No description available.

This dissertation examines the role the medium of comics plays in the construction and subversion of anti-Arab and Islamophobic discourse. It seeks to address the following questions in particular: how does the medium of comics interpellate subjects regarding the Western discursive formation that conflates Arab, Muslim, and terrorist? What does the medium of comics afford creators in subverting dominant discourses that dehumanize Arabs and Muslims? I argue that as a hypermedium in which text and repeated images are in continual tension, comics challenge the sort of foundational notion of truth necessary for dominant discourse. I use a Foucauldian lens to examine several comics in relation to larger discursive formations. In Chapter 1, I explain the problem, my methods, and my theory in more detail. In Chapter 2, I apply this theory as a lens to examine the rhetorical work the medium plays in subverting dominant discourse in Palestine, a nonfiction piece of comics journalism. I use Chapter 3 to problematize the assertions made in the first two chapters by looking at an instance where comics are used to reinscribe dominant discourse. Specifically, I analyze the graphic adaptation of The 9/11 Report. Chapter 4 acts as something of a retort to Chapter 3; it examines In the Shadow of No Towers to interrogate the ways in which Art Spiegelman explicitly addresses not only the issues he grappled with as a New Yorker during and after 9/11, but the complex relations of representation that arose from the event. Chapter 5 I examine how subversion works when a hypermedium is further remediated by analyzing Didier LeFevre's The Photographer: Into War-Torn Afghanistan with Doctors without Borders. The Conclusion is devoted to discussing the implications of this study, both in terms of pedagogy and in terms of theorizing the relationship and differences between image and text. I argue that comics demonstrate the productive ideological tensions that exist between modes of signification (such as verbal and visual). An understanding of this ideological tension is key for scholars of visual rhetoric and hegemonic discourse. / Ph. D.

This thesis conducts a theory comparison to determine which theory of social justice is best suited to address health inequalities. The theories used are the capability approach by Amartya Sen and Göran Therborn's theory on inequalities. Within the capability approach, two accounts specified on health capabilities will be regarded as well. These are the health capability approach by Ruger and the theory of health justice by Venkatapuram. The theory comparison is done by making use of a non-ideal theory framework, based on the theory by John Rawls and the critiques on it given by several authors, as well as the developments in the ideal/non-ideal theory debate. Non-ideal theory provides guidance towards reducing inequalities and enhancing justice and can therefore be useful for a theory on health inequalities. The developed non-ideal theory framework consists of five criteria to which the respective theories are compared to determine whether they fulfil the criteria. Comparing the theories to the framework will give an insight in which theory is best suited for reducing health inequalities. Therborn's theory on inequalities has proven to fulfil most of the criteria in the non-ideal theory framework and can therefore be regarded as best suited to reduce health inequalities.