Archive for the ‘ Call for Paper ’ Category

CFP: Performing Science and Scientific Performance

Performing Science and Scientific Performance (2 Hour Session)

American Society for Theatre Research Conference 2013

November 7-10, Dallas, Texas

http://www.astr.org/conference

Conveners: Kati Sweaney, Northwestern University (sweaneyk@gmail.com) and Aileen Robinson, Northwestern University ( aileenrobinson2014@u.northwestern.edu)

Scientists have a long history of adopting performance practices as a means of manufacturing professional authority. The public dissection theatres of early modern Europe, the 18th-century parlor-room demonstrations of everything from air-pumps to phrenology, the spectacular electricity shows of Tesla and Edison, the performing hysterics in the Tuesday lectures of Freud’s teacher Charcot, and the contemporary phenomenon of the TED conference—all these are not simply entertainments with a scientific theme. Each event adjudicates between critical performance practices, scientific ideas, and cultural authorities, enacting embodied relationships between scientists and objects. Because the interdisciplinary field of science studies seeks a broad cultural understanding of how scientific knowledge is made, it has vigorously taken up performance as a new critical lens (as the 2010 special issue of the science history journal Isis demonstrates). However, we have observed that little of this valuable contemporary work on scientific performance has been written by scholars of performance, and that most of such scholarship tends to use performance as a metaphor, rather than as a methodology. In this working session, we will open up a space for performance scholars to critically assess and contribute to scholarship in this field. We invite papers that interrogate the relationship between the truth-making claims of science and performance, broadly understood. Possible topics for inquiry include:

  • Historical scientific demonstrations
  • Contemporary bioart
  • Medical performance art and body art
  • Plays that concern science and scientists
  • “Performance” as a scientific virtue, a la Jon McKenzie
  • Methodological inquiries into the forms of science as performance
  • Science performance within specific spaces—museums, archives, universities
  •  Pedagogical performance of science within schools and universities

Format:
We invite 500-word proposals that include an abstract for your ASTR paper submission as well as a brief description of your current work. Please include full contact information and organizational affiliation (if any) on both your proposal and your email and send your proposal to both conveners by June 3, 2013.

Participants will submit a 10-12 (2,500-3,000 words) page draft of their paper by October 1 to the conveners. A bibliography will be circulated in the summer for the benefit of the participants; two small readings will be highly encouraged to establish common discussion points. Between October 1 and the ASTR conference, participants will be divided into small groups in which they will read each other papers and a forum will be set up for discussing major and minor themes within the works. Major edits and commentary will be discussed during the conference itself.

This working session seeks to address questions of science and performance through methodological lenses; therefore, the working group will be arranged around a two-hour format discussion format, dedicated to addressing issues and questions that arose within individual submissions. The first hour will incorporate introductions followed by a breakout session. In this session, previously arranged groups will discuss the larger issues raised at this meeting in relationship to their specific work and papers. The goal of the breakout session will be twofold: 1) to workshop/further troubleshoot individual papers; 2) to address questions and ideas pertinent to the larger interests of the group in a smaller setting. The final stage of the group will be a large group discussion forum, where questions of methodology, practice, and research can be productively followed.

Kati Sweaney

Northwestern University
Ph.D. Candidate, Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Theatre & Drama

Assistant Master, Shepard Residential College

Graduate Teaching Fellow, Searle Center for Advancing Learning & Teaching

CFP: From Moral Treatment to Psychological Therapies (UCL)

CFP: From Moral Treatment to Psychological Therapies: Histories of Psychotherapeutics from the York Retreat to the Present Day.

Centre for the History of Psychological Disciplines, UCL
11-13th October 2013

Whilst the history of psychiatry has become a well developed field of scholarship, there remain few examinations of psychotherapeutic treatments beyond histories of psychoanalytic approaches. This conference will bring together recent historical research on therapeutic treatments for mental distress and disorder, from the 18th century up to the present. It seeks to explore how such therapies were developed, their institutional and intellectual contexts, and the debates and controversies which may surround their use. ‘Psychotherapeutics’ is defined in its broadest terms, and is intended to include approaches that have been accepted by the medical or state establishments, as well as those practiced outside official institutional settings. Such modes of therapy could include moral treatment, mesmerism, mental healing, ‘talking’ therapies with a wide variety of theoretical bases, from psychoanalysis to cognitive therapy, as well as professional interventions such as those from psychiatric nursing, mental health social work, occupational therapy, play therapy and art therapy.

