Search

This is an exploration beginning with memory of growing up in and exploring a forest surrounding my childhood home. This environment encompassed overwhelming scale and comforting intimacy, with a small intervention that related them. My thesis attempts to extract memory from growing up in the woods and create mediating, complimentary built interventions in a hypothetical world of meaning. It is an exercise in creating for others by extracting from personal memory and identifying personal sensibilities. With abstract spatial drawings, architecture's possible influence is understood at a slower pace. Through layered colored pencil drawings, my work attempts to depict human influence and its enhancement on the natural world surrounding it.

This dissertation examines the potential for the media to act as a corporate governance mechanism and suggests how corporate leaders, through the use of symbolic action, can influence the media’s ability to effectively enact this role. Specifically, I examine how media scrutiny may prompt firms to adopt governance structures that increase the structural independence of the board and thus, according to the prevailing agency logic of corporate governance, are thought to increase the board’s ability to monitor and control corporate leaders. However, the adoption of structurally independent boards may be largely symbolic wherein formal structural changes in board independence are made without increases in the social independence of the board. I argue that symbolic responses to scrutiny will meet the media’s expectations for proper governance and engender more positive subsequent evaluations in the media of the firm and its leaders. I conclude by showing why the effects of symbolic action on media coverage are important for a range of outcomes relevant to firms and CEOs including the likelihood of strategic change, CEO dismissal and compensation, and subsequent board appointments. By influencing the manner in which they and their firms are portrayed in the media, firm leaders may enhance their reputations in the press and garner personal benefits. Thus, while agency theory focuses on the media’s ability to curb agency costs, this study points out that because of the media’s susceptibility to symbolic action, the press may actually perpetuate agency costs in some cases. Longitudinal analysis of a sample of S&P 500 firms provides some support for these ideas.

This dissertation examines the potential for the media to act as a corporate governance mechanism and suggests how corporate leaders, through the use of symbolic action, can influence the media’s ability to effectively enact this role. Specifically, I examine how media scrutiny may prompt firms to adopt governance structures that increase the structural independence of the board and thus, according to the prevailing agency logic of corporate governance, are thought to increase the board’s ability to monitor and control corporate leaders. However, the adoption of structurally independent boards may be largely symbolic wherein formal structural changes in board independence are made without increases in the social independence of the board. I argue that symbolic responses to scrutiny will meet the media’s expectations for proper governance and engender more positive subsequent evaluations in the media of the firm and its leaders. I conclude by showing why the effects of symbolic action on media coverage are important for a range of outcomes relevant to firms and CEOs including the likelihood of strategic change, CEO dismissal and compensation, and subsequent board appointments. By influencing the manner in which they and their firms are portrayed in the media, firm leaders may enhance their reputations in the press and garner personal benefits. Thus, while agency theory focuses on the media’s ability to curb agency costs, this study points out that because of the media’s susceptibility to symbolic action, the press may actually perpetuate agency costs in some cases. Longitudinal analysis of a sample of S&P 500 firms provides some support for these ideas.

In a 1963 article, “Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India,” Aziz Ahmad argued that two different languages, cultures, and historical attitudes developed in mutual ignorance of each other: Muslims wrote “epics of conquest” while Hindus wrote “epics of resistance.” This dissertation examines four texts identified by Aziz Ahmad: Amir Khusrau’s Khaza’in al-Futuh and Deval Rani wa Khizr Khan (epics of conquest) as well as Nayacandra Suri’s Hammira Mahakavya and Padmanabha’s Kanhadade Prabandh (epics of resistance) written during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Aziz Ahmad’s model is based on reactions; the texts show interactions. All of the texts responded to conquest by search for authority in a reconstituted post– conquest world. Amir Khusrau reacted to the Mongols’ thirteenth–century conquest of Persia and its implications for the Muslim community. Instead of facing westwards toward Mecca and the ‘Abbasid caliphate, Muslims turned inward to the Sufi and the sultan. Yet the ultimate search for authority occurred between neither the Sufi nor the sultan, but within the Muslim community as it forged an Indo–Muslim identity distinct from its Persianate predecessor. ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s fourteenth–century conquest of Western Hindustan (Gujarat, Rajasthan) expedited a similar search for authority among Hindus. Delhi Sultanate conquest led to a search for authority that resulted in the formation of a Rajput social identity. This Rajput identity simultanesouly incorporated the ethos of the traditional ksatriya warrior and challenged the ksatriya’s birthright as warrior. Rather than a warrior class, the Rajputs became a warrior society actively promoted in the Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh. A close reading of these four texts not only refutes Ahmad’s assertion that Persian, Sanskrit, and vernacular texts developed in ignorance of each other, it demonstrates an active exchange between these three distinct literary traditions. Amir Khusrau introduced Indic literary imagery into the Duval Rani wa Khizr Khan, which in turn aided in the establishment of an Indo–Persian literature. The Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh utilized Muslims as carriers of Rajput identity. In crossing these literary boundaries, these authors and texts reveal a single social, cultural, and historical attitude that existed in a literary and cultural symbiosis.

