title: From fan appropriation to industry re-appropriation: the sexual identity of comic superheroes

authors: Schott, Gareth R.

subjects: superhero genre

abstract: In his controversial text Seduction of the Innocent, Fredric Wertham's (1954) description of Batman and Robin as a 'wish dream of two homosexuals living together' (Lendrum 2004, p. 70) represents one of the first published queer readings of superhero characters. This text signalled the commencement of, and subsequent intense interest in, the way superhero characters often portray a 'camp' sensibility (Medhurst 1991) representative of a queer performative identity (Butler 1993). This is most evident in online fan-communities where the sexual identity of popular superheroes are continuously explored and debated in discussion forums and expressed through the production of slash fiction and queer-themed fan art. The ambiguity inherent in superhero comics has traditionally allowed and encouraged fans to operate as 'textual poachers' (Jenkins 1992) appropriating these texts for their own means. Today, however, there exist a new generation of comic book superheroes, in the form of established industry-penned 'out' gay characters. This paper examines the impact and meaning of the shift from the 'implied' to 'actual' in terms of fans' acceptance, resistance and desire to further appropriate comic texts.

text: From fan appropriation to industry re-appropriation: the sexual identity of comic superheroes In his controversial text Seduction of the Innocent, Fredric Wertham's (1954) description of Batman and Robin as a 'wish dream of two homosexuals living together' (Lendrum 2004, p. 70) represents one of the first published queer readings of superhero characters. This text signalled the commencement of, and subsequent intense interest in, the way superhero characters often portray a 'camp' sensibility (Medhurst 1991) representative of a queer performative identity (Butler 1993). This is most evident in online fan-communities where the sexual identity of popular superheroes are continuously explored and debated in discussion forums and expressed through the production of slash fiction and queer-themed fan art. The ambiguity inherent in superhero comics has traditionally allowed and encouraged fans to operate as 'textual poachers' (Jenkins 1992) appropriating these texts for their own means. Today, however, there exist a new generation of comic book superheroes, in the form of established industry-penned 'out' gay characters. This paper examines the impact and meaning of the shift from the 'implied' to 'actual' in terms of fans' acceptance, resistance and desire to further appropriate comic texts.

year: 2010

title: Contemporary form and dynamic of the international division of labour

authors: O'Neil, Paul James

subjects: international division of labour

abstract: With increasing global capitalist structures there is a need to advance understanding of the structure and dynamic of the contemporary international division of labour. This can be approached through a critical enquiry: first to define and identify key aspects of the nature and dynamic of the international division of labour out of existing discourses and second to develop and modify the conceptualisation by the Regulation Approach theorist, Lipietz of a 'third' international division of labour in the light of contemporary developments since the early 1990s. 
Lipietz' third international division of labour supposes a co-existence of diverse national models of development in an international trading space where diversity arises from the different pathways states take to re-regulate the crisis form of the Fordist capital-labour relation. In contrast, the critique of the third international division of labour developed here argues for converging counter-tendencies, particularly among advanced capitalist states towards a Toyotist technological paradigm - a term used to encompass both the form of the new international best practice production system and the corresponding segmented form of national labour markets. These counter-tendencies are driven by a neo-liberalised international mode of regulation constraining states towards neo-liberal competition states. The mode of neo-liberal labour market regulation in turn flexibilises labour markets. Neo-liberal labour market regulations permissive of labour market flexibility re-segment existing labour market segments established in the Fordist capital-labour relation. This re-segmentation broadens and deepens existing labour market segments and incorporates both involvement and flexibility in the labour relation and flexibility in the wage relation by treating different labour market segments in different ways. This ability to re-segment labour market segments enables multinationals to reproduce the technological paradigm of economies of scale and scope in international production systems. This capitallabour relation is termed the 'inconsistent hybrid' because it succeeds in reproducing production relations of worker involvement in the labour process with externalised wage relations within the same social formation. 
The central argument of the thesis is that at the national level, among developed nation states at least, there is a converging tendency towards national models of production in which the inconsistent hybrid capital-labour relation is dominant. More exactly, each national trajectory increasingly reflects different sides of the same tendency which could be termed Toyotism. Lipietz' third international division of labour is thus identified as less profound and closing towards functionally equivalent versions of the inconsistent hybrid.

