Resolution of a taxonomic conundrum: an ultrastructural and molecular description of the life cycle of Pleistophora mulleri (Pfeiffer 1895; Georgevitch 1929)

The classification of a microsporidian parasite observed in the abdominal muscles of amphipod hosts has been repeatedly revised but still remains inconclusive. This parasite has variable spore numbers within a sporophorous vesicle and has been assigned to the genera Glugea, Pleistophora, Stempellia, and Thelohania. We used electron microscopy and molecular evidence to resolve the previous taxonomic confusion and confirm its identification as Pleistophora mulleri. The life cycle of P. mulleri is described from the freshwater amphipod host Gammarus duebeni celticus. Infection appeared as white tubular masses within the abdominal muscle of the host. Light and transmission electron microscope examination revealed the presence of an active microsporidian infection that was diffuse within the muscle block with no evidence of xenoma formation. Paucinucleate merogonial plasmodia were surrounded by an amorphous coat immediately external to the plasmalemma. The amorphous coat developed into a merontogenetic sporophorous vesicle that was present throughout sporulation. Sporogony was polysporous resulting in uninucleate spores, with a bipartite polaroplast, an anisofilar polar filament and a large posterior vacuole. SSU rDNA analysis supported the ultrastructural evidence clearly placing this parasite within the genus Pleistophora. This paper indicates that Pleistophora species are not restricted to vertebrate hosts.

Communication, recognition and social work: Aligning the ethical theories of Habermas and Honneth

The modern world is replete with ethical challenges of Orwellian proportions. The violation of human rights and misrecognition of identities are two of the most pressing examples. In this paper, the ethical theories of Habermas and Honneth are aligned as a way of addressing these specific challenges within social work. It is suggested that these theories are complementary, mutually rectifying and concordant at the meta-ethical level of analysis. The alignment is also justified, pargmatically, through the construction of three hypothetical vignettes demonstrating different kinds of practice dilemmas. The need for egalitarian communication and the imperative to recognise human identity in all its dimensions subsequently emerge as the two foundation stones for ethical deliberation in social work.

Further reflections on Habermas's contribution to discourse in child protection: An examination of power in social life

Hayes and Houston's positive review of Habermas's contribution to discourse in family group conferences (in this journal) has been challenged by Garrett. In this paper, one of the authors replies to Garrett but extends the analysis through a more considered, developed and detailed examination of Habermas's thoughts on power in social life. This leads to a conceptual framework that enables the participants in the conference to exercise power in a positive manner. In developing this earlier analysis, the paper also acknowledges Garrett's argument that Bourdieu helps us to understand the nature of constraining social structures in child protection. However, Bourdieu's ideas are subsequently challenged on the grounds that they lack a competent formulation on human agency - a faculty that Habermas cogently elucidates. This enlarged understanding of agency, it is argued, offers a theoretical resource that fits better with the ethos of emancipatory social work.

Struggles against Injustice:: Contemporary Critical Theory and Political Violence

This article investigates a significant problem in contemporary critical theory, namely its failure to address effectively the possibility that a campaign of political violence may be a legitimate means of fighting grave injustice. Having offered a working definition of ‘political violence’, I argue that critical theory should be focused on experiences of injustice rather than on ideals of justice. I then explore the reasons as to why, save for some intriguing remarks on retrospective legitimation, Jürgen Habermas has not addressed this issue directly. While Axel Honneth's recognition theory may have greater potential here, the absence of explicit consideration of the matter by him leaves considerable work to do. I introduce five questions in the concluding section that provide a starting point in setting out an appropriately stringent, normative test for claims that support violent action against injustice.