/or institutional ties, the more impact one had on ideological constructs and research trends.Furthermore, the study indicated that the extent and duration (from one generation of students to another) of a figure's impact on a discipline was dependent upon three factors -- politics, polemics, and progeny -- which were postulated as critical determinants of influence. That is, the study suggested and posited that influential figures in American anthropology were determined in a three-fold context: those one patronizes and is patronized by (politics); those trend-setters and organization officials that one agrees with and/or is thought of in association with (polemics); and those one proselytizes and converts to one's frame of reference, and thusly, who become disciples (progeny). All three contexts are in terms of personal relations that develop into institutional structures and functions, and thereby, determine one's influence and stature in an academic discipline.Thus, the study concluded that: 1) more than "ideas" are involved in the history of a social science discipline, namely anthropology; 2) Wissler, with an extensive institutional network but virtually no "progeny," was very influential among social scientists during his professional career, but he became a forgotten figure within twenty years of his death; 3) influence, in terms of historical "facts," must be determined in a. situational context that does not remove personalities and concrete personal relations from a holistic view of a specific cultural milieu.Extensive appendices to the dissertation provide primary data for further study in the history of anthropology, as well as support for contentions in the dissertation. As such, the dissertation, in itself, serves as a basis for further research.

Diss.--Universität Bonn, 1990. / Bibliogr. p. 718-743. Index.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Charles Dickens owes his success as a novelist to his imagination. Therefore, his attitude toward imagination is of interest. One way of determining his attitude toward imagination is to examine the characters that have imaginations.There are several characters in Dickens' works that misuse their imaginations. Initially Dickens regards these characters leniently. Eventually, however, he regards them harshly. He dwells on the damage caused by the misdirection of their imaginations.Many of the other characters who are imaginative are children or childlike adults. Dickens treats them sentimentally. This tendency to sentimentalize such characters continues throughout Dickens' career. However, with certain characters he does seem to try to correct this tendency.Finally in his last complete novel, Our Mutual_ Friend, he treats Jenny Wren, a character who uses her imagination a positive way, realistically. She represents the final development of his attitudes on imagination.