How to make a Table of Contents to cover only part of the file in MS Word 2010

A Table of Contents can be tweaked so that it picks up the content from only part of a file (such as an Appendix). This video shows you how to make such a change to a Table of Contents that is based upon Heading Styles. For best viewing Download the video.

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)

In the intersection of the angles of a table, there is more truth than in all the tangle of muscles: Futurism as anti-humanist critique

The recent celebrations of the centenary of the publication of the Futurist manifesto led to a renewed discussion of the ideas and artworks of the Italian artists’ group. Jacques Rancière related the Futurist ethos with the modernist project of liberating art from representation. Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi, in his post-Futurist manifesto, also identified a historical irony at play in the emptying out of Futurism’s promise: a liberated mechanical humanity did indeed materialize, in a global economic system premised on financial servitude to the future via debt. However, these models continue to assess Futurism against an unchallenged humanism, finding it either supporting ideals of freedom and human rights despite itself, or else lacking in these areas. But Futurism is potentially more relevant than ever not in spite of its anti-humanist agenda, precisely because of it. Tom McCarthy annexes not Futurist art but Futurist writing to an emerging object oriented ontology that seeks to challenge the primacy of the human. If Futurism is to be repurposed as a critical concept, it can only do so by countering the humanist myth the liberal subject that underlies the current cultural and political hegemony of neo-liberalism.

Last charge of the knights? Iraq, Afghanistan and the special relationship

At the heart of the ‘special relationship’ ideology, there is supposed to be a grand bargain. In exchange for paying the ‘blood price’ as America's ally, Britain will be rewarded with exceptional influence over American foreign policy and its strategic behaviour. Soldiers and statesman continue to articulate this idea. Since 9/11, the notion of Britain playing ‘Greece’ to America's ‘Rome’ gained new life thanks to Anglophiles on both sides of the Atlantic. One potent version of this ideology was that the more seasoned British would teach Americans how to fight ‘small wars’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby bolstering their role as tutor to the superpower. Britain does derive benefits from the Anglo-American alliance and has made momentous contributions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet British solidarity and sacrifices have not purchased special influence in Washington. This is partly due to Atlanticist ideology, which sets Britain unrealistic standards by which it is judged, and partly because the notion of ‘special influence’ is misleading as it loses sight of the complexities of American policy-making. The overall result of expeditionary wars has been to strain British credibility in American eyes and to display its lack of consistent influence both over high policy and the design and execution of US military campaigns. While there may be good arguments in favour of the UK continuing its efforts in Afghanistan, the notion that the war fortifies Britain's vicarious world status is a dangerous illusion that leads to repeated overstretch and disappointment. Now that Britain is in the foothills of a strategic defence review, it is important that the British abandon this false consciousness.