In two of the video clips this module, researchers indicated that they can examine the brains of inmates and predict which ones will re-offend. They state that criminals show more activity in the area of the brain that relates to impulsive behavior. The second video describes the clock tower sniper as impulsively violent and lacking self-esteem.
Do you buy into the relationship between impulsivity, low self-esteem and criminal behavior? Are these characteristics good predictors of future offending? Should we have everyone tested and monitor those who test high for impulsivity and low self-esteem for future criminal behavior? What are your thoughts? Can we use this information to develop crime policy?
ns of both the museum space and museum object form and signify two concrete strands of museology. Therefore examples of nonhuman actors within museums will be drawn from their intra-actions with both spaces and objects, to analyse and explore question of who museums are for. In order to explore these nonhuman entities, illustrative examples will be drawn from ‘contemporary’ practice; this includes recent practices within the past few years, but spanning no further than the last decade of museology. When considering whom museums are for within the context of posthumanist theory and ideas, it is worth clarifying that this study does not try to analyse or comment on this philosophy, but instead applies this approach to museological practice. The field of posthumanism is expansive and growing and has been applied to museology on few occasions. Therefore to retain a tighter focus, the question of ‘who museums are for?’ lends itself to object-oriented ontology which serves to contest anthropocentric thinking. Therefore this exploration challenges that museums are for humans only. Few literature examples dissect intersections between contemporary museology practices and object-oriented ontological posthumanist discourse. Key posthumanist scholars influencing this field are Stefan Herbrechter, Timothy Morton and Donna Haraway; who explore these philosophical concerns that can be applied to museology. Herbrechter asserts critical posthumanism emerges out of, but also sits alongside poststructuralism in order to account for contemporary turns and new materiality. Herbrechter explains this through ‘the fragmentation and pluralization of the human principle (as a result of the dissolution of traditional boundaries between human and animal, or between superhuman, subhuman and inhuman) energizes a critical rereading of humanist reading.’ The consideration of new materiality is one of the key drivers of object-oriented ontology. Along this line, Morton advocates humans should make absolute and dramatic alterations in re-considering relationships with nonhuman actors and ecologies. Furthermore his notion of ‘Hyperobjects’, has reconsidered how certain objects are untied to specific spatial and temporal moments, in being so fluid and dispersed. This term of reference is useful when considering whom the museum is for through expansions of museum spaces. Utilising research within an object-oriented ontology avoids considering the posthuman as literally ‘post¬–’ human; in simply reducing this field to transhumanism; progression of human species to technological and digital entities. Hayles’ assertion of posthumanism is that information is prioritised over materiality. This essay averts this understanding because posthumanism dialogues have changed since these earlier first-wave contributions to the field; which also opposes this study’s object-oriented ontology.>GET ANSWER