ࡱ> 352%` ,bjbj"x"x .$@@,vvvvvvv ,        $hv   vv   v v  r{Tvv{ PR O .0,) {v{0 hj J <        , dvvvvvv  51 School of Communication Doctoral Comprehensive Examination Rob Hershorn (Fall, 2008) Instructions: Select 2 questions from each part of the examination below (4 questions in total). Part One: Explorations in Culture You conclude your area overview statement by asking: Are Bhabbas interstitial space and related academic concepts sufficient enough responses toward repositioning the fixed identifications applied to cultures that have been dominated? Write an essay that attempts to elaborate on, and respond to, this question. You make strong claims for the analytical possibilities of the contributions of Geertz and Turner because their work can be viewed as a discourse which enhances rather than marginalizes other cultures. Yet, both Geertz and Turner have been accused of representing an older form of modern anthropological inquiry that is heavily indebted to Durkheim and, in that sense, is far more concerned with questions of social integration than with any analysis of the play of power. Write an essay on the limits and possibilities of Geertz and Turners contributions, with specific reference to their abilities (in your words) to accurately capture another culture. How did structuralism challenge older, conventional, academic understandings of culture in modern social thought? In your view what were the strengths of this structuralist interventions? What were the weaknesses? In your view, in the analysis of culture, has post-structuralism offered a satisfactory response to the weaknesses of structuralism. You reference the ways that scholars from subjected cultures have sought to formulate ways to decolonize methodologies. You go on to cite Linda Tuhiwai Smiths statement about the need to recover ourselves to claim a space in which to develop a sense of authentic humanity. But how? Write an essay on some of the key barriers faced by an attempt to decolonize methodologies. What strategies have post-colonial theorists, or critical race theorists, used to attempt to do this? Part Two Theories of Dialogism In your definitional essay you identify two perspectives on dialogue. You describe the first perspective as inherent, or possibly essential, listing Buber, Bohm, Levinas, and Bakhtin as theoreticians of this view. The second you identify with Habermas, describing this perspective as more calculative, cognitive, and rational. You then go on to suggest that these two positions are not necessarily irreconcilable but might, in fact, be complementary. Please fill in this argument more fully; that is, just how are these two positions complementary in light of the distinctions between them that you have drawn? In suggesting that Bakhtins dialogism centers on a more nuanced and complex understanding of the encounter of self and other, you also intimate that his work transforms conventional binary logic (self/other; signifier/signified) into a form of dualistic asymmetry. Explain how this process works. What do Voloshinovs ideas of language contribute here, especially his claim that any true understanding is dialogic in nature? In your definitional essay you only mention David Bohm in passing, but it seem to me that his work, despite the way that it has been received and critiqued, is important in discussions about the role of dialogue in relation to current practices in mediation. Explain the main principles of Bohms approach paying particular attention to his argument that conviction and persuasion are not called for in dialogue. How is this possible? What sort of notion of dialogue does this push us toward? Doesnt it resonate with the Habermasian view from which you distinguish Bohms thought in your definitional essay? Since the time of Plato, dialogue has often been associated with the practical arts, whether it be as a technique for achieving self-knowledge, for epistemic enlightenment, the reconciliation of divergent points of view, and so on. In your definitional essay you write that dialogue also has a more philosophical quality which you associate with writers like Bakhtin and Levinas, a quality that stands some distance from the more utilitarian perspective sketched above. Your own research, it seems to me, evinces qualities of both of these positions as you work from theories of dialogism to the practicalities of conflict resolution. In other words, you are interested in dialogism, but you are equally interested in the task of dialogue. Taking these ideas in mind, write an essay that articulates the ways in which the philosophical aspects of dialogue are relevant to the practical world of conflict resolution and negotiation. In other words, how do you see the ideas of Buber, Levinas, and Bakhtin having an influence on the forms of conflict resolution that you regard as important in the context of your current work? 12q}R :>fUV,üáÊÊ h=h> F F U V __+..ff; 7n\ Op\6_^`OJPJQJ^J. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.P^P`OJPJQJ^J. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`5o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^J. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.ff; O_ 7V         V         LEb        E        wE^'|=