text: Contemporary form and dynamic of the international division of labour With increasing global capitalist structures there is a need to advance understanding of the structure and dynamic of the contemporary international division of labour. This can be approached through a critical enquiry: first to define and identify key aspects of the nature and dynamic of the international division of labour out of existing discourses and second to develop and modify the conceptualisation by the Regulation Approach theorist, Lipietz of a 'third' international division of labour in the light of contemporary developments since the early 1990s. 
Lipietz' third international division of labour supposes a co-existence of diverse national models of development in an international trading space where diversity arises from the different pathways states take to re-regulate the crisis form of the Fordist capital-labour relation. In contrast, the critique of the third international division of labour developed here argues for converging counter-tendencies, particularly among advanced capitalist states towards a Toyotist technological paradigm - a term used to encompass both the form of the new international best practice production system and the corresponding segmented form of national labour markets. These counter-tendencies are driven by a neo-liberalised international mode of regulation constraining states towards neo-liberal competition states. The mode of neo-liberal labour market regulation in turn flexibilises labour markets. Neo-liberal labour market regulations permissive of labour market flexibility re-segment existing labour market segments established in the Fordist capital-labour relation. This re-segmentation broadens and deepens existing labour market segments and incorporates both involvement and flexibility in the labour relation and flexibility in the wage relation by treating different labour market segments in different ways. This ability to re-segment labour market segments enables multinationals to reproduce the technological paradigm of economies of scale and scope in international production systems. This capitallabour relation is termed the 'inconsistent hybrid' because it succeeds in reproducing production relations of worker involvement in the labour process with externalised wage relations within the same social formation. 
The central argument of the thesis is that at the national level, among developed nation states at least, there is a converging tendency towards national models of production in which the inconsistent hybrid capital-labour relation is dominant. More exactly, each national trajectory increasingly reflects different sides of the same tendency which could be termed Toyotism. Lipietz' third international division of labour is thus identified as less profound and closing towards functionally equivalent versions of the inconsistent hybrid.

year: 2006

title: New Zealand history is Maori history: Tikanga as the ethical foundation of historical scholarship In Aotearoa New Zealand

authors: Mahuika, Nepia

subjects: Arts & Humanities

abstract: IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO FIND that New Zealand history is Māori history. In 1987 when Tipene O’Regan stated that the ‘the past belongs to all New Zealanders, but first it is ours’, he was drawing attention to New Zealand history’s foundation in Māori history.1 Thinking about New Zealand history as Māori history does not mean denying the histories of European, Asian and Pasifika immigrants, but draws attention to the notion that ‘settler’ aspirations to claim ‘Aotearoa’ as home occur within a much broader narrative of indigenous occupation and struggle.2 Indeed, how can New Zealand history be the story of ‘here’ when it has ‘othered’ indigenous narratives that speak to the heart of what it is to belong in the land of the long white cloud? Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – and that presents a problem for tangata whenua self-determination. Likewise, for Pākehā, it is an issue because until New Zealand history recognizes and enables the centrality of Māori history it will always fail to articulate the collective ‘us’ that is so often assumed in the discourse of ‘full and final settlement’.3 In its current form it will never be able to ethically or adequately account for the shaping of a New Zealand identity that finds ‘composure’ in the story of how Pākehā became ‘native’ New Zealanders.4 For Māori, these issues are keenly felt, because while New Zealand history has always been about us, it has predominantly been articulated on the colonizers’ terms. In the ‘discursive constructions’ that are New Zealand histories, the indigenous have regularly been culturally appropriated, dislocated and misrepresented.5 Even when Māori have turned their back on the writing of New Zealand history it has been, and will still be, a history of being or becoming ‘native’. Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – so why does it feel like the story of Pākehā settlers?

text: New Zealand history is Maori history: Tikanga as the ethical foundation of historical scholarship In Aotearoa New Zealand IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO FIND that New Zealand history is Māori history. In 1987 when Tipene O’Regan stated that the ‘the past belongs to all New Zealanders, but first it is ours’, he was drawing attention to New Zealand history’s foundation in Māori history.1 Thinking about New Zealand history as Māori history does not mean denying the histories of European, Asian and Pasifika immigrants, but draws attention to the notion that ‘settler’ aspirations to claim ‘Aotearoa’ as home occur within a much broader narrative of indigenous occupation and struggle.2 Indeed, how can New Zealand history be the story of ‘here’ when it has ‘othered’ indigenous narratives that speak to the heart of what it is to belong in the land of the long white cloud? Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – and that presents a problem for tangata whenua self-determination. Likewise, for Pākehā, it is an issue because until New Zealand history recognizes and enables the centrality of Māori history it will always fail to articulate the collective ‘us’ that is so often assumed in the discourse of ‘full and final settlement’.3 In its current form it will never be able to ethically or adequately account for the shaping of a New Zealand identity that finds ‘composure’ in the story of how Pākehā became ‘native’ New Zealanders.4 For Māori, these issues are keenly felt, because while New Zealand history has always been about us, it has predominantly been articulated on the colonizers’ terms. In the ‘discursive constructions’ that are New Zealand histories, the indigenous have regularly been culturally appropriated, dislocated and misrepresented.5 Even when Māori have turned their back on the writing of New Zealand history it has been, and will still be, a history of being or becoming ‘native’. Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – so why does it feel like the story of Pākehā settlers?

year: 2015