In her article, "Boys of the Lex", Gayle Salamon argues that "how we embody gender is how we theorize gender, and to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand both theorization and embodiment" (576) Salamon strengthens her argument through her analysis of a calendar which focuses on gay "boys" gender performance. Through this analysis, Salamon argues that the boys of the Lex demonstrate that gender is theorized in how gender is lived and embodied. Yet when a distinction is placed between the theorizing and the performance of gender expression, Salamon questions the purpose of this distinction. Salamon supports her argument by challenging Leslie Feinburg's assumption that gender can simply be explained through the social construction of language. In order to understand Salamon's argument however it is first necessary to provide a clear analysis of Feinburg's theory.
We are tempted to think that the soul purpose of Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible was to create an outlet that exposed the mass hysteria of the McCarthy era , however to say this you would be ignoring the central themes that have allowed this play to reach universal audiences. Among themes such as the abuse of power, conflict with authority and mass hysteria The Crucible deals with the importance of identity and the individual conscience. These two themes are closely linked because until you complete your journey in finding yourself you are unable to have an individual conscience. Miller uses one of the central characters in the story, John Proctor, to explore the journey of individual conscience. This theme combined with a unique structure and language allows him to creature a play that addresses the social and political concerns which are essential to every human existence.
It is the universal whore, the pander between men and peoples.’ Karl Marx, ‘the economic and philosophical manuscripts’ (1844). This is saying that money makes society function, it not only binds us together, but separates those who have it and those who don’t. - The issue of storytelling, how stories are received, who they serve, is an important theme in Othello - Individuals create stories about themselves to establish an identity  sometimes our stories are imposed on us - Othello states he ‘Saw the handkerchief’ (Act 5, Sc2, Ln66), but what he really saw was a mute fact – facts are meaningless until placed into context – Othello used the wrong story to interpret what he saw. He takes Iago’s lies as facts, believes everything else - Marxism emphasizes the link between power  storytelling  economics. Eg.
The study of international relations has long been dominated by materialist theories. While liberalists characterize the relations as interdependency of international actors and their constrained behaviors, realists explain and predict state behaviors with their desire to sustain survival, preserve security and acquire power. On top of the rationalist rainbow of international relation theories, the rise of constructivism brought a novel ray of colour: the role of idea and the intersubjective nature of relations. This essay attempts to investigate constructivism in two ways. In the first part of the essay, the concept will be evaluated in regards to its strengths and weaknesses.
For instance the fragmented element of the narrative can both reflect Offreds 'state of mind' and contribute to the suggestions about Gilead as a nation/ society. The autobiographical narrative itself acts as a rebellion against Offreds dystopia. This is the primary function of the novel which must be considered. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a neutral description of events therefore the focus remains on Atwood's message rather than the issues of any fictional dystopia. Atwood reveals Offreds 'state of mind' through the use of flashbacks.
Gellner prvides a functionalist view of then nationalism. This is completely contrary to Mrx, for whom the modern era and indutrialization is a step towards the abolition of nationalism. Gellenr’s ideas are nor based on an economic interpretation a la Marx. But rather Gellner is describing the superstructure of national polity and the family system of social relationships, that form as a result of capitalism. Capitalism and it’s superstructure are symbiotica and go together.
QUEERING SHAKESPEARE’s AS YOU LIKE IT Queer theory a contemporary approach to literature and culture that assumes sexual identities are flexible, not fixed and that critiques gender and sexuality as they are commonly conceived in Western culture. Queer theorist take the constructionistic position that gender is a social artifact,that masculinity and feminity are culturally constructed that determined rather than natural or innate.They further contend that sexuality,like gender,is socially constructed ,arguing that the binary opposition heterosexual/homosexual is as much as a product of culture and its institutions as the opposition masculinity/feminity.Indeed,they view sexuality as perfomative rather than normative,as aprocess involving signifying acts rather than personal identity. Issues of gender and sexuality have gained increasingly visiblein our Post modern world in the late 20th century and early 20th century.The idea that sexual identity is largely performed or constructed rather than genetically fixed lends itself adroitly to Shakespear’s plays.Unquestionably ,Shakespeare is playing with the ambiguities of sexual identity and with the hints of homoeroticism in his plays. The aim of our paper is to Re-invent Shakespeare’s Romantic Comedy AS YOU like IT on the basis of our reading of Queer Theory.We have shown in our paper the sexual ambiguities and homoeroticism of the characters in the play.We have also tried to show the relationship between Rosalind and Celia on the light of Lesbian eroticism. A re-reading of AS YOU LIKE IT in the light of Queer Theory helps us to bring out the homoerotic as well as the heteroerotic relations that are present I the characters.Homoeroticism is a major theme in William Shakeseare,s pay AS YOU LIKE IT.Much emphesis has been placed on the extremely intimate relationship between Rosalind and Celia ,on
Howell, J. and Pearce, M. (2002) ‘Genealogies of the Conceptual Encounter’, Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration (Lynne Reinner Publishers:London) (2) pp. 13-38 Summary: The historical context of civil society and its multiple understandings are seen as its contribution to promote discussion. It involves essentially the relationships among the state, individual and society derived from dichotomized mainstream and alternative genealogies of thinking with such intra-variability that none of them can be convincing or complete(Howell & Pearce, 2002: 13-17). They both affect policy and practice differently, with the former addressing poverty issues in homogenous Tocquevillian/modernist lines and the latter in a more holistic fashion, looking at factors beyond the pursuit of commercial interests and well-defined “right” sets of policies. According to Howell and Pearce (2002: 37), alternative genealogy reinvented the concept of civil society by making it a space for contestation and challenge of the systemic capitalist spread, supported by values of reciprocal solidarity.
[3] Origins of the concept and its studyEdit The term ethnocentrism was created by William G. Sumner, upon observing the tendency for people to differentiate between the in-group and others. He defined it as "the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. "[4] He further characterized it as often leading to pride, vanity, beliefs of one's own group's superiority, and contempt of outsiders. [5] Robert K. Merton comments that Sumner's additional characterization robbed the concept of some analytical power because, Merton argues, centrality and superiority are often correlated, but need to be kept analytically distinct. [4] Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentrism of the scientist.
Popular culture is a difficult term to define. It is a broad concept with multiple meanings, each dependent upon the context of its use and on the theoretical approach used. In constructing the notion of popular culture, one should ask, does popular culture come from “the people” or “the elites” or from the interaction of both? Therefore popular culture is best described as a site of conflict and struggle, a point of interaction between classes and ideologies. This essay aims to construct the notion of ‘popular’ in popular culture through an analysis of the different perspectives of Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin on popular culture.