Habilitationsschrift--Theologische Fakultät--Göttingen--Georg-August-Universität, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. 324-333.

Reproduction de : Thèse de doctorat : Etudes anglophones : Lyon 2 : 2006. / Titre provenant de l'écran-titre. Bibliogr. Index.

While political praise and condemnation of Disney is commonplace in the literature, my research will focus instead on the origination of Disney's design plan for Disneyland and the theoretical and physical connections between key historical figures and the finished product. I will not consider what Disneyland means to the world today---that is a subject many others have covered, some even brilliantly; instead, I will consider what social concepts contributed to the initial design in an attempt to see the underlying values at work in this post-modern utopia. In this thesis, I intend to show that Walt Disney's initial design for Disneyland was influenced by Ebenezer Howard's Garden City concept. In addition to Howard's vision, Disney also incorporated concepts from Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture and Henry Ford's mass market manufacturing theories. I do not intend to claim that these are the only influences on Disney's initial plan for his amusement park, but I will show that the physical layout of the park reflects Howard's Garden City plan, the architecture considers some of Wright's designs, and the way the park is run incorporates some of the ideas of Henry Ford. I have purposely avoided any works that consider the corporate aspects of Disney and the current Disney Corporation. Instead, I have focused my research on the intentions surrounding Disney's initial design plan. My position is that Disney's parks are real, successful, and expanding internationally - not mere fantasy like earlier 19th social reformers whose actual accomplishments are relatively small and have not been not sustainable locally or internationally. Disney realized the importance of a TEMPORARY place rather than a PERMANENT residence. Disney understood the literal definition of utopia to mean "no where" and therefore did not create a utopia that was a real place. Both Howard and Disney sought to offer a utopia. Howard had hopes of revitalizing the social order with his new cities, and Disney hoped to offer the average family a place where they could have fun and enjoy one another in a safe and entertaining environment.

This paper explores and evaluates the famous Mary case put forward by Frank Jackson in support of what he calls the knowledge argument against physicalism. After laying out Jackson’s position, I set out to determine whether certain previous physicalist attempts at undermining it have been successful. Finding that they have not, I use their shortcomings to inform the construction of a new position, one which I argue renders the Mary case at odds with itself and frees physicalism from the knowledge argument’s grasp.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the management of tessitura in the choir though the use of choral pivoting in Frank Martin's Messe pour double choeur a cappella (1922), since the ranges of a vast number of choral works extend beyond the limits of what the American Academy of Teacher's of Singing have deemed "best" and "safest." According to the American Academy of Teachers of Singing, many great teachers of singing hesitate to allow their "pupils to participate in choral singing because experience has proven that, due to the unusually high tessituras dominating the arrangements of many choral works, harm is done to the voice. "This study includes an in-depth summary of the anatomy and physiology of the vocal mechanism in specific registers and the potential for harm, vocal strain, or vocal fatigue when singers must sing in an extremely high or low tessitura for an extended amount of time. Three methods of vocal pivoting are examined and explanations given as to how choral pivoting may be applied in Messe pour double choeur a cappella.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis, argues that House of Cards portrays an embellished reality of our government through a Machiavellian lens, particularly looking at the politics of scandal through the 25th Amendment and impeachment, as well as the role of political spouses. It also address the underlying question of appointing someone as controversial as Frank Underwood to the vice presidential position knowing his manipulative nature, and will analyze his schemes from a realistic perspective.

