A matter of fundamentals : sound and silence in the radio drama of Samuel Beckett

Samuel Beckett was arguably one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. Known for his stage plays, including the renowned En attendant Godot (1948), Beckett’s contribution to the field of radio drama is often overlooked. His corpus of radio dramas included some of the most innovativeradio works of the post-World War II period. For Beckett, radio drama was not exclusively verbocentric, for he always maintained that his work was “a matter of fundamental sounds (no joke intended) made as fully as possible” (Frost 362). His (radio) drama aesthetics defined a strict hierarchy of sound whereby the dramatist balances sound effects, music and the characters’ dialogue – and the use of silence. In this essay, I examine the juxtaposition of sound and silence in Samuel Beckett’s most influential radio dramas: All That Fall, Embers, Words and Music and Cascando. In the end, this essay will show that the sounds and silence employed in Beckett’s radio dramatic works were inextricably linked, which added to the overall meaning of his dramas.

Panchayati Raj em Goa

Goa commemorated in 2011 the golden jubilee of the end of colonialism (19 December 1961) and the beginning of its participation in the democratic institutions of India. The administrative decentralization known as Panchayati Raj is an ancient tradition in India, but it suffered dilution and breaks during centuries of Muslim and British domination. During the early years of Independence, the Union government was more worried about security concerns, and hence the policies of centralization. However, the second five-year plan and during the decades of 50 and 60 one could notice greater openness towards decentralization. This was done through Constitution Amendment Act nº 73 (1992) and the inclusion of article 243 in Part IX of the Constitution. The present essay seeks to clarify how the Panchayati Raj is the key to the success of the Indian democracy in the context of its demographic magnitude and ethnic, religious and linguistic diversities. Obviously, the challenges persist, but a country like India would be ungovernable without a democratic functionality at its bottom. It would be interesting to reflect and discover if Portugal has anything to benefit from the democratic experience of India and one of the fast growing emergent economies of the world.

Rethinking Polycentric Structures in the Postcolonial Church: Dangers of “Drone Missiology” or Afghanization of Christianity

In this brief essay I shall obviously draw from my reflections which I shared over the past three decades and to which I have provided some bibliographical references. It is clear from them that I had several opportunities to share my views beyond the Anglo-Saxon world, and some of them in events organized by K. Koschorke himself in the German academic circles as Munich-Freising Conferences. It is important that we do not get misled by words. We also need clarity of the concepts involved. Koschorke’s emphasis on “ploycentric structures” requires to be discussed and analysed critically to sort out its geographic components and its political-cultural implications, in order to be clear where lie the priorities. Without such exercise we will run the risk of hiding behind the ambiguity of words and concepts. My gut feelings make me believe that “polycentric structures” is just what the West needs in the postcolonial era to replace the control it has lost with decolonization.

Museology as a pedagogy for heritage

This essay presents some parameters for the study of Museology and its respective contribution for the constitution of preservationist processes, biased towards heritage education. From the decoding of some parameters that delimit this applied discipline’s action and reflection field, the text presents some paradigms, which have stimulated its epistemological construction and have guided its social functions. These paradigms are considered responsible for a new methodological order within the scope of the museum and, further, for the new commitments that these institutions have taken up.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)