In highlighting the forms of women’s participation in the XXX movement’s crusade for social reform, it moves away from the women-as-objects-of-social-reform model of historical analysis. When it was the turn of Michelangelo’s David they had to compare the two representations and then assess/understand/explain the statue through the lens of a/the suddenly changed political scenario. I displace subjectivity, identity/identification, and sex/gender difference as the primary frameworks through which to conceptualize XXX.įor example, I asked them to relate/link Donatello’s David with the description of young men in the comedies. My primary areas of specialization are rhetorical theory, composition theory, discourse analysis, service-learning, and embodiment/affect studies. My work unpacks ongoing shifts in ecological/rural development approaches. If it is interchangable with another word, then it is not a word worth utilizing. If a word is worthy of mention, it should get its own dedicated spot in a sentence. While you might imagine it looks sophisticated, you really come across as indecisive, a sloppy editor, desperate, and in some cases a poststructuralist poseur. When you resort to tactics like this to wedge in additional words, it’s an undignified attempt to cover all bases out of fear of seeming inadequate. In a way, it’s just another manifestation of desperate cramming, and a very close cousin to list addiction and dyad addiction. I think, if you read the examples below (which are shared with permission of the authors), you’ll see the problem. This fall, a new phenomenon has emerged in job documents-the slash/dash addiction.