This dissertation argues that the crucial quality of American literary naturalism is the polemicism of its major authors and texts. Scholars have long been attuned to the “rebellious” nature of naturalism. Indeed, following the charge of H. L. Mencken (for whom naturalism constituted an aesthetic assault on the pious vacuities of Howellsian social realism), critics have been apt to frame naturalism as the national literature of disobedience. What is less than clear, however, is what, exactly, naturalism is supposed to be rebelling against. In a century of criticism, naturalism has constituted an assault on “machine industrialism” (Parrington), romantic imagination (Trilling), literary realism (Pizer), sentimentality (Lehan), regionalism and local color fiction (Campbell), feminization (Seltzer), capitalism (Benn Michaels), European aestheticism (Dudley), and patriarchal hegemony (Fleissner). My thesis builds on the assumption that the “real object” of naturalism’s rebellion is less definitive than the antinomian spirit itself. The naturalists, in short, were polemicists: naturalism is defined less by a coherent and stable philosophical orientation than by an attitude, a posture of aggressive controversy, which happens to cluster loosely around particular philosophical themes. Moreover, the conspicuous polemicism of the original naturalist project has been registered and extended in the critical construction of the genre over the past century. Naturalism has always depended upon polemical reconstruction by its critics, who were themselves feeding upon the palpable polemicism of Norris, Dreiser, et. al. In chapter one, I argue that the naturalists (and their critics) have adopted a self-effacing polemical rhetoric to establish the genre as the “central marginal” figure in the American canon. By emphasizing their own otherness to the American mainstream, the naturalists were, in effect, claiming it. Then, in close examinations of works by Frank Norris, Theodore Dreiser, and Richard Wright, I argue that the naturalists used their fiction to explore some of the most controversial political and cultural issues in modern American life. Scholars have long noticed how naturalism draws on the scientific theories of Darwin, Spencer, Sumner, Huxley, and others to challenge the prevailing Judeo-Christian cosmology. But the naturalists also charted the basic co-ordinates of a wide range of issues. So, my second chapter considers Frank Norris’s The Octopus in relation to emerging discourses of environmentalism and nascent anxieties over ecological despoliation. Chapter three considers the relationship between abortion and censorship in Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy, and argues that the “tragedy” of Dreiser’s text hinges upon our understanding how its protagonist, Clyde Griffiths, is himself a work of art. In chapter four, I argue that Native Son’s chilling protagonist, Bigger Thomas, represents a distinctly modern figure for terror, and that the novel elaborates a disturbing complimentarity between terrorism and lynching as the crime and punishment that exist outside the confines of the law. While my project considers each of these polemical debates within the cultural and intellectual climates in which they emerged, it is also an attempt to engage with these ideas in their own spirit—that is, to situate naturalistic novels, polemically, within the highly fraught contexts they helped to invent.

This dissertation argues that the crucial quality of American literary naturalism is the polemicism of its major authors and texts. Scholars have long been attuned to the “rebellious” nature of naturalism. Indeed, following the charge of H. L. Mencken (for whom naturalism constituted an aesthetic assault on the pious vacuities of Howellsian social realism), critics have been apt to frame naturalism as the national literature of disobedience. What is less than clear, however, is what, exactly, naturalism is supposed to be rebelling against. In a century of criticism, naturalism has constituted an assault on “machine industrialism” (Parrington), romantic imagination (Trilling), literary realism (Pizer), sentimentality (Lehan), regionalism and local color fiction (Campbell), feminization (Seltzer), capitalism (Benn Michaels), European aestheticism (Dudley), and patriarchal hegemony (Fleissner). My thesis builds on the assumption that the “real object” of naturalism’s rebellion is less definitive than the antinomian spirit itself. The naturalists, in short, were polemicists: naturalism is defined less by a coherent and stable philosophical orientation than by an attitude, a posture of aggressive controversy, which happens to cluster loosely around particular philosophical themes. Moreover, the conspicuous polemicism of the original naturalist project has been registered and extended in the critical construction of the genre over the past century. Naturalism has always depended upon polemical reconstruction by its critics, who were themselves feeding upon the palpable polemicism of Norris, Dreiser, et. al. In chapter one, I argue that the naturalists (and their critics) have adopted a self-effacing polemical rhetoric to establish the genre as the “central marginal” figure in the American canon. By emphasizing their own otherness to the American mainstream, the naturalists were, in effect, claiming it. Then, in close examinations of works by Frank Norris, Theodore Dreiser, and Richard Wright, I argue that the naturalists used their fiction to explore some of the most controversial political and cultural issues in modern American life. Scholars have long noticed how naturalism draws on the scientific theories of Darwin, Spencer, Sumner, Huxley, and others to challenge the prevailing Judeo-Christian cosmology. But the naturalists also charted the basic co-ordinates of a wide range of issues. So, my second chapter considers Frank Norris’s The Octopus in relation to emerging discourses of environmentalism and nascent anxieties over ecological despoliation. Chapter three considers the relationship between abortion and censorship in Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy, and argues that the “tragedy” of Dreiser’s text hinges upon our understanding how its protagonist, Clyde Griffiths, is himself a work of art. In chapter four, I argue that Native Son’s chilling protagonist, Bigger Thomas, represents a distinctly modern figure for terror, and that the novel elaborates a disturbing complimentarity between terrorism and lynching as the crime and punishment that exist outside the confines of the law. While my project considers each of these polemical debates within the cultural and intellectual climates in which they emerged, it is also an attempt to engage with these ideas in their own spirit—that is, to situate naturalistic novels, polemically, within the highly fraught contexts they helped to invent.