Topics may include, but are not limited to:

• The philosophical basis of therapies, such as existential, gestalt or behavioural approaches etc.
• Connections between the generation of therapeutic methods and their orginators’ biographies.
• Institutional, economic and political influences on the development of therapeutic practice.
• Psychotherapeutics in the health services.
• The professionalization and regulation of psychotherapeutic practice.
• The relationship between psychotherapeutic methods and other fields of knowledge, e.g. pedagogy, criminology, the neurosciences etc.
• Debates and controversies about psychotherapeutic approaches.
• The development of specific approaches for different age groups.
• Psychotherapeutic concepts in popular culture and the media.

Abstracts of up to 500 words for 20 minute papers should be sent to Sarah Marks at sarah.marks@ucl.ac.uk. Proposals for themed panels with a maximum of four participants are also welcome. The deadline for individual papers and panel proposals is the 10th June 2013. Participants will be notified whether their papers have been accepted by 20th June 2013.

CfP – Colloquium “Sexual Futures: Versions of the Sexual Past, Visions of the Sexual Future” (University of Exeter, September 2013)

University of Exeter

5th & 6th September 2013

Call for Papers

The future offers a critical space to negotiate sexual possibilities. It can serve as a doomsday warning, provide utopian fantasies or aspirational goals for real reform. Such visions of the sexual future are often achieved through an imaginative reworking of motifs and elements from the past. This colloquium investigates how and why sexual knowledge, articulated in science, literature, art, politics, law and religion, turns to the past to envision the future.

When it comes to imagining the future, the past can be cast in manifold ways. It can appear as mythical, traditional, ancestral, atavistic, hereditary, primitive, classical, or historical. It can also serve a number of purposes. It can lend weight or authority; it can provide a rhetoric of objectivity, neutrality and empiricism to support visions of the future. It can galvanise calls for reform by appearing to offer visions of realistic possibility, alternative social worlds that have existed in the past and are therefore more than idle fantasy. The past can also be deployed in narratives about progress and decline, civilization and evolution, which lead towards a utopian or dystopian future. It can be marshalled as evidence to articulate universalising claims about humanity, provide evidence of variability across time, illustrate future possibilities or legitimise change. In addition, the past can offer a space of forgetting and loss and therefore a means of rejecting or engaging critically with the very concept of the future. It is the aim of the colloquium to examine how such uses of the past in the service of the future intersect with sexual knowledge and experience.

Forming part of the Sexual Knowledge, Sexual History project, this colloquium invites scholars from a range of disciplines to examine any aspect of the nexus between past, future and sex. Central questions might include, but are not limited to:

- Why and how have people throughout history turned to the past to imagine sexual futures?
– How does the past facilitate the imagination of future sexualities? Conversely, how does the past restrict what is considered to be a possible future?
– Which aspects or elements of the past are used in the construction of sexual futures?
– What authority does the past hold in the articulation of future visions of sexuality?
– How is the relation between past and future conceptualised differently over time and how does this change the way in which sexuality is understood and experienced?
– How do uses of the past in the service of the future compare across different areas of sexual knowledge, including science, literature, art, politics, law or religion?

Please contact Kate Fisher (k.fisher@exeter.ac.uk), Rebecca Langlands (r.langlands@exeter.ac.uk) or Jana Funke (j.funke@exeter.ac.uk) for further details or to discuss possible research papers.

Abstracts to be emailed to Jana Funke by 24th April 2013.

Image credit: Andrew Junge, “Pandora’s Box” (2005)

Appel à contributions : Raconter la maladie (Dix-Huitième Siècle)

The French journal of eighteenth-century history, Dix-Huitième Siècle, has just issued a call for contributions on the theme of ‘Raconter la Maladie’, narrating illness, with Sophie Vasset and Alexandre Wenger as guest editors:

Appel à contributions pour *Dix-Huitième Siècle* 47 (été 2015)

“Raconter la maladie”

*Sujet proposé* – Tenaillée entre une aspiration systémique et l’attention portée au singulier, la pathographie du XVIIIe s. a pris la forme aussi bien de grandes entreprises nosologiques que de récits singuliers. Pour ce numéro de *DHS*, nous souhaitons nous intéresser aux différentes formes de *mise en récit *de la maladie au XVIIIe s., qu’elles se situent dans le cadre de discours savants, de narrations privées ou de fictions. *Raconter la maladie * se veut interdisciplinaire et ouvert aux études françaises et européennes.

