The state of history and the empire of metaphysics [Review]

One of the curious things about this challenging book is that its ostensible subject— the Saxon medical and political scientist Hermann Conring (1606–1681)— is not mentioned in the title. Constantin Fasolt argues that we cannot know what Conring really thought or meant in his writings, which means that his topic cannot be Conring as such and must instead be that which occludes our knowledge of him, the titular limits of history. Given that we do in fact learn a good deal about Conring from Fasolt’s book, we can only hope that the decapitation of its subject will be rectified in a subsequent edition, or perhaps by the restorative work of librarians putting together subject headings. And yet Fasolt’s decision is understandable, for Conring is indeed a stalking-horse for a much bigger quarry: historiography and the historical consciousness. By “history” Fasolt understands a way of imposing intelligibility on the world, which is founded on the twin assumptions that the past is gone and unchangeable, and that the meaning of texts can be determined by placing them in their historical contexts (ix). In challenging this mode of intelligibility, Fasolt is not attempting to improve professiona history—it’s already as good as it can be—but to displace it. He regards his work as a declaration of “independence from historical consciousness” (32). At the same time, Fasolt insists that he is not simply jumping from historiography to philosophy, or attempting to preempt history with ontology (37-39). That has been tried by Nietzsche and Heidegger, who have been tainted by Nazism (Fasolt thinks unfairly). It has also been attempted by modern philosophers from Gadamer to Foucault and Charles Taylor who, in failing to address the “violence” that its mode of intelligibility does to the world, have not succeeded in outflanking history. Perhaps, Fasolt wonders, it is only the personal experience of those who have been subject to this violence—the experience of those who have been subject to historical examination—that can break the spell of history. Fasolt’s disclaimer notwithstanding, in the course of these remarks I shall argue that he is indeed jumping from history to philosophy, or attempting to outflank history by subjecting it to a particular metaphysical understanding. I shall do so in part by sketching the recent intellectual history of this move—a historical examination that I hope inflicts as little violence as possible on Fasolt’s argument.

The nomenclature of style: Brutalism, Minimalism, art history and visual style in architecture journals

The naming of styles or movements is a basic mechanism of the architectural journals. The announcement of new tendencies, groups or philosophies, gives a journal its character as ‘news’, and if such terms are taken up in general discourse this demonstrates the prescience of the editor and enhances the repute of the journal. The announcement of phenomenon such as ‘critical regionalism’ or ‘deconstructivism’ referred architectural developments to a context in socio-politics or philosophy, and thus aimed to provide at least an initial resistance to their understanding as the formal styles which they quickly became. A different strategy, or occasion, which this paper will discuss, is where the name of an architectural moment is given in the traditional form of an art historical style. Here the nomenclature of style and a certain attitude to form is introduced as the starting point for a more open ended critical inquiry. Two examples of this strategy will be given. The first is Peter Reyner Banham and the Architecture Review’s promotion of ‘Brutalism’ as an anti-aesthetic which took its conceptual form from early twentieth century art movements, particularly Futurism. The second, identified with Architectural Design in the 1990’s is ‘Minimalism’, a term describing a strand of the visual arts of the 1960’s which can be understood as an attempt to nuance and add seriousness to the present rampant nostalgia for the style of the architecture of the 1960’s.

Diversity of polyketide synthase genes from bacteria associated with the marine sponge Pseudoceratina clavata: culture-dependent and culture-independent approaches

Diverse ketosynthase (KS) genes were retrieved from the microbial community associated with the Great Barrier Reef sponge Pseudoceratina clavata. Bacterial isolation and metagenomic approaches were employed. Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA of culturable sponge-associated bacterial communities comprised eight groups over four phyla. Ten KS domains were amplified from four genera of isolates and phylogenetics demonstrated that these KS domains were located in three clusters (actinobacterial, cyanobacterial and trans-AT type). Metagenomic DNA of the sponge microbial community was extracted to explore community KS genes by two approaches: direct amplification of KS domains and construction of fosmid libraries for KS domain screening. Five KS domains were retrieved from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification using sponge metagenome DNA as template and five fosmid clones containing KS domains found using multiplex PCR screening. Analysis of selected polyketide synthase (PKS) from one fosmid showed that the PKS consists of two modules. Open reading frames located up- and downstream of the PKS displayed similarity with membrane synthesis-related proteins such as cardiolipin synthase. Metagenome approaches did not detect KS domains found in sponge isolates. All KS domains from both metagenome approaches formed a single cluster with KS domains originating from metagenomes derived from other sponge species from other geographical regions.

Are country and culture values interchangeable? A case example using occupational stress and coping

Cross cultural research in occupational stress and coping has produced a wealth of knowledge. Although advances have been made, there are still problems to be solved. One of these problems is the confusion generated in the literature by researchers claiming that nation or country represents cultural values, and the use of the two terms interchangeably. It remains unclear whether this practice is correct. The present article reported on this by using 511 full-time employees from Australia, Singapore and Sri Lanka to study occupational stress and coping. Results revealed that cultural value paradigms (i.e. Individualism–Collectivism) were distributed across the three nations such that over 60% of participants were either high or low in both I–C paradigms. The findings also indicated that the relationship between cultural value paradigm and country impacted on stress and coping differently. The study shows that significant differences exist within countries as well as between countries, such that any attempt to equate ‘culture’ with ‘country’ becomes problematic. Therefore these findings established that country or nation is not the same as culture values and cannot be used interchangeably.