Louis Montrose. The Subject of Elizabeth: Authority, Gender, and Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Pp. 336. $64.00 (cloth); $25.00 (paper).

2007 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 450-451
Author(s):  
Phil Withington
Keyword(s):  
University Of Chicago ◽  
The Subject ◽  
University Of Chicago Press

Visions and Voices of Donsin: How Farmers of Burkina Faso Participate as Photographers

1997 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Roncoli ◽  
Margery Sendze
Keyword(s):  
Burkina Faso ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
The Other ◽  
University Of Chicago ◽  
Marginal Populations ◽  
National Geographic ◽  
The Subject ◽  
University Of Chicago Press

Few technologies have been as misused as cameras in the encounter with the "other." Photography has provided travelers, journalists, and, indeed, anthropologists with a tool to bring distant cultures and landscapes closer to home audiences. Entailing a process of selective framing and focusing, it has enabled practitioners to construct views of "exotic" people and worlds, building upon preconceived ideas about what they are like and how they differ from us, by stressing either the "picturesque" or the "pathetic" according to what feelings the images were meant to arouse. These are often shaped by the larger context of ideology and politics surrounding our relationship with such groups, as Jane Collins and Catherine Lutz (Reading National Geographic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993) show in their seminal and spirited critique of the National Geographic. But are reifying or alienating the subject inherent effects of photographic practice? Not necessarily. Parallel to conventional photography that uses indigenous people as mere objects of representation, there have been some notable efforts by visual anthropologists and communication specialists to directly involve minorities and marginal populations in producing images of themselves, their social and physical landscapes, and in using photography for bolstering their status and their claims in society.

scholarly journals Is Wilson’s religion Durkheim’s, or Hobbes’s Leviathan?

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Religious Life ◽  
Emile Durkheim ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
University Of Chicago ◽  
General Theme ◽  
The Subject ◽  
University Of Chicago Press

AbstractThis paper critically supports the modern evolutionary explanation of religion popularised by David Sloan Wilson, by comparing it with those of his predecessors, namely Emile Durkheim and Thomas Hobbes, and to some biological examples which seem analogous to religions as kinds of superorganisms in their own right. The aim of the paper is to draw out a theoretical pedigree in philosophy and sociology that is reflected down the lines of various other evolutionarily minded contributors on the subject of religion. The general theme is of evolved large-scale cooperative structures. A scholarly concern is as follows: Wilson (Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, And The Nature Of Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002) draws on Durkheim, (The elementary forms of religious life. Free Press, New york, 1912) using Calvinism as an example without mentioning Hobbes (Leviathan, Edited by E. Curley, Cambridge, Hackett, 1651), but it was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) who used Calvinism as an example of a leviathanesque religious structure—which is not acknowledged by either Wilson or Durkheim. If there are even any similarities between these authors, there appears to be an omission somewhere which should rightly be accounted for by giving credit to Hobbes where it is due. I issue on conclusion, what it is that makes Wilson’s approach radically different to that it skates on. I also issue it with a cautionary word.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document