Voici une liste (non exhaustive) de sujets possibles :

a) Les pratiques, les formes et les genres de la pathographie au XVIIIe siècle, telles que *les observations, les anecdotes, et en particulier le cas* : écriture et utilisation médicales du cas, circulations des cas médicaux, recueils d’observations cliniques au lit du malade (par exemple à la Charité à Paris), “cas-type” hérités de la tradition médico-littéraire (tels l’homme qui croit être en verre), réécritures romanesques, épistolaires, journalistiques, scientifiques, juridiques et religieuses de cas médicaux.

b) *La mise et série d’observations médicales et le développement d’outils statistiques comme spécificité du XVIIIe siècle* : introduction du tableau dans le texte narratif, développement de la mathématique médicale (influence de l’école d’Edimbourg), comptes rendus des médecins militaires (méthodes quantitatives : exemple du scorbut dans la marine militaire), etc.

c) L’attention portée par le XVIIIe s. au récit de pathologies spécifiques : certaines sont “traditionnelles”, comme *la folie, les maladies féminines, la syphilis et/ou la gonorrhée et la pierre*, etc. ; d’autres font débat en fonction de l’actualité sanitaire ou politique (*variole* et inoculation, *goutte* et luxe,*convulsionnaires *et jansénisme, etc.) ; d’autres encore sont plus spécifiquement des créations du XVIIIe siècle, comme *la mollesse, les pathologies des gens de lettres, l’onanisme, la dégénérescence de la race* ou d’autre “maux de la civilisation”.

d) La *circulation des récits de maladies entre des genres différents* : par exemple réflexion sur la mélancolie religieuse aussi bien dans des ouvrages théoriques que dans la fiction, ou discours sur la contagion entre traités médicaux et fiction.

e) Grands et petits récits de la maladie : d’une part, expression de *maux collectifs*, dont les épidémies, les maladies des colonies, etc. D’autre part, expression de *maux personnels* à travers des ego-documents (par exemple correspondance de Mme du Deffand; fonds de correspondance de médecins tels que Samuel-Auguste Tissot, Hans Sloane, Etienne-François Geoffroy), expression de la douleur et voix du patient, etc.

f) *Stéréotypes nationaux et/ou régionaux* : spleen des anglais, “mal napolitain” ou “mal français”, tarentelle, colique du Poitou, nostalgie des Suisses, etc. entre traités médicaux et œuvres littéraires.

g) Récit et *iconographie* de la maladie : rapport texte/image (illustrations, planches), caricatures (Rowlandson), séries de vignettes narrant l’évolution d’une maladie (p. ex. *A Harlot’s Progress* de Hogarth), etc.Appeo à

h) Les *maladies comme métaphores* : *Leseseuche* en Allemagne, contagion de l’exemple, “onanisme moral” (Hufeland), etc. La maladie devient-elle une figure à part entière?

i) Pathographies des “grands” : bulletins et comptes-rendus de santé des *têtes couronnées* (le roi Georges III d’Angleterre) puis de *personnages célèbres* (Voltaire, Erasmus Darwin, Rousseau).

j) *Usages inattendus des récits de maladie* : politiques, comiques (p. ex. manuels sur l’art des vapeurs), volonté du corps médical d’annexer de nouveaux territoires (maladies des gens de lettres, sexualité), etc.

Échéances : propositions (250 mots) à rendre pour le 1er mai 2013 conjointement à Sophie Vasset ( sophie.vasset@univ-paris-diderot.fr<sophie.vasset@univ-paris-diderot.fr>) et à Alexandre Wenger (alexandre.wenger@unige.ch ). Les articles retenus seront à rendre pour le 1er avril 2014.

CfP: “Crimes of Passion: Representing Sexual Pathology in the Early 20th Century”

Crimes of Passion: Representing Sexual Pathology in the Early 20th Century

Münster, Germany
24-26 July 2013

The discourse on sexual pathology claimed a central position in modern European culture almost as quickly as it began to establish itself as a scientific discipline. The bonds between science and culture seem all the more visible when it comes to the science of sexual deviance, as many sexual scientists were quick to point out in their works. Without empirical or statistical material at hand, the scientists turned to other sources of knowledge in order to legitimize and systematize sexual pathology. Their earliest case studies came from literature. Indeed, certain authors found themselves under examination, as sexual themes in their books were treated as evidence of pathological fantasies. These literary perversions became the basis for sexual pathologists’ scientific interpretations and psychological analyses. As part of the formation and development of the discipline, the connection between sex and crime also played a central role in the scandals, injustices, and power struggles associated with sexual pathology in the early 20th century.

