No abstract

Abstract:In seeking a path to mediating feminist and anti-feminist narratives, one must begin with a framework of the method of narrative analysis being used. Using the works of such thinkers as Paul Ricoeur and Richard Kearney, I argue that human self-understanding and therefore sense of identity is narrative dependent. While this idea has its critics, in the framework of the central question of this essay narrative theory is a particularly productive tool. The story that I tell that gives me identity is not only a story about the surface. It is embedded in my being. I do not simply have a story, I am a story and create my world through that story. Narrative is a part of the ontological structure of being human and the ontic experience of being in the world. One narrates one's life not in the sense of a movie voiceover, but rather as a reflective and reflexive understanding of oneself. Kearney's work in Anatheism is particularly useful for this discussion. While Kearney's interest is in the dialectical move from theism to atheism to a synthesis that is an atheist-informed theism, one can see the same trajectory at work in feminism and anti-feminism. If one begins with patriarchy and moves to feminism, the next step becomes anti-feminism informed by feminism. However, there is still room for an additional dialectical move, to regain a feminism that invites in its detractors and reshapes the collective narratives that impact how we interact with each other in community.Keywords: transcontextual narrative; performative narrative; reconciliation "It would have been easier if he had just actually spit in my face and asked me to get him coffee." This was the beginning of a conversation with a colleague recently after a misogynistic microaggression. The point being made was that while anyone who was paying attention would be able to see the sexism at work in an exchange with a male colleague, she also knew that the burden of proof fell to her. There were a thousand ways one could rationalize away the experience as not having been one of sexism in the work place. To explain to this perpetrator, who has a history of subtle sexism in the work place, that what he did was sexist, marginalizing, and demeaning of her value, was not going to be easy. He had been called out for this kind of behavior at least twice before but nothing had changed. He was a self-proclaimed feminist. Therefore, he could not be sexist, went the narrative. Had he been more overt, more aggressive in his sexism, the task of calling it out would have been much easier in that she could prove it. Although it would not have been any easier to change the behavior or the narrative behind it. However, that is not what happened. The two colleagues live in different and often conflicting narrative structures, and the challenge that faced her was how to bridge the gap between these two very disparate narratives in a way that did not destroy the possibility of a good working relationship with someone who in many other ways she respected. It is the myriad of expe...

The purpose of this essay is to explore the changing religious landscape of the United States in relation to social and political changes and how scholars of religion ought to respond to those changes. These changes are being evaluated through recent developments in theological narratives of the last 15 years in light of the data provided by the Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey from 2007 and 2014. Special attention is paid to the impact of the 2016 election on social and political narratives and their impact on religious life and religious narratives. The essay argues that scholars of religion have an important voice in this changing landscape to provide tools for building community in diversity and challenging narratives of exclusion that seek to dominate the religious landscape of the United States.

Scientific communication and the ability to think about the ethical impact if one's work are necessary skills for all scientists to obtain. These are especially important skills for scientists working in cutting edge fields that have the potential for major societal implications, including scientists working with genetic modifications of humans and animals. Unfortunately, the traditional undergraduate curriculum generally does not provide many opportunities for students to practice communicating their science to the general public, nor does it offer much ethical training beyond standard responsible conduct of research requirements. Herein, we describe a novel collaborative learning experience that allows students who are studying modern genetic modification techniques (including traditional methods of gene modification, as well as newer advances such as RNAi and CRISPR/cas9) to work with students who are studying ethical reasoning. As part of this collaboration, the science students are required to hone their understanding of a technique used in genetic modification and to explain this technique to a largely non‐scientific audience (the ethics students). The ethics students, in turn, teach the science students about some of the ethical concerns that can arise around these techniques. By participating in this experience, students gain a better understanding of how to best communicate complex, technical information with non‐scientists and a fuller idea of how ethical decision making can impact their lives as laboratory scientists and as citizens of the world. Both the faculty and the students involved in this collaboration found this to be a worthwhile and enjoyable experience. The faculty were particularly impressed by the high levels of student work and thought put into this project. This poster will address the assignments that were given, the grading standards for these assignments, general student opinions on this project, and ideas for where and when to fit such collaborative projects into the undergraduate curriculum.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

No abstract