This critical inquiry in curriculum studies uses poststructuralist and Deleuzian rhizomatic approaches alongside an original 'picturing' methodology. The author genealogically maps historical and contemporary curriculum theorising to deconstruct curriculum 'development' and foreground currere (curriculum reconceptualising). In performing Deleuzian philosophy, his proposed c u r a reimagines curriculum via currere to envision generatively living-learning

Poststructuralism may be broadly characterized as a move away from traditional Western foundationalist thinking. Such thinking is exemplified by post-enlightenment transcendentalism, humanism and subject-centredness. This study aims to contribute to the poststructuralist decentering of the subject by means of the application of the critical practice of deconstruction – a type of analysis named and popularized by Jacques Derrida, who is himself frequently classified as a poststructuralist, in which the ruling logic of the text is undermined and the meaning of the text is therefore shown not to be fully present within it – to four texts by a writer who is arguably among the most prominent within the English literary canon: William Shakespeare. The first deconstructive reading centres around the court scene at the climax of the bond story in The Merchant of Venice. Here the apparent contrast between the restrictive law – which views Shylock’s claim of a pound of Antonio’s flesh as valid – and justice and mercy – which regard adherence to this bond as contrary to the spirit of the law – is collapsed, and justice is shown to be capable of being as restrictive as the law, while mercy becomes embroiled in all the trading that occurs in The Merchant of Venice, and demonstrates the capacity to be mercenary. The Tempest is examined next: the starting point is the apparent Nature/Culture distinction within the play. The reading is influenced by Derrida’s use of the notion of supplementarity in his examination in “… That Dangerous Supplement …” of the Nature/Culture distinction in Rousseau. Particular attention is given first to the wedding masque, where the central figure of Ceres, who is goddess of agriculture and marriage, and also the source of seasonal changes, is shown to problematize any absolute distinctions between Nature and Culture. Such distinctions are further collapsed with reference to Prospero and Miranda’s teaching of language to Caliban, as the latter, who supposedly is representative of natural man, is shown to have had his thought supplemented by language before Prospero’s arrival on the island. Hamlet is approached with a reading that again draws from Derrida – this time his exploration of Mallarmé’s “Mimique” in “The Double Session”. Plato’s theory of forms also becomes involved as this chapter plays with the distinction between Being and imitation, destabilizing this distinction within Hamlet and problematizing Hamlet’s question: “To be, or not to be”. And finally, the chapter on Measure for Measure is concerned with the ideas of restraint and freedom, inspecting Lucio’s suggestion that his restraint arises from “too much liberty”, as well as many other instances in the play where restraint, as well as freedom – which seems at times to function in the same way as restraint – seems significant. The reading draws attention to its own impulse to restrain the reader with the truisms it presents by being written in the form of thirty-four aphorisms, and thus alludes to Derrida’s “Aphorism Countertime”. / Dissertation (MA (English))--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Modern European Languages / unrestricted

Bien qu’elle ne constitue en rien une pratique marginale, la révision, en tant que relecture et modification d’une traduction existante dans le but d’une nouvelle édition, a suscité jusqu’à maintenant très peu d’intérêt en traductologie. La retraduction, activité avec laquelle elle entretient de nombreux liens, a quant à elle souvent été abordée comme le résultat de simples schémas monocausaux, fondés sur la défaillance ou sur l’évolution des normes. Le présent mémoire, à partir de l’analyse comparative de la trilogie Mémoire du feu (publiée pour la première fois chez Plon en 1985 et 1988) — traduction française de Memoria del fuego, d’Eduardo Galeano (1982, 1984 et 1986) — et de sa révision (publiée chez Lux en 2013), démontre plutôt la multiplicité des facteurs sous-tendant le processus de révision et la nécessité d’étudier leurs interactions. Notre étude de cas, alliant une analyse textuelle, une étude contextuelle et un travail de terrain, révèle l’influence significative des pratiques, des positions idéologiques et des conceptions des agents tant sur l’entreprise d’une révision que sur son déroulement. / Revision, conceived here as the rereading and modification of an existing translation prior to a new edition, although it does not constitute in any way a marginal practice, have received very little interest from translation studies scholars. Retranslation, with which it shares many characteristics, has generally been conceived as the mere result of monocausal models, either based on ‘ʻdéfaillanceʼʼ or the evolution of norms. This master’s thesis, based on a comparative analysis of the trilogy Mémoire du feu (first published by Plon in 1985 and 1988) — French translation of Memoria del fuego, written by Eduardo Galeano (1982, 1984 and 1986) — and its revised edition (published by Lux in 2013), reveals the multiplicity of factors shaping the revision’s process and the relevance of studying their interactions. Our case study, combining textual and contextual analysis as well as field work, demonstrates the significant influence of agent’s practices, ideological stances and conceptions on the undertaking and realisation of a revised edition.

Over the course of history, many cross-cultural efforts have been made to understand better the form and function of male same-sex behaviour. Initial naming exercises evaluated the sexual actions taken, and categorized these behaviours as expressions of crime, sin and disease. Various historical accounts note that it was in fin-de-siècle Germany and England, however, that several concepts were developed for the first time to encapsulate male same-sex behaviour, and to identify the type of men engaging in such conduct, in a more tolerant way. Operating within the taxonomic impulse of the eighteenth century, sexology — the scientific study of sexualities and sexual preferences that were considered to be unusual, rare, or marginalized — spurred the development of these new concepts. In the aim of better understanding humans through scientifically evaluating, quantifying, and labelling their sexual form and function, sexology moved male same-sex behaviour beyond the notions of crime, sin and disease. This thesis argues that the key works of sexologists Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895), Károly Mária Kertbeny (1824-1882), Henry Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) and Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) were instrumental to the theoretical endeavour of reclassifying male same-sex behaviour. These four sexologists operated within the parameters of what Foucault calls scientia sexualis: the machinery needed for producing the truth of sex via confessional testimony. Through their own confessional testimony, and testimony collected from other men with same-sex behaviour, Ulrichs, Kertbeny, Ellis and Hirschfeld deemed same-sex behaviour to be a phenomenon based on congenital conditions and one which manifested itself in the form of an inherent sex/gender misalignment. While this behaviour was uncommon, it was not abnormal due to its biological origin. Same-sex behaviour was simply an anomaly of sorts — one specific and rare form of attraction on a spectrum of possibilities. This rationalization of same-sex behaviour differed greatly from the work of other sexologists of the time who evaluated same-sex behaviour to be symptomatic of crime, sin and disease like degeneration theorist Richard von Krafft-Ebing. In arguing that same-sex behaviour developed naturally prior to birth, Ulrichs, Kertbeny, Ellis and Hirschfeld empowered men with same-sex behaviour to negotiate new identities for themselves outside of crime, sin and disease. This discursive rebranding of same-sex behaviour is an example of what feminist postructuralism labels as reverse discourse. In order to negotiate new identities for themselves and others with congenital same-sex behaviour, Ulrichs, Kertbeny, Ellis and Hirschfeld developed four specific concepts. These terms are: Urning (1865), homosexualität (1869), sexual inversion (1897), and third sex (1914). While these examples of reverse discourse were operationalized within restrictive conceptualizations of gender expression, they moved away from classifying same-sex behaviour as temporary acts to classifying those engaging in this behaviour as a specific species of people. This transition from sexual act to personage has been elaborated upon most famously by Michel Foucault in The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 (1978/1990).

No description available.

No description available.