The popular reception of works by Richard Krafft-Ebing, Magnus Hirschfeld, or Erich Wulffen, in addition to their contested scientific reception, attest to a wide interest in social deviation with sexual deviants being just one particularly scandalous branch of alterity. Indeed, deviation is the Other to that which is socially accepted, legitimate, an institutionalized. Social deviance by definition breaks course from what is construed as “normal.” The deviant breaks with the social order and, depending on the particular historical and political configuration, might be dealt with as a criminal. The debate surrounding Paragraph 175 of the German penal code that made sexual relations between people of the same sex illegal highlights the virulent history of how sexual deviance and crime were yoked together. Paragraph 175—enacted in the 19th century, but which was not completely repealed until 1994—brought certain sexual relations with their own specific social and cultural sanctions into the juridical realm of penal codes and state regulation. A significant part of this new institutionalization of sexual deviance (both academically and in terms of the law) involved thematizing gender roles, especially questions of “the female.” The pathologization of femininity was famously and scandalously presented by Otto Weininger in his Geschlecht und Charakter, a work that marks another controversial episode in the history of sexual pathology and modernism.

The conference Crimes of Passion focuses on the triad of sexuality, criminology an literature during the early decades of the 20th century. We invite contributions that deal with representations and theories of sexual deviance broadly conceived. Especially welcome are papers that look at the interchange between literature, philosophy, criminology, and sexology. We also encourage contributions that address questions of sexual pathology at the beginning of the 20th century from a variety of fields and disciplines including but not limited to anthropology, sociology, history, art history, gender studies, or musicology.

Paper topics might present historical discussions of:
–representing criminalized femininity/masculinity
–reception of sexual theories in literature and popular culture
–representing and theorizing perversion
–intersections of criminal, sexual and political/social discourses
–the politics of sexual crimes
–anthropological aspects of sexual pathology
–cultural criticism and sexual pathology

We plan on publishing a selection of essays based on the papers presented at the conference.

Please submit abstracts (250 words max.) and a short bio (50 words max.) by 15 February 2013 to japhet.johnstone@uni-muenster.de and oliver.boeni@uni-muenster.de. We will inform you of our decision by 1 March 2013.

CfP: Which Way Forward for Psychoanalysis? (Chicago, May 2013)

Call For Papers

Which Way Forward for Psychoanalysis?

First Annual Conference of the Society for Psychoanalytic Inquiry (SPI)

The Society for Psychoanalytic Inquiry (SPI) is hosting its first annual conference at the University of Chicago, on May 17-19, 2013. The event is cosponsored by: Psychoannals & the University of Chicago Department of English and Department of Romance Languages

~

Psychoanalysis was once a radically new scientific and cultural movement. Although today the public largely understands it as an antiquated therapeutic technique, Sigmund Freud believed that his “depth psychology” had the potential to help free both the individual and society from inhibitions and illusions. This once-revolutionary tradition is now fragmented and stagnant: torn apart by internal struggles, psychoanalysis preserves itself through insularity; meanwhile, our society’s unabated hostility to depth psychology’s most fundamental claims gradually presses it into conformity. Consequently, psychoanalytic therapy has become increasingly divorced from the broader project of depth psychology as a united scientific and cultural movement. But when a critical perspective on society was abandoned, did this limit our ability to understand the inner life of the individual? Or has it allowed psychoanalysis to progress within academic departments and the medical and psychological professions? Which way forward for psychoanalysis?

~

This year’s keynote is Leo Bersani, who is an American literary theorist and Professor Emeritus of French at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent books include Intimacies (with Adam Phillips) and Is the Rectum a Grave? and Other Essays.

~

SPI invites scholars, clinicians, and independent researchers to participate in a conference, organized around the following topics:

What Kind of Science is Psychoanalysis (hard, soft, or pseudo)?

Is psychoanalysis a form of modern science, or is it better thought of as a critique of modern science?

On what grounds do psychoanalysts practice their therapy: e.g. “soft science,” as an art of the healing profession, or as a more legitimized version of its predecessor, mesmerism?

Of what use or validity is theory when it develops independently from practical therapeutic concerns?

What is at stake in the debate over whether or not psychoanalysis is a science?

Sexuality and the Body Politic

What accounts for the persistence of modern sexual taboos, even after the sexual enlightenment and liberation movements over the 20th century?

What is at stake in whether sexual orientation is a biological predisposition, or a social construction? Does Freud’s theory of instincts have any relevance to this question? ~
Is classical psychoanalysis at odds with feminism and queer theory?

