The aim of the present study was to compare the activity of fathers and their children with autism with those of children with Down syndrome, and normally developing children during the father-child interaction. Participants were 14 children with autism and their fathers, 15 children with Down syndrome and their fathers, and 16 normally developing children and their fathers. The age of subjects was between 3.0 and 6.0 years old. The study consisted of one 15-minute free-play session in the father-child diad, taking place in the experiment room. Differences between the groups of fathers were found in terms of three variables under analysis: frequency of looking at the child, physical contact with the child and suggesting play. Children with autism brought objects to their fathers or pointed out objects and directed their fathers' attention by vocalising less frequently than children with Down syndrome and normally developing children. Moreover, children with autism exhibited the fewest vocalisations combined with looking at the father and exhibited many more behaviours involving running and moving about the room than normally developing children. Self-stimulating behaviours were the most frequent in children with autism, with no differences in that respect found between children with Down syndrome and normally developing children. The analysis of fathers' behaviour demonstrates that fathers of children with developmental disorders focus on observing their children and attempt to keep close contact with them to a larger extent than fathers of normally developing children. The pattern of differences in the activity of fathers of children with autism and children with Down syndrome does not paint a clear picture. In general, fathers from both groups actively sought to maintain contact with their children. Differences in the activity during play between children with autism and the other subjects in the study are consistent with the clinical features of autism.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
This article reconstructs the hidden dialogue between Johan Huizinga and Carl Schmitt that emerged throughout the 1930s. Huizinga phrased an early critique on Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction. It appears that throughout the 1930s the Dutch historian had a thorough Auseinandersetzung with Schmitt, running from his In the shadow of tomorrow up to his Homo Ludens. Schmitt, in his turn, responded to Huizinga’s criticism, albeit somewhat implicitly, first, in a small text from 1938 and later in his book on Hamlet. In mapping the emergence of this “dialogue” it appears that their disagreement concerns the relationship between play and war. In particular, they have conflicting ideas on the state of exception, or, to use the German word on which the entire dialogue hinges: Ernstfall. To properly assess the possible relationship between play and war it is first necessary to reconstruct this dialogue and to consider the role of the state of exception within it.
3
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The paper is the contribution to important jubilee, the 100th anniversary of the birth of Julius Barc-Ivan, by reflecting on the uniqueness of the creation of this author within the context of Slovak drama. If Barc's plays are staged in the future, even decades on, an impetus for putting his plays on the stage will be the poet's struggle for enlarging the action range of drama by combining reality with fantasy and dream as component part of an artistic image rather than informative, miniature painting and descriptive values. And it is the author's peculiar language, the construction of a laconic dialogue capitalising on literary image, and a completely free approach to the choice of a theme, along with imagery, absurdity, dream creation and virtually an ingenious sense of the artist's constant playing with all these elements which constitute the major parts of his image-creating tool. Barc drew on national and classical examples and on the masters of Slovak and world drama, of which he was not only a disciple and admirer, but, above all, he proved to be an ingenious partner to ingenious masters.
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Julius Barc-Ivan, the prominent Slovak dramatist of the 20th century, the author, theatre scientist, reflects on his life and artistic fate. He introduces his theatre plays to the reader, notably dramatic piece 'Dvaja' (The Couple), which is considered to be the best Slovak intimate theatre play and 'Matka' (Mother), the central figure being, which is exceptional for Barc, a powerful female protagonist suggestive of an ancient tragedy. The author of this paper traces the fate of Barc's drama and he notes that, ironically, the most frequently staged piece is the comedy 'Mastny hrniec' (A Pot of Grease), which considered to be a marginal work by its artistic contribution and untypical for Barc. He underlines that some plays by J. Barc-Ivan have not been staged so far, and the production of 'Diktator' (The Dictator) directed by Jan Jamnicky was halted by the Slovak National Theatre shortly before its premiere in 1937, and it has not been premiered ever since. In conclusion, the author makes mention of the recent staging of Barc's plays, such as 'Neznamy' (The Stranger) by Slovak Intimate Playhouse in Martin, '3000 ludi' (3,000 Men) by the Theatre Faculty of the Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts, and 'Cirkus' (The Circus) by Arena theatre company, which is a montage based on the play 'Dvaja' (The Couple) and a short story 'Cirkus' (The Circus).
One of the basic concerns of the philosophy and the humanities after the performative turn in the 20th century became thinking afresh about the status of the subject. How to conceive of subjectivity, if we abandon the essentialist idea of an autonomous, self-transparent, and rationalistic individual? The article investigates two different attitudes towards this situation: the stance of sacrifice and the ludic stance. In order to study the problem of the two stances coherently, the paper draws on the theatre practice of the 20th century and its understanding of the actor’s attitude to her role. It concludes that whereas the sacrificing attitude traps an individual in a vicious loop that does not allow for handling the new situation, the ludic subjectivity offers tools for developing effective strategies that not only allow for handling the human condition but even enable agents to profit from it and rejoice in it.
The essay reveals the relationship between Heidegger’s thinking and the nature of dancing with regard to his lecture Building Dwelling Thinking. In it Heidegger provides an inspiring illustration of the bridge: “The bridge swings over the stream with ease and power”; “even where the bridge covers the stream, it holds its flow up to the sky by taking it for a moment under the vaulted gateway and then setting it free once more.” Such an easy and powerful movement of the bridge reflects the dynamics of Heidegger’s own thinking, particularly the way in which his phenomenological method of destruction takes up the traditional philosophical concepts and attempts to set them free again.
Exploratory behavior and play are very often discussed together. However, despite many similarities they are two distinct forms of behavior. They have different evolutionary histories and they develop in different ways. Both forms of behavior play a crucial role in the development of sophisticated and complex psyche. The paper discusses similarities and differences between exploration and play. The hypothesis of the joint development of exploration, play and animal intelligence is proposed.
8
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Albína Podhradská (1858-1880), of Slovak origin, is the author of the first preserved theatrical play in the Serbian language by a woman – ‘Poor Mileva from Bosnia in Our Civilization in 1878’. The play with singing parts was published in 1880, soon after the author’s death; both the play and its author are completely unknown and forgotten nowadays. The subject of the play is a then current topic, the destiny of refugees from Bosnia, a mother and a daughter who come to Vojvodina because of the war, that is, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian uprising (1875-78). The plot is completely subordinated to the author’s thesis about the victimization of an innocent individual; she was also an advocate of the union of the Slavonic nations, especially because she believed that their position in Europe was marginalized. Probably because of the explicit Pan-Slav political views, which were unacceptable for the Austro-Hungarian authorities and because of her criticism of Vojvodina’s milieu, which she softened to a certain degree, the play has never been staged.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.