Jewellery theory and practice: an investigation into emotionally invested and mnemonic jewellery through sensitising materials

This research explores the capacity of jewellery to be emotionally embedded and to perform a mnemonic function. It investigates the work of European jewellers, jewellery design methods and thought-provoking ways of displaying jewellery in an atypical setting. It is situated in the context of contemporary jewellery design and practice and aims to expand our knowledge of the potential of materials and new technologies to advance opportunities for the making of jewellery as an artefact with the capacity to be a carrier of emotions and memories. Throughout, the author utilises concepts of sensitising materials and notions of narrative quality. A body of work comprising nineteen publications including a chapter from a monograph book by the author is presented. The academic outputs illustrate a range of approaches from the theoretical and the experimental to exploratory qualitative methods. The findings, testing innovative materials and new technologies contribute to our understanding of technical and aesthetic solutions to the problematics of investing jewellery with memories and emotions through the application of both digital technologies and traditional craft techniques. The results were then applied in qualitative contexts, firstly to explore their capacity to support the designing and making and secondly, in a collaborative setting to explore the capacity of this novel practice for enhancing well-being. The distinctive contribution to knowledge comprises, in part, reflections on the materiality of the object from the jewellery maker’s perspective. The purpose is to further an understanding of the role of emotionally and mnemonically embedded jewellery both in everyday life and as an agent of well-being. In doing so, it can be seen as: extending the work of anthropologist Ingold; informing the theory of jewellery initiated by Lindermann; and as refining conceptualisations of the capacity of emotionally charged jewellery for enhancing well-being.</div

Examining Dehumanization Through the "Political Brain Perspective": Towards a Minimal Neuropolitical Theory for Hyperdiverse Societies

What cognitive conditions need to be in place in order for cooperation, and potentially, solidarity, to exist in hyperdiverse societies? What aspects of our social human brain are indispensible when it comes to achieving shared goals in divided liberal democracies? This dissertation singles out the dehumanized perception and categorization of out-groups as one of the most decisive disruptors of political cooperation. I develop an interdisciplinary model – the “Political Brain Perspective” (PBP) – that combines political theory, political science and social neuroscience insights to advance my argument about dehumanization in both domestic and International political contexts. I argue that dehumanized perception at the brain level is politically troublesome because it disables an important social brain function called mentalizing, which is foundational for both basic political transactions and more complex feelings such as empathy. I show how this is relevant in regard to the neuropolitical duties public representatives owe to their constituents in a diverse liberal democracy, and further, how various liberal traditions such as social contract, multiculturalism and human rights theories have hitherto ignored dehumanization as a fundamental disruptor to any political cooperative process. At the international level, I examine the potential for dehumanization within civilizational discourses in history, with a particular focus on the post-Cold War distinction between “civilized” and “barbarians”. I show that in the international context of genocide, intergroup conflict and identity politics, dehumanizing categories not only diminish the cognitive reasoning and mentalizing abilities of the dehumanizer, but also have an intense impact on the dehumanized, in the form of reciprocal dehumanization and retributive violence. Based on the epistemological premises of the PBP, I contend that a minimal neuropolitical theory of cooperation ought not to prioritize an ontological concept of human dignity but instead treat the ascription of humanness as an interpersonal brain mechanism. The brain data, in other words, can only tell us what our brains do when engaging in politics, not who we are as political beings in an essentialist way. In sum, this dissertation highlights the need for political scientists to pay attention to the neuronal mechanisms underlying dehumanization, and to distinguish it from other forms of exclusion and prejudice as a fundamental brain ability in its own right