Search results

In this paper, queerly contoured stories of trauma fold in the ambiguous and contradictory knowledges of the body. I posit that trauma-informed identities are not fabricated fictions and that they can sediment subjects into being and behaving in certain ways.

Stories, legitimate and illegitimate, circulate in almost every sphere of everyday life, and drawing on a friendship as source material, I present a reconstructed life history narrative to show how queer life stories can productively reveal the unspoken and disciplining pedagogies of trauma in LGBTQ lifeworlds.

In speaking of and about embodying intersectional differences underlying social values and cultural attitudes of sexual differences, its presence becomes another lens to narrate trauma and understand how it is bound to heteronormative social equity, inequalities and injustices.

I posit that trauma-informed identities can sediment queer subjects into being and behaving in self-denying, self-injurious and at-risk behaviours.

In speaking of and about embodying intersectional differences underlying social values and cultural attitudes of sexual differences, its presence becomes a lens to engage trauma and understand how it is perceived as being bound to social equity, inequalities and injustices.

In the narrative presented in this paper, there is an implicit critical reflection on narrating the purposes, practices and actions of queer positionality vis-à-vis the represented “norm”.

Within minutes, our group, who had no prior introduction, began to learn the value of emerging from a relational space of (re)presenting and (re)storying our experiences. “I” became “We”, which became “Us”

Recently, the seventh bi-annual conference of the World Federation for Teacher Education 2023 focused on the theme of “Re-imagining Teacher Education: From Words to Action.” During the session on métissage as methodology, participants from four different countries, three ethnic backgrounds and gender and sexual differences were invited into dialogue to explore the nuances of our identities, academic positions and life experiences.

Doing métissage as novices, our subsequent discussion problematized the perpetuation of procedural narratives that contested the Cartesian cuts of methodological normalcy.

Sharing our stories of self in our group we referenced how institutional frameworks had shaped and were reconstructing contexts for our being and belonging in the academy. In our narrating vulnerability we were once again located in telling relations to do with identity, power and social being. Jones (2015, p. 8) has asked. “Other than dry academic reports, how can we retell these stories in sensitive and ethical ways to wider audiences? How do the stories themselves inspire creativity in retelling them? How can we involve participants in the retelling of their stories?”

The purpose of this paper is to examine how automation in the ever-changing technological landscape is increasing integrated into, and has become a significant presence in, our personal lives.

Through post qualitative inquiry, the authors provide a contemplation of automation and its effect on creativity, as a contemporary expression of dis/locations, the simulacrum, performative work and a toxic digital presence in socio-cultural-technical spaces.

The authors discuss how we behave, contribute, explore, interact and communicate within and across automated digital platforms, has salience for understanding and questioning the ways that dominant discourses in the contemporary construction and enactment of subjectivity, creativity and agency are being modulated by the machine.

This paper offers a nuanced consideration of creativity, by considering the way creativity is being performed and situated within the effects of automation and its role in dis/locations, performative work and its potential as a the simulacrum in socio-cultural-technical spaces.

It is eminently fitting that the Greeks who gave us their word for “speaking fair” should also have supplied us with the ultimate exemplification of its use. They were wont to refer to the Furies, a group of avenging goddesses, as the Eumenides or “The Fair Ones.” Since the Furies were imagined as having a batlike shape which was adorned with a profusion of snakish hair, they were not fair at all, but rather terrifying, intimidating in the highest degree. To euphemize a phenomenon is to call it something other than what it most particularly is, anything at all provided the new designation is gentler, milder, less offensive, less threatening. It is even possible, as in the case of the Furies renamed Fair Ones, to effect a 180‐degree reversal of meaning.

IN 1946 there was in the British Isles a clear image of librarianship in most librarians' minds. The image depended on a librarian's professional environment which was of the widest possible range, not less in variation than the organisations, institutes or types of community which required library services. Generalisations are like cocoanuts but they provide for the quickest precipitation of variant definitions, after the stones have been thrown at them. A generalisation might claim that, in 1946, public librarians had in mind an image of a librarian as organiser plus technical specialist or literary critic or book selector; that university and institute librarians projected themselves as scholars of any subject with a special environmental responsibility; that librarians in industry regarded themselves as something less than but as supplementing the capacity of a subject specialist (normally a scientist). Other minor separable categories existed with as many shades of meaning between the three generalised definitions, while librarians of national libraries were too few to be subject to easy generalisation.

THE Correspondence columns of The Times always make interesting reading, but never so much as in the last four weeks, for librarians anyway. We understand that there are people who do not read The Times (bottom people ?) and it is a regrettable fact that many libraries do not take The Times. For them and for recapitulation and comment we summarise the letters arising from the editorial comment on the Report of the Roberts Committee.

ONE MUST BEGIN with Dickens. A chapter by Christopher Hibbert in Charles Dickens, 1812–1870: centenary volume, edited by E. W. F. Tomlin, and The London of Charles Dickens, published by London Transport with aid from the Dickens Fellowship, make a similar study here superfluous; both are illustrated, the latter giving instructions for reaching surviving Dickensian buildings. Neither warns the reader of Dickens's conscious and unconscious imaginative distortion, considered in Humphrey House's The Dickens World. Dickens himself imagined Captain Cuttle hiding in Switzerland and Paul Dombey's wild waves saying ‘Paris’; ‘the association between the writing and the place of writing is so curiously strong in my mind.’ Author and character may be in two places at once. ‘I could not listen at my fireside, for five minutes to the outer noises, but it was borne into my ears that I was dead.’ (Our Mutual Friend)

CAMBRIDGE did not disappoint the expectations of the more than one thousand persons who attended the conference. The organization worked without a creak in its machinery, thanks to the work of Mr. W. A. Fenton, the Honorary Local Secretary, and his distinguished committee; the hospitality was liberal; the excursions well chosen and successful. As for the papers and addresses, which, after all, are the official reason for conferences, even if there was little that was epoch‐making, they were interesting, sometimes provocative, and almost invariably stimulating. Most of us returned to our libraries inspired and encouraged with the undoubted vitality of the library movement as manifested at Cambridge.