Despite the broadening of the subject matter of English drama in its ???new wave??? period from the late nineteen fifties, it is striking to see how much of enduring mainstream English drama has a domestic focus. The purpose of this thesis is to provide the first full-length study of marriage on the English stage from 1930-1990. The thesis examines the way in which a number of important playwrights have fashioned drama from the conflict between the public, or institutional, functions of marriage and the private, or relational, functions of marriage. The thesis places this conflict into historical context. This will show that the conflict between the private and public aspects of marriage is not one of clearly opposed opposites but one that is made dynamic by significant social and legal changes to the status, function and conventions of marriage. The thesis also demonstrates that this conflict is further complicated by class considerations and by the particular circumstances of each marital partnership. From the wealth of material available, I have chosen to examine in detail the work of seven playwrights who have made significant contributions to domestic drama or domestic comedy. Playwrights have been selected because their plays gained a strong audience on first performance and because, through numerous revivals and through publication of scripts, they have earned an enduring place in English drama. John Osborne???s Look Back in Anger, which in 1956, ushered in the ???new wave???, is pivotal play for discussion. The previous generation is represented by Noel Coward, J. B. Priestley and Terence Rattigan. The ???new wave??? and its aftermath are represented by Harold Pinter, Tom Stoppard and, finally Alan Ayckbourn. Despite a wide variety of approaches to the topic of marriage, these writers tend to assume a middle class audience and to follow or adapt the traditions of realism or comedy of manners. This thesis argues that despite real, even radical, changes to marriage, to accepted sexual practices and to the status of women in the sixty years under discussion, the mainstream theatre has tended to be conservative in its presentation of marital and sexual matters, especially in continuing to reinscribe a public/private opposition determined by gender.

Homo Perfidus: An Antipathology of the Coward’s Betrayal identifies and speaks to an ethical and methodological lacuna in western metaphysics with regards to betrayal. Following Levinas’ call for an ‘Ethics as first philosophy,’ my research question is: ‘How can I think of betrayal responsibly?’ I offer to approach betrayal as an accusation, one that comports an excessive hatred towards the identified ‘traitor.’ Suspending its moral vilification, I construct a broadly phenomenological method – which I call ‘antipathology’ – that proposes to take this hatred seriously; not as the sign of a lack to be filled or purloined with shame, but of a communication to respond-to. Tracking western thought’s metaphysical engagements – mainly via Kant, Hegel and Heidegger – my antipathology witnesses an exceedingly systematic muting of this hatred. Such a principled effacement of hatred’s signs is the very mechanism by which western thought “de-problematizes” betrayal, appropriating its otherness for its own metaphysical ends. To those ends, betrayal ceases to be an event and becomes its ‘prefiguration,’ a twist on an assumed temporal and causal progression. I focus here on the coward’s betrayal, broadly defined as secession from a principle – seen to give cohesion and legitimacy to a ‘Whole’ – of which this traitor was nevertheless an integral part until the event of her betrayal. Antipathology follows young Hegel’s ‘antisemitic’ association of the “Jewish spirit” with a principle of alienation and secession, a vain and hateful self-assertion that only “Christian spirit” can successfully negate, turning this drive for hateful dissociation to one of loving association (with progressively diminishing “remainders”). Reading modern philosophy’s treatment of the skeptic I show how her doubt can be appropriated and turned to ‘Truth’ in the same way that the Jews’ hateful and cowardly betrayal can be turned to absolute faith/love; what Hegel calls “negating the negation.” Both ‘Jew’ and ‘Skeptic’ here become antibodies in a process through which a ‘Whole’ slowly becomes immune, or insensitive to, the threat of future interruptions: outside of this process – offering no ‘Whole’ of their own – their respective interruptions are seen as expressions of vanity, of a ‘self’ that breaks-away from the bonds of belonging and love in a fit of gratuitous hatred and doubt; all in the name of a “who knows what” that for Hegel, as well as for Kant and Heidegger, amounts to precisely ‘Nothing.’ I conclude by a performative ‘antipathological’ reading of Dante’s Inferno alongside Kafka’s In the Penal Colony: while Dante, as a faithful ‘Christian’ witness to Divine Justice (Hell), desires to internalize the Truth of God, progressively renouncing the vain resistances of a ‘self’ not yet fully reconciled to God’s Being (the theological ‘Pleroma’ of the ‘Whole’), Kafka’s nameless traveler, as a skeptical ‘coward-witness,’ not only remains “unconverted” but also causes the violence that is implicit in the Dante-esque ‘progression’ to show itself. ‘Faith’ is here shown as progression from one betrayal-event to another, all of which require the believer to sacrifice another part of their resistance to the demands of the ‘Whole’ until no such resistance remains (or, at least, felt/expressed). Similarly, the Dante that begins his journey weeping for the suffering of Hell’s sinners, ends up kicking one of them in the face; deliberately, yet without hatred, as if it were a mere rock on the road. The coward’s betrayal consists in her ‘vain witness’ to time as rupture, as event, as the opening that puts her previous beliefs and attachments in radical question. The hatred towards the coward and the accusation of ‘traitor’ mark this question as a threat to the ‘Whole;’ a mark that, approached antipathologically, can open a discourse concerning the violence (and self-violence) that was and is necessary to keep the ‘Whole,’ through a narrated causal-historical time, from breaking apart. Painful and dangerous, this approach is, nonetheless, the only way to keep a system that abolished all ‘positions to complain’ from being equated with a ‘wholly just’ system; or to keep a knowledge-machine that successfully tames all doubts from being absolved.

Syftet med denna studie är att analysera ett begränsat antal bilderböcker från två tidsepoker och undersöka hur det icke-verbala gestaltas i dessa bilderböcker och om det gestaltas olika i de två tidsepokerna.  Jag kommer att fokusera mer ingående på konflikter mellan barn, konflikter mellan pedagoger och barn och pedagogers attityder i konflikter och deras sätt att hantera dem. Metoden jag använder mig av i denna studie är en kvalitativ litteraturanalys där jag utgår från Nikolajevas (2000) bok om bilderboksanalys. Tillsammans med relevant litteratur och Howard Garders teori om de sju intelligenserna med fokus på det kroppsliga har jag kommit fram till resultatet att alla böcker oavsett tidsepok via kroppsspråket i böckerna förmedlar att förskolan är något roligt och intressant. Största skillnaden mellan böckerna från de olika tidsepokerna var att i de äldre böckerna visades endast att man inte fick säga emot de vuxna med en tydlig didaktisk underton. I böckerna från 2000-talet gestaltades kroppsspråket så att man förstod det som att barnen hade mer inflytande och behövde inte alltid godta vad de vuxna sa, utan kunde ha mer egen vilja. / The purpose of this study is to analyze a limited number of picture books from two eras and examine how non-verbal portrayed in the picture, and if it is portrayed differently in the two epochs. I will focus in more detail on the conflicts between children, conflicts between educators and children and teachers' attitudes in the conflict and their way of dealing with them. The method I use in this study is a qualitative literature analysis which I assume Nicholas Eve (2000) book on picture analysis. Together with the relevant literature and Howard Gardners theory of the seven intelligences with a focus on the bodily, I have come to the result that all books regardless of era through body language in the books convey to preschool is something fun and interesting. The biggest difference between the books from the different time epochs was that in the older books appeared only that you could not argue with adults with a clear didactic undertone. In the books from the 2000's figure was the body language illustrated in such a way that the reader understands that the children are allowed to have more influence and not necessarily need to accept the opinions and wishes of the adults, since they are entitled to their own opinion and to have their own free will.