Our analysis of Y tu mama también foregrounds contemporary tendencies of transnational cinematic production, the history of film production in Mexico, and the recent political and economic transformations of the Mexican nation-state. We demonstrate how Cuarón's film share certain cinematic traits, such as an emphasis on contingency and coincidence, with other successful international co-productions and how it responds specifically to national concerns. Our analysis of the film's production context also addresses the history of the state support for cinema in Mexico. In our interpretation of the film's form and content, we focus on its use of a disembodied male voice-over as well as its portrayal of gender roles and homosexuality. We argue that the film ultimately reinforces a conventional, oppressive representation of Mexican society, foreclosing upon its potentially progressive narrative trajectories. Though Cuarón's film is definitely a product of globalized era of film production, it exhibits we conclude, a marked nostalgia for a more properly national framework for defining Mexico.

This article analyses how three Mexican novels, published between 1971 and 1999, respond to the effects of political violence on national identity. It focuses particularly on fictional representations of statesponsored, politically motivated murder and on how survivors negotiate a social space forever changed by unsolved crimes. The article concludes that an important consequence of political violence is that it undermines the validity of systems of representation that once seemed capable of portraying the national community. Each of the three novels interpreted here adopts a different stance regarding literary language's relationship to its ever-changing sociopolitical contexts.

Luck egalitarianism makes a fundamental distinction between inequalities for which agents are responsible and inequalities stemming entirely from luck. The aim of the view is, other things being equal, to ignore the former and rectify the latter. The ideal situation is that each person exerts an equal amount of control over her place in the distribution, and that deviations from distributive equality caused solely by luck are minimized. The essential thought behind luck egalitarianism is agnostic on the metric of equality. You can have a luck egalitarian theory about welfare, or resources, or several other metrics. We need only keep in view that these theories aim to make distribution (of whatever metric) shaped primarily by things for which the agent is responsible, such as informed and free choices, and to compensate for inequalities stemming solely from luck.Paradigm forms of luck that generate unjust inequalities are the wealth or class of the family to which one is born, discrimination based on one's sex or race, and the market value of one's native endowments (the portion of one's talents that are purely innate rather than intentionally cultivated). The view is compatible with great levels of distributive inequality, so long as those inequalities have the proper sorts of causes.When a bearer of an inequality is responsible for her condition, that inequality can be just.(Open access, non-formatted) Long, Ryan (2011). The Incompleteness of Luck Egalitarianism. Social Philosophy Today 27:87-96.

This paper outlines a method for student-directed creation of exam review guides. No answers or lists of required information are provided to students. Students must reflect on the purpose of the course and the relationships between the different content units in order to collaboratively compose a study guide. The professor then critiques the guide, providing the students with an assessment of their collective level of preparation for the exam.

No abstract