The purpose of this thesis is to give a critical analysis of ¡§Macphersonian possessive individualism¡¨, with regards to the issues of historical methodology as well as political theory. Having introduced my project of study in the opening chapter, I begin chapter two with an examination of the very idea of ¡§possessive individualism¡¨ proposed by C. B. Macpherson, and the theory of property and democracy that the thinker comes to develop in his later works. In chapter three, I turn to cope with the methodological problems implicit in Macpherson¡¦s study of history, mainly in terms of the Cambridge School¡¦s serious attack on its anti-historicity. In addition, the relative criticisms that I have addressed to Macpherson¡¦s methodology include the Marxist determinism and the Rationalist mode of modernity that appear his work. In chapter four, by contrast, it is Macpherson¡¦s theory of property and democracy that is under consideration. Here, taking the thought of Hayek as my case, I set out to show how the liberal formulations of democracy and property can still be free from Macpherson¡¦s Marxist charge. Finally, I conclude this thesis with a brief talk about the plausibility of Giddens¡¦ third way as the possible solution for the long-term debate regarding the intricate tension between property and equality.

This thesis addresses three questions regarding education in South African High Schools: Why teach English literature? What English literature should be taught? How should English literature be taught? The thesis adopts an historical perspective in that it traces the lineages of influence from Britain in particular, and explores the attitudes and concerns of the academics and teachers of South Africa as they attempt to establish a rigorous discipline regarding South Africa’s literary heritage and the education curriculum. Theoretical concerns that are explored include the influence of the Cambridge School, the concepts presented by the Marxists and Cultural Materialists, and the position of Theory as it became more significant in the second half of the 20th Century. There is also recognition of scholarship deriving from the United States of America, in that the work of the New Critics and Harold Bloom are considered. The work of significant South African critics such as Guy Butler, Mike Kirkwood and Tim Couzens is also explored, and the attempt to grapple with English in a multilingual society is considered. The curriculum documents that emerged in the post-1994 era are critiqued, and there is reference to the work of Taylor and Vinjevold.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Humanities, School of Education, 2014. / Abstract for PhD Thesis: An Investigation into the Teaching of English Literature at Senior Secondary School Level, with a Particular Emphasis on the Reason for Teaching Literature, the Selection of Texts, and Methodology Used. By David Edwin Robinson This thesis addresses three questions regarding education in South African High Schools: Why teach English literature? What English literature should be taught? How should English literature be taught? The thesis adopts an historical perspective in that it traces the lineages of influence from Britain in particular, and explores the attitudes and concerns of the academics and teachers of South Africa as they attempt to establish a rigorous discipline regarding South Africa’s literary heritage and the education curriculum. Theoretical concerns that are explored include the influence of the Cambridge School, the concepts presented by the Marxists and Cultural Materialists, and the position of Theory as it became more significant in the second half of the 20th Century. There is also recognition of scholarship deriving from the United States of America, in that the work of the New Critics and Harold Bloom are considered. The work of significant South African critics such as Guy Butler, Mike Kirkwood and Tim Couzens is also explored, and the attempt to grapple with English in a multilingual society is considered. The curriculum documents that emerged in the post-1994 era are critiqued, and there is reference to the work of Taylor and Vinjevold.

