In art and education, theorists dispute the concept of visuality, or how meaning occurs from what we see. This study examines two opposed and acrimoniously entrenched theoretical perspectives adopted internationally: visual culture and aesthetics. In visual culture, visual experience, including perception is mediated by background cultural discourses. On this approach, subjectivity is explained as conventional, the role of the senses in making meaning is strongly diminished or rejected and from this, accounting for visuality precludes indeterminate and intuitive aspects. Differently, aesthetic perspectives approach visual meaning as obtaining through direct perceptual and felt aspects of aesthetic experience. Here, subjectivity remains discrete from language and the role of cultural discourse in making meaning diminishes or is excluded. Each description is important to the explanation of visuality in art and education, but problematic. To start, the study outlines the central explanatory commitments of both visual culture and aesthetics. The study identifies problems in each with their explanations of subjectivity or self. Both positions maintain from earlier explanations of cognition that separate theoretically and practically the senses, cognitive processes, and context. The study looks at approaches to mind and representation in accounts of visuality and provides some background from the cognitive sciences to understand the problem further. Contemporary explanation from science and philosophy is revising the separation. However, some approaches from science are reductive of mind and both aesthetics and visual culture theorists are understandably reluctant to adopt scientistic or behaviourist approaches for the explanation of visual arts practices. The aim of the study is to provide a non-reductive realist account of visuality in visual arts and education. To accomplish this aim, the study employs philosopher John R. Searle's explanation of consciousness because it explores subjectivity as qualitative, unified, and intrinsically social in experience. By doing this, the study addresses a gap in the theoretical understanding of the two dominant approaches to visuality. The key to relations between subjectivity and the world in reasoning is the capacity for mental representation. From this capacity and the rational agency of a self, practical reasoning is central to the creation, understanding, and appreciation of art and imagery. This account of consciousness, its aspects, and how it works includes description of the Background, as capacities enabling the uptake and structuring of sociocultural influence in mind. Crucially, the study shows how the capacity for reasoned action can be represented without dualism or reduction to the explanatory constraints of behavioural or physical sciences, an important commitment in the arts and education. In this explanation, the study identifies epistemic constraints on the representation of mental states, including unconscious states, in accounting for practices as reasoned activities. Centrally, the study looks at how, from the capacities of consciousness and the self's freedom of will, visuality is unified as qualitative, cognitive, and social. In exploring Searle's explanation of consciousness, some account of current work on cognition extends discussion of a reconciliation of visuality on these terms.

The relationship between party organisation, class consciousness and workers’ struggle has been a basic issue in Marxism since its foundation, and particularly since the rise of revisionism at the end of the last century. To the very limited that a “mainstream” literature on Lenin sought to locate him within the Marxist tradition that tradition was identified with a determinist interpretation of Marx developed by the revisionists and centrists. This approach has been countered by a generally sympathetic view of Lenin’s comments on party organisation, argued by a recent set of “critics” of the “mainstream” view. Yet despite their wish to make a comprehensive critique of the “mainstream”, most of the critics have failed to do so due a residual element of determinism in their understanding of the relation between workers’ struggle and the development of class consciousness.This thesis seeks to complete the critique of the “mainstream” through establishing the role of conscious intervention in realising the material possibilities for workers’ struggle. It does so through a case study of the labour movement in St. Petersburg between the “Emancipation” of 1861 and the “Stolypin Coup” of 3/6/1907. A pivotal point in the development of this movement was “Bloody Sunday” (9/1/1905), and the thesis is structured around that moment to show what changes, as well as what does not change, in the role of conscious intervention in periods of mass struggle relative to times of more limited protest.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2008. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 77-93). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-251).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 2008. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 264 p. : ill. (some col.). Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 151-160).

Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Sydney, 2005. / Title from title screen (viewed 28 March 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy to the Dept. of Indian Sub-Continental Studies, Faculty of Arts. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print form.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Carleton University, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 243-249). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2007. Graduate Programme in Social and Political Thought. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 355-361). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:NR29336

Thesis (Ed.D.) -- Teachers College, Columbia University, 1990. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Carla Seal-Wanner. Dissertation Committee: Robert McClintock. Includes bibliographical references: (leaves 176-178).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 249-258). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.