“……如果任由火车沿着既定路线一往无前，且没有任何东西遏止它前行，那么我们将直奔灾难而去，面临灭顶之灾，或是直接坠入深渊。”
——迈克尔·勒维( Michael Löwy 2001)

《荒原》写于1922年，彼时第一次世界大战刚刚结束，“上帝已死”，田园牧歌不再，整个欧洲都处在一片废墟之中，浪漫主义诗人改造世界的幻梦破灭了。曾经，两次工业革命带来的生产力的高速发展使时代巨轮承载着启蒙精神高歌猛进。然而，所谓“自由”和“理性”的启蒙主义旗帜却反而成为世界大战中屠杀与冲突的帮凶。功利主义的过度泛滥也导致社会的物质层面与精神层面都陷入私欲膨胀的境遇。对理性科学的怀疑、对传统道德价值的失望、对大规模战争时刻可能爆发的恐惧、对现代化生产中人被异化的担忧……这一切汇合成一股汹涌澎的潮流，荡涤着一切，冲击了人们所有的观念、信仰、思考和结论。处于两次世界大战的夹缝之中，英国诗人艾略特(Thomas Stearns Eliot)以惊人的敏锐洞察出西方现代性辉煌外表下的精神匮乏，用广博而艰涩的意象铺展出对自由与理性的反思。《荒原》因此成为艾略特最有影响力的代表作，在欧美现代文学史和诗歌艺术史中留下了浓墨重彩的一笔。
艾略特在二十世纪所描述的“荒原”，后来被更多的科学家们称之为“人类世”，用以强调由18世纪末詹姆斯·瓦特改良蒸汽机开始的工业革命以来，人类活动对气候及生态系统造成的全球性影响。一些学者则将人类世拉到更早的时期，例如人类开始务农的时期。虽然“人类世”只是一个尚未得到公认的地质学概念，然而它的影响不仅仅局限在地质学内部，更关乎人类的存在方式。
二十一世纪以来，飞驰的信息风暴几乎塑造了现代人的空壳，五彩斑斓的时代底色恰恰勾勒出人类精神的荒原世界。我们皮囊之下的自我如此匮乏，我们依旧未能跨出那片贫瘠荒原，我们仍迷失在艾略特为现代人构建的那座文化迷宫中，找寻着遥远而真实的灵魂。那么只要这一种努力不曾停息，《荒原》就仍蕴含着值得我们发掘的精神宝藏。

At the heart of the Western literary “canon”, as it is often called, are the dramatic works of William Shakespeare, which have gained a global appeal and have found new homes in the theatres, the studies, and the film industry of many countries. As analyzed by the leading critic Harold Bloom, in his major works, Shakespeare “teaches us how and what to perceive, and he also instructs us how and what to sense and then to experience as sensation”. Accordingly, nobody before or after Shakespeare has “made so many separate selves”: as the 18th century already knew, Shakespeare “taught us to understand human nature” – perhaps he has even “invented the human”.

Especially prominent in the esteem which Shakespeare’s works enjoy are the tragedies. This lecture introduces them, not necessarily expecting any previous knowledge, and goes on to offer pathways of critical exploration to understand the qualities of the major tragic dramas. For a glimpse at the context, we will briefly talk about “who was Shakespeare?” and about “what is tragedy?” From there, we will devote attention to Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. Each of these works is quite different from the others, so that there is no simple formula that applies to all. Each of them unfolds a radical appraisal of what it means to be human – with surprises.

In discussing these major works, an important element is the responses which students themselves may offer. How do students understand the dramatic characters and actions? Their critical echoes can be quite individually varied, and they are very welcome. Hence students are strongly encouraged to take part and to share their thoughts!

Recent empirical research (Johnson & Johnson, 2015) and theoretical contributions (Bouchard & Glasgow, 2019) have furthered the debate about the role of structure and agency in language policy and planning (LPP). Within social theory, however, they have a more robust theoretical and empirical history. This paper traces the historical development of these concepts, analyzes how they are applied in LPP research, and ends with suggestions for how these theoretical tools can be leveraged to support social justice in LPP processes.
 
First, I trace the historical development of structure and agency, connecting seminal critical social theory (e.g. Marx, 1948) to modern debates about structuration theory (Giddens, 1979) and critical realist morphogenetic models (e.g. Archer 2005). I examine the debates around what counts as a structure and their power relative to human agency. I argue that both structures and agency can be both constraining and enabling – a point that is typically overlooked in LPP research – and analyze particular language policies as examples.
 
I then analyze how structure and agency have been applied in LPP research. Empirical investigations of LPP processes tend to emphasize the agency of educators (e.g. Zhao & Baldauf, 2012), while theoretical proposals have focused on the power of language policy as a hegemonic structure (e.g. Tollefson, 2015). I argue that both perspectives are essential for understanding LPP processes. There is always agency within social structures and there is always a structure to agency. What are often depicted as two opposing forces are better described as mutually constitutive and interconnected in LPP processes.
 
Finally, I argue that an understanding of structure and agency in LPP processes can be applied to LPP research and advocacy efforts, which promote educational practices that center social justice for minoritized and marginalized language users. I outline how this can be enacted.

1968年，迈耶·夏皮罗(Meyer Schapiro)针对海德格尔在《艺术作品的本源》中关于凡·高画“鞋子”的观点撰文指出，事实并非如海氏所言，凡·高画中的“鞋子”不是农民的鞋子，而是画家自己的“靴子”；并且，画作中的鞋子只是物品，并不指向绘画本身。1990年，乔治·迪迪-于贝尔曼(Georges Didi-Huberman)针对潘诺夫斯基(Erwin Panofsky)的“图像学”提出，后者高度透明、智性和模式化的封闭逻辑忽视了绘画（图像）的细节、局部及其视觉症候。而在他看来，后者才是绘画的真实。如果说夏皮罗是希望将绘画从哲学的不透明中解放出来，回到透明的艺术史中的话，那么迪迪-于贝尔曼则希望将图像从透明的机制中解放出来，回到不透明的图像哲学中。
两次“论争”都不同程度地涉及“原作”问题，但目的并不是澄清“原作”，而是揭示其透明性与不透明性这一辩证关系，探求艺术史与（艺术）哲学对话的基础以及相互解放的可能。

4月21日教育部颁布了《义务教育英语课程标准（2022 年版）》（以下简称“新课标”），预示着我国基础教育英语课程改革全面迈入核心素养时代。新课标为全面贯彻党的教育方针，落实立德树人根本任务，顺应新时代基础教育改革与发展的潮流，明晰了我们义务教育阶段英语课程的新理念、新目标、新内容及落实核心素养的新方法。那么落实新课标可以做些什么呢？结合教学研究与实践，可以归纳为“421”：就是更新迭代4个观念，在课程标准与教学实践这2端，成功搭建起1座学习、理解、转化、落实新课标理念的桥梁。

本次讲座重点是以学研路径三“步”曲（研究-写作-展示）之第二步为核心，通过若干实例的分析，讲授如下内容：1，学术论文的结构；2，学术论文写作的准备：阅读与评价文献；3，与文献交互：在阅读和撰写中养成研究思路；4，文献综述的撰写，包括理论研究类和实证研究类文献综述的撰写方法。