In a 1963 article, “Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India,” Aziz Ahmad argued that two different languages, cultures, and historical attitudes developed in mutual ignorance of each other: Muslims wrote “epics of conquest” while Hindus wrote “epics of resistance.” This dissertation examines four texts identified by Aziz Ahmad: Amir Khusrau’s Khaza’in al-Futuh and Deval Rani wa Khizr Khan (epics of conquest) as well as Nayacandra Suri’s Hammira Mahakavya and Padmanabha’s Kanhadade Prabandh (epics of resistance) written during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Aziz Ahmad’s model is based on reactions; the texts show interactions. All of the texts responded to conquest by search for authority in a reconstituted post– conquest world. Amir Khusrau reacted to the Mongols’ thirteenth–century conquest of Persia and its implications for the Muslim community. Instead of facing westwards toward Mecca and the ‘Abbasid caliphate, Muslims turned inward to the Sufi and the sultan. Yet the ultimate search for authority occurred between neither the Sufi nor the sultan, but within the Muslim community as it forged an Indo–Muslim identity distinct from its Persianate predecessor. ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s fourteenth–century conquest of Western Hindustan (Gujarat, Rajasthan) expedited a similar search for authority among Hindus. Delhi Sultanate conquest led to a search for authority that resulted in the formation of a Rajput social identity. This Rajput identity simultanesouly incorporated the ethos of the traditional ksatriya warrior and challenged the ksatriya’s birthright as warrior. Rather than a warrior class, the Rajputs became a warrior society actively promoted in the Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh. A close reading of these four texts not only refutes Ahmad’s assertion that Persian, Sanskrit, and vernacular texts developed in ignorance of each other, it demonstrates an active exchange between these three distinct literary traditions. Amir Khusrau introduced Indic literary imagery into the Duval Rani wa Khizr Khan, which in turn aided in the establishment of an Indo–Persian literature. The Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh utilized Muslims as carriers of Rajput identity. In crossing these literary boundaries, these authors and texts reveal a single social, cultural, and historical attitude that existed in a literary and cultural symbiosis.

In a 1963 article, “Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India,” Aziz Ahmad argued that two different languages, cultures, and historical attitudes developed in mutual ignorance of each other: Muslims wrote “epics of conquest” while Hindus wrote “epics of resistance.” This dissertation examines four texts identified by Aziz Ahmad: Amir Khusrau’s Khaza’in al-Futuh and Deval Rani wa Khizr Khan (epics of conquest) as well as Nayacandra Suri’s Hammira Mahakavya and Padmanabha’s Kanhadade Prabandh (epics of resistance) written during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Aziz Ahmad’s model is based on reactions; the texts show interactions. All of the texts responded to conquest by search for authority in a reconstituted post– conquest world. Amir Khusrau reacted to the Mongols’ thirteenth–century conquest of Persia and its implications for the Muslim community. Instead of facing westwards toward Mecca and the ‘Abbasid caliphate, Muslims turned inward to the Sufi and the sultan. Yet the ultimate search for authority occurred between neither the Sufi nor the sultan, but within the Muslim community as it forged an Indo–Muslim identity distinct from its Persianate predecessor. ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s fourteenth–century conquest of Western Hindustan (Gujarat, Rajasthan) expedited a similar search for authority among Hindus. Delhi Sultanate conquest led to a search for authority that resulted in the formation of a Rajput social identity. This Rajput identity simultanesouly incorporated the ethos of the traditional ksatriya warrior and challenged the ksatriya’s birthright as warrior. Rather than a warrior class, the Rajputs became a warrior society actively promoted in the Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh. A close reading of these four texts not only refutes Ahmad’s assertion that Persian, Sanskrit, and vernacular texts developed in ignorance of each other, it demonstrates an active exchange between these three distinct literary traditions. Amir Khusrau introduced Indic literary imagery into the Duval Rani wa Khizr Khan, which in turn aided in the establishment of an Indo–Persian literature. The Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh utilized Muslims as carriers of Rajput identity. In crossing these literary boundaries, these authors and texts reveal a single social, cultural, and historical attitude that existed in a literary and cultural symbiosis.

In a 1963 article, “Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India,” Aziz Ahmad argued that two different languages, cultures, and historical attitudes developed in mutual ignorance of each other: Muslims wrote “epics of conquest” while Hindus wrote “epics of resistance.” This dissertation examines four texts identified by Aziz Ahmad: Amir Khusrau’s Khaza’in al-Futuh and Deval Rani wa Khizr Khan (epics of conquest) as well as Nayacandra Suri’s Hammira Mahakavya and Padmanabha’s Kanhadade Prabandh (epics of resistance) written during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Aziz Ahmad’s model is based on reactions; the texts show interactions. All of the texts responded to conquest by search for authority in a reconstituted post– conquest world. Amir Khusrau reacted to the Mongols’ thirteenth–century conquest of Persia and its implications for the Muslim community. Instead of facing westwards toward Mecca and the ‘Abbasid caliphate, Muslims turned inward to the Sufi and the sultan. Yet the ultimate search for authority occurred between neither the Sufi nor the sultan, but within the Muslim community as it forged an Indo–Muslim identity distinct from its Persianate predecessor. ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s fourteenth–century conquest of Western Hindustan (Gujarat, Rajasthan) expedited a similar search for authority among Hindus. Delhi Sultanate conquest led to a search for authority that resulted in the formation of a Rajput social identity. This Rajput identity simultanesouly incorporated the ethos of the traditional ksatriya warrior and challenged the ksatriya’s birthright as warrior. Rather than a warrior class, the Rajputs became a warrior society actively promoted in the Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh. A close reading of these four texts not only refutes Ahmad’s assertion that Persian, Sanskrit, and vernacular texts developed in ignorance of each other, it demonstrates an active exchange between these three distinct literary traditions. Amir Khusrau introduced Indic literary imagery into the Duval Rani wa Khizr Khan, which in turn aided in the establishment of an Indo–Persian literature. The Hammira Mahakavya and Kanhadade Prabandh utilized Muslims as carriers of Rajput identity. In crossing these literary boundaries, these authors and texts reveal a single social, cultural, and historical attitude that existed in a literary and cultural symbiosis.