How can reinvigorated psychoanalytic inquiry help understand, let alone face, the realities of sexual oppression today?

Sisyphean Tasks: Psychoanalysis and the Reform of Social Institutions

What are the reasons behind the mental health profession’s increasing emphasis on practical steps and chemical intervention over the sometimes-slow task of self-examination? What respective roles do scientific advances in the understanding of brain chemistry, a shockingly inadequate health care infrastructure, and conformist tendencies play in this trend? Is psychoanalysis a real alternative when the high expense and significant time commitment of psychoanalysis prevents many, often those who might benefit most, from seeking treatment?

What is the current state of education in the United States? How does the structure of schooling affect the personality structures of our moment? Can psychoanalytic perspectives help inform — or even lead — a badly needed movement for educational reform?

What are the persistent sources and manifestations of social prejudice? How do we understand these in a society where great cultural advances over manifest cruelties have been made and ought not be discounted?

Where is the American family going and how will it affect personal and political development and freedom?

Why are some drugs illegal? And others a new obsession?

The Future of Psychoanalysis

What can psychoanalysis hope to accomplish in 10, 25, 50 years? On what basis, and with what prospects, could there be a unified psychoanalytic movement?

How have the possibilities for psychoanalysis changed from Freud’s time to our own, and who (or what) is responsible for this change?

What role could new psychoanalytic institutions play in achieving greater clarity on the aims and methods of the rising generations of analysts?

Psychoanalysis, Ethics and Politics

What can psychoanalytic theory tell us about the potential for and limits to radical social transformation?

Why hasn’t the political enfranchisement of the working class led to socialism? Is psychoanalysis relevant to answering this question, or merely a distraction?

Does psychoanalysis prescribe a right way to live, and if so, what serves as its ground?

How can therapy serve an emancipatory function when it aims to help patients adapt to a reality that, by its very nature, may undermine the development of the autonomous individual envisioned by depth psychology?

~

Please send 250-word abstracts and 75-word bio to SPI at contact@freudians.org by January 31, 2013 to be considered for participation. Visit us at freudians.org to learn more.

CfP: Deinstitutionalisation and After: Post-War Psychiatry in Global Perspective

Glasgow, UK, 9-10 May 2013 | Submissions deadline: 31 January 2013

Despite the popularity of the history of psychiatry, and twentieth-century psychiatry in particular, little attention has been paid to the history of deinstitutionalisation. Much of the research remains focused on psychiatric hospitals, although the proliferation of institutional forms of mental health care was among the key transformations in 20th-century psychiatry. This conference seeks to redress this imbalance in the historiography of psychiatry by addressing the broader historical context of deinstitutionalisation and how psychiatry and understandings of mental illness changed as a result.

The conference welcomes paper proposals from a broad range of disciplines, such as history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. It aims to gather scholars who are working on different national contexts or who adopt a transnational or comparative perspective.

Issues that could be addressed might include, but are not limited to:

  • Types and characteristics of the mental health care institutions conceived and implemented after the Second World War as alternatives to the psychiatric hospital (e.g. day care centres and out-patient services).
  • Theoretical models and therapeutic practices of open mental health care services: the strands of biopsychiatry, psychoanalysis and social psychiatry.
  • Agents of reform: psychiatrists and other mental health care professionals; scientists, such as sociologists and anthropologists; the state; international organisations; contest movements, voluntary and patient groups.
  • Boundaries and interplay between different professionals in community mental health care, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and nurses.
  • Influences, parallels and variances among different paradigms of extra-mural mental health services; international exchanges and the interaction between local and global practices and thinking; the development of international organisations and standards; the impact of politics, ideology and international relations.
  • The patient experience of desintitutionalisation and of its aftermath and impacts.

Graduate and Postgraduate students are strongly encouraged to submit papers on research in-progress or recently completed studies.

The conference is organised by Despo Kritsotaki, Matthew Smith, Jim Mills and Erin Lux, and is hosted by the University of Strathclyde and the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare (http://www.gcu.ac.uk/cshhh/).

Place: Glasgow, UK

Dates: 9-10 May 2013

Working language of the conference: English

Please submit a paper abstract (300 words) and a short CV to: despo.kritsotaki@gmail.com

Submissions deadline: 31 January 2013

Notification of Acceptance: February 2013

Please address all inquiries to: despo.kritsotaki@gmail.com

Financial support may be available, depending on need and the success of funding bids for the conference.

%d bloggers like this: