In 1936, the writer Anaïs Nin wrote House of Incest, a book of prose on the themes of transgression and the taboo of incest, loosely based on a relationship with her father. In writing about these themes, did Nin want to emancipate herself from her father, with whom she allegedly had a sexual affair? Or was it an orchestrated strategy: a deliberate act of destruction and transgression to break down the male-centric world of sexuality, thus taking control of female sexuality? (...) What were Nin's philosophical, artistic, and intellectual underpinnings in writing this book? When Nin wrote House of Incest, she was in the throes of a sexual and artistic awakening that both emerged simultaneously. As a result, both awakenings overlapped and nourished the other's development. As a writer, Nin's influences at the time were Henry and June Miller, Proust, and many others, but the most significant influence was Otto Rank. Rank encouraged her as an artist and supported the expression of transgressive fantasies of her father in her art. This thesis argues that however one interprets the relationship with her father, it does not take away the fact that he had a profound and fertile effect on her writing. Nin's relationship with her father was the catalyst – the ultimate transgression – that enabled her as an artist and sexual woman to break away from the limitations of sexuality and discover a subjective, psychic experience of female sexuality, eroticized through her art in the prose of House of Incest. -/- Keywords: Incest, taboo, transgression, female sexuality. (shrink)

The growing visibility of various forms of creationism in Northern Ireland raises issues for science education. Attempts have been made at political levels to have such “alternatives” to evolution taught in the science classroom, and the issue has received coverage in local press and media. A sample of 112 pre-service science teachers answered a survey on attitudes toward evolution. Preliminary analysis revealed many of these new teachers held views contrary to scientific consensus—over one fifth doubt the evidence for human evolution, (...) and over one quarter dispute the common ancestry of life. Over two thirds indicated a preference for teaching a “range of theories” regarding these issues in science. In addition, 49 pre-service biology teachers viewed a DVD resource promoting “intelligent design” and completed an evaluation of it. The biology teachers also took part in either focus groups or additional questionnaires. A majority took the resource at face value and made positive comments regarding its utility. Many articulated views contrary to the stated positions of science academies, professional associations, and the UK government teaching directives regarding creationism. Most indicated a perception that intelligent design is legitimate science and that there is a scientific “controversy” regarding the legitimacy of evolution. Concern is raised over the ability of these new teachers to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific theories. The suggestion is made that the issue should be addressed directly with pre-service science teachers to make clear the status of such “alternatives.” The paper raises implications for science education and questions for further research. (shrink)

Gervais & Fessler’s defense of a sentiment construct for contempt captures features distinguishing the phenomenon from basic emotions and highlights the fact that it comprises a coordinated syndrome of responses. However, their conceptualization of contempt as the absence of respect equivocates. Subsequently, a “dignity” culture that prescribes respect does not thereby limit legitimate contempt in the manner the authors claim.