Orientador: Antonio Carlos Macedo e Silva / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Economia / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-16T01:23:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Giannella_Andrea_M.pdf: 1109618 bytes, checksum: 700c4b7467685ccd3fe8aa918a8324e0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 / Resumo: John M. Keynes e Dennis H. Robertson, ambos economistas de Cambridge, foram intensos colaboradores intelectuais na década de 1920; mas após da publicação da Teoria geral de Keynes, em 1936, a colaboração foi substituída por uma ostensiva rivalidade teórica. O ponto de inflexão do relacionamento entre ambos, entretanto, antecede esta época, e remonta à publicação do Tratado sobre a moeda de Keynes, em 1930. A partir da resenha que Robertson fez deste livro, os autores travaram um debate teórico e terminológico, acerca de questões como a determinação do preço dos bens de investimento, a relação entre poupança, investimento e entesouramento, e a determinação da quantidade de depósitos inativos na economia. Este debate, denominado pela literatura especializada de controvérsia "dos baldes em um poço", foi considerado de importância fundamental para as futuras divergências entre os autores, mas não recebeu atenção analítica à altura desta consideração. Nesta dissertação, argumenta-se que o desdobramento dos pontos debatidos esteve em parte relacionado à necessidade de Keynes de responder às críticas de Hayek ao livro, e procura-se estabelecer um modo de correlação entre os diversos conceitos debatidos (entesouramento, depósitos inativos, nível de preço dos bens de investimento, poupança, etc.) Considerou-se, como ponto de orientação geral, a pergunta: a controvérsia foi teórica ou simplesmente terminológica? O que se constata é que não há resposta simples para esta questão. De fato, a "controvérsia dos baldes em um poço" mistura assuntos teóricos, talvez não inteiramente compatíveis entre si, e em relação aos quais a diferença entre os autores foi em parte teórica, e em parte terminológica / Abstract: John M. Keynes and Dennis H. Robertson, both economists from Cambridge, were intense intellectual collaborators in the 1920s; but after the publication of Keynes?s General theory, in 1936, their collaboration was substitutes by an ostensive theoretical rivalry. The turning point of their relationship, however, is previous from that time, and goes back to the publication of Keynes's Treatise on money, in 1930. From Robertson's review of that book on, the authors engaged in a theoretical and terminological debate, concerning matters such as the determination of the price of investment goods, the relation between saving, investment and hoarding, and the determination of the quantity of inactive deposits in the economy. This debate, named the "buckets in a well" controversy by the specialized literature, was considered to be of fundamental importance for the future divergence between the authors, but did not receive an analytical attention compatible to such consideration. In this dissertation, it is argued that the unfolding of the subjects in the debated was partially related to Keynes's need to answer Hayek's critics of his book, and the dissertation means to establish a way to correlate the many debated concepts (hoarding, inactive deposits, price level of investment goods, saving, etc.) It was considered, as a general point of orientation, the question: was the controversy theoretical, or simply terminological? It is concluded that there is no simple answer to such question. As a matter of a fact, the "buckets in a well controversy" mixes many theoretical subjects, which may not be entirely compatible one to another, and in relation to which the difference between the authors was partially theoretical, and partially terminological / Mestrado / Historia Economica / Mestre em Ciências Econômicas

The present dissertation deals with the relationship between democracy and agonism. It attempts to defend the idea that certain problematic aspects of contemporary liberal democracies are not due to their origin primarily in the change of social conditions (the massification of democracy, the growth of complexity in modern societies), that made the original democratic promises unrealizable, but in certain oblivion of the agon. The agon is understood as a constitutive feature of democratic society and its oblivion is seen not to be accidental. To defend this proposition I focuse on an interpretation of the dialogue between populist republicanism (Machiavelli) and elitist republicanism (Guicciardini). This dialogue is usually understood as one of the sources of modern democratic tradition. I try to explain that in Machiavelli's political theory two notions of agonism are present - pragmatic agon that sees conflict as a basis of social cohesion and strategic agon that is described as a ferocious egalitarianism employed by the second class citizens in order to gain equality from the first class citizens. These two forms of agonism are explained to form the axis of Machiavelli's notion of the political and also of a free republic and democracy. Guicciardini's elitist republicanism is shown to stand in opposition...

本研究の目的は，ケンブリッジ学派の経済学者D.H.ロバートソンの経済変動論体系を統一的に理解し，その学史的・現代的意義を再評価することである．ロバートソンが重視した実物的経済変動論の「実物real」とは一体何を指しているのか，という根本的な問いからはじめ，その「実物」が彼の経済変動論体系において有している重要性を明らかにする． / 博士(経済学) / Doctor of Economics / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

This thesis deals with the biographies, the academic work and the influence of James Ward, W.H.R. Rivers, C.S. Myers and Sir Frederic Bartlett. Along with Galton, Sully, Spearman and Burt these four men were among the principle founding fathers of British psychology. Ward, Rivers and Myers were largely responsible for establishing psychology at Cambridge, where, under Bartlett, the subject later flourished. Part 1 of this thesis argues that these Cambridge pioneers have not yet received the historical attention which befits their cardinal position in British psychology. Part 2 describes Ward's philosophy, systematic psychology and his advocacy of psychophysics. The importance for Ward's thought of Bain, Lotze and Fechner and more generally, of British Associationism and neo Hegelian Idealism, are described. A biography of Ward is presented with special reference to his long struggle to establish psychophysics at Cambridge between 1877 and 1897. Part 3 describes the consolidation of psychology under Rivers and Myers between 1897 and 1922. The life of each man is described illustrating their common background in medicine, anthropology and early experimental psychology. Their work on "Shell Shock" in World War I, their work in experimental and cross cultural psychology, and Myers' massive contribution to industrial psychology, through his N.I.I.P., are outlined. Part 4 looks at the further growth of Cambridge psychology under Sir Frederic Bartlett from 1922 - 1939. His main contributions, it is argued, were; as an experimentalist; as a psychological theorist; as a promoter of applied psychology; as a respected and influential teacher. Special attention is paid to Remembering. Part 5 sums up the work of the Cambridge School. As a detailed history the thesis ends with 1939 but this last section also deals briefly with the influence of the Cambridge School since that date and describes the later work of Bartlett.