![]() ![]() Instead of seeing the landscape as something produced by a larger world-economy, this study posits the landscape as a historical construct that is not only shaped by larger structures but also shaping of them. By focusing on landscape, however, this project also works in expanding the parameters of world-systems analysis, which has been criticized in the past as being too structural in its approach to historical phenomenon. In other words, world-systems analysis provides a historical framework in how landscapes have been produced, maintained, and transformed. On the other hand, world-systems analysis provides the conceptual tools for understanding both the structure and role of knowledge, in both its factual and aesthetic forms, in these undertakings. On the one hand, world-systems analysis provides us with the tools for understanding historical processes of capitalist expansion, as well as its incorporation and production of physical environments. ![]() While landscape is a term used differently in the lexicon of numerous academic disciplines, it is used here within the context of political economy and historical sociology, particularly world-systems analysis. The focus of this project is to ask, what were the historical processes inherent not only in the production of these narratives but also in how they were legitimated and maintained? How were these narratives used as justifications for the appropriation and dispossession of specific groups? How did such narratives translate themselves into the construction of built environments and the power relations inherent within them? And finally, how were these constructed landscapes and their narratives both formed and formative of larger structural processes? To answer these questions, this project focuses on the concept of landscape. During this period, colonizing Euro-American agents posited the region through numerous landscaped narratives that included, but were not limited to, indigenous frontier, desert, and farmland. It does this through looking at the historical development of the lower Colorado River borderlands from the mid-sixteenth century to the early twentieth century. Wyeth officials may adopt the Emory method.This project focuses on the intersections of nature, discourse, and capitalist modernity in the production of landscapes. The Wyeth method suggests cutting the adhesion around each rod, 1 at a time. In the Emory method, vigorous movement with a small, curved hemostat, opened and closed in a different directions, is used to open the adhesions around all the implant rods at the same time. 3-4 mm), and vigorous disruption of adhesions. The major differences between the 2 techniques are that the Emory method requires more anesthesia (6-8 cc vs. The Wyeth method takes 5 minutes and 10 seconds and the Emory method takes only 2 minutes and 45 seconds. The video presents a best case scenario (a family planning provider with surgical experience) to compare the 2 techniques. ![]() Hatcher says that some clinicians have considerable difficulty with the Wyeth method, even clinician with considerable surgical experience, so the Emory method is a good alternative. Hatcher, director of the Emory University/Grady Memorial Hospital Family Planning Clinic, demonstrate the procedure in a training video called The Emory Method for Rapid Norplant Removal. The Emory technique's originator and her colleague, R.A. Many clinicians find it simpler than the method developed by the US distributor of Norplant, Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories of Philadelphia. ![]() It reduces the removal time to under 10 minutes for all clinicians, irrespective of surgical experience. Seshu Sarma, a family planning physician at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, developed a new procedure to remove Norplant implants. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |