Search

This article introduces a new, performative framework for analysing intellectuals and intellectual interventions. It elaborates on the strengths of this theoretical perspective vis-à-vis rival approaches and develops this frame of reference by exploring key constituent concepts, including positioning, script and staging. The article then exemplifies the framework and demonstrates its applicability by exploring a public intellectual performance by Jean-Paul Sartre. To conclude, the article reflects on recent shifts in public intellectual performances, especially changes that are relatively durable and connected to the rise of new media.

This chapter offers some preliminary reflections on Simon Susen and Patrick Baert’s The Sociology of Intellectuals: After ‘The Existentialist Moment’ (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). The chapter emphasizes three principal objectives of this book: first, to explore a new set of conceptual and methodological tools for the sociology of intellectuals (theoretical level); second, to assess how the phenomenon of the public intellectual has altered since the beginning of the twentieth century (historical level); and, third, to examine the extent to which intellectuals can play a constructive role in influencing social and political developments in the modern era (normative level). The chapter goes on to give a brief overview of both the structure and the contents of the book. Finally, the chapter explains why, in light of recent social and political transformations, the challenge of providing a theoretical framework for the sociological study of intellectuals has become particularly pressing.

The possibility of using biomass volume (= mean biomass present in the pond.week-1) to predict the total amount of harvestable cysts (= kg wet weight collected. week-1) produced in a culture pond by an Artemia franciscana population using a mixed model regression was evaluated for two different sampling methods; horizontal transects and vertical point samples. For transects, the following equation was found: `log (0.01 + cyst yields) = -2.05 + 0.025*(biomass volume)' with F(1,4.87) = 8.83 and p = 0.032. For the point samples, the regression was also significant with F(1,55.2) = 13.62 and p = 0.0005 for following equation: `log (0.01 + cyst yield) = -3.613 + 0.021*(biomass volume). As pond effect and interaction terms did not significantly explain a significant portion of the variance for either of the sampling methods (Transects: pond: F(3,14.3) = 2.48; p = 0.103; pond*biomass volume: F(3,3.61) = 4.63; p = 0.0976; Point samples: pond: F(3,44.5) = 0.00; p = 0.999; pond*biomass volume: F(3,44.2) = 0.11; p = 0.954), the variable pond (repeated measurement factor) was not included in the final calculations for the regression equations. Although a combination of factors influences the equation, the high significance levels of the regression indicate biomass volume can be safely used to predict production trends. The low investment requirements of this method make it especially attractive for on farm use, where correctly determining the point of cyst decline will help farmers to allocate resources where needed.

In this study, one-cycle and multi-cycle culture systems for Artemia in seasonal salt ponds are compared. In one-cycle systems, Artemia is inoculated only once per season, while in multi-cycle systems ponds are drained and re-stocked several times per season. In Vietnam, three-cycle systems gave significantly higher cyst yields than did the one-cycle system. However, after two cycles, systems were not significantly different. Food limitation probably caused the steady decline in cyst yields, as observed in the one-cycle ponds. In these ponds, females have smaller broods (from the second cycle onwards) and during the last cycle the number of adult females is lower than in multi-cycle ponds.

What are studi culturali and études culturelles, and what about the present status of Kulturwissenschaften? What do they all have in common, if any? What are the differences between them? Are they three different research fields, or three national declinations of the same research program, or what else? Common to all of them nowadays is a more or less immediate reference to the British Cultural Studies, whose circulation however has been different across the three national cases, Italy, France, and Germany (together with Austria). Making use of an array of different sources and methods, this chapter tries to identify the commonalities among these reception histories (also in terms of epistemological foundations) without forgetting their peculiarities with respect to their social and political traditions. In all the three national/regional cases we will examine how the disciplinary and epistemological boundaries have been negotiated among different disciplines and (scholarly, political, and ideological) commitments in order to build new objects of research and a different sensitivity to matters of culture.

The aim of the chapter is to compare Arendt’s reception in both the intellectual and academic fields of two European countries, Germany and Italy, which experienced similar transformations in correspondence with three global conjunctures of crises: the defeat of fascist regimes, the student protest in 1968, and the end of the cold war. The main goal is to understand to what extent these social and political moments of crisis had similar impacts on the rebirth and development of the social sciences and humanities in the two countries and, as a consequence, how they conditioned the ways in which Hannah Arendt has been received and eventually consecrated.