This chapter on cryptography focuses on private-key encryption: Alice uses a secret key she shares with Bob to send him an encrypted message over a channel observed by an eavesdropper. Constructions of private-key encryption schemes can be based on pseudorandom generators, which in turn can be based on one-way functions (which are efficiently computable but not efficiently invertible). The chapter also covers constructions of pseudorandom functions, which are more general than pseudorandom generators and have several applications in cryptography and complexity theory.

This chapter introduces key elements of Robert Brandom’s philosophy. A striking feature of Brandom’s inferentialism is that it offers ‘a unified vision of language and mind’ – a comprehensive alternative to traditional representationalist frameworks. Classical semantic notions such as reference, truth-functions, and propositions are understood in terms of use – that is, through pragmatics. Brandom characterises his position as conceptual pragmatism, which aims to explicate conceptual contents by uncovering what is implicit in our discursive practices.He is a strong inferentialist: inferential articulation alone is sufficient for conceptual content. Yet he also endorses broad inferentialism, which recognizes non-inferential content – such as perceptual judgements – as legitimate within an inferentially articulated framework.The chapter examines several further key components of Brandom’s philosophy: inferential semantics; the distinction between commitments and entitlements; inferential justification; scorekeeping; communication and the challenge of semantic holism; and the role of normative attitudes in grounding normativity.

Drawn from a slight, icy novel of the towering Hindi poet Agyeya, a key figure of experimental poetry and modernist poetics in India, Chapter 2 focuses on the exit – or the form of renunciation – as a preoccupation of postcolonial literature. The novel To Each His Own Stranger (1961), written in India and revised and translated in Berkeley, California, is an exercise in the reconciliation of both Søren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or and Sartrean theories of being with the author’s heterodox reading of Hindu philosophy. This chapter argues for the late style – the exit – of Agyeya, explicitly different from the revolutionary subjectivity that characterizes his early magnum opus, the autobiographical novel Shekhar: Ek jivani, and his expressionistic, poetic oeuvre (including the haiku). Drawing on this text alongside the writer’s notebooks, originally titled Men Without Shadows, from the English translation of Sartre’s play, I suggest that modernism here is understood as a preoccupation with new forms of selfhood, alongside forms of asceticism. Moreover, this exit by avalanche (also referred to as “Zen experiment”) traces a particular genealogy of postcolonial selfhood, from rebellion to renunciation.

This chapter offers a phenomenological analysis of the intentionality of desires. It argues that desires are complex intentional states that entail both axiological and conative characters in relations of founding. By explicating the intentionality of desires, the chapter demonstrates that desires are similar to emotions as well as volitions but also differ crucially from both. Whereas emotion can lack conative components, desires always posit some goals or other, and strive for their posited goals. Unlike full-fledged volitions, however, desires entail deeply affective axiological components. The first section of the chapter provides the basic conceptual tools that are needed for a phenomenological analyses of the intentionality of desires. The second section distinguishes intentional desires from pre-intentional drives, affections, and feelings. It thereby clarifies the type of object-directedness that is characteristic of desire. The third section then explicates the axiological and conative constituents of desires in the interest of distinguishing desires from both emotions and volitions. The final section throws light on the temporality of desires. It argues that the intentionality of desires provides them with a specific “temporal shape” and makes them future-orientated. At the same time, this gives them a strong interest in realities and prospects of realization.

The conclusion examines more contemporary versions of anthropology’s dominant current of antiformalism. Tracing this pattern across diverse approaches – embodiment, assemblage thinking, infrastructure – it reveals how a certain sort of Wittgensteinian antiformalism has become orthodox. While scholarship focussed on form exists, it remains largely subordinate to an implicit picture that finds ethnographic facts ‘unanalysable, specific, indefinable’. By contextualzing this stance, the conclusion suggests holding commitments – formalist or antiformalist – more lightly in order to recover explanatory power without sacrificing reflexivity.

As society continues to change, so, too, has the nature of social connections between people. This chapter, however, focuses on one relationship immutable: that people often maintain committed involvements with particular others. We begin by situating and defining relationship commitment within a modern social context. We review historical and current theoretical models of commitment, including coverage of hypothesized antecedents, emphasizing empirical findings on precursors of commitment since the last edition of the Handbook. We then turn to reviewing research on hypothesized consequences of commitment, again emphasizing empirical findings since the last edition. Recent research considering racial, ethnic, and cultural variations in commitment is also reviewed. We conclude the chapter by offering possible future directions for commitment research.

Aggression in an intimate relationship violates commonly held expectations that a romantic partner will be loving and supportive. Partner aggression erodes the quality of a relationship and can cause people to experience significant psychological distress and pain. This chapter critically examines research on features of aggression in relationships, how partner aggression is regulated and maintained, and interventions and efforts to address partner aggression. We aim to convey the current state of research on partner aggression and suggest new directions for research.

Relationship maintenance scholars have long attempted to understand the processes by which partners foster relationship growth. They have done so by focusing on defining and explaining key maintenance strategies that serve to initiate and preserve romantic relationships. In this chapter, we provide a brief history of the relationship maintenance literature. Then we identify the key theoretical contributions to the current understanding of relationship maintenance and discuss recent theoretical developments and known correlates. We conclude the chapter by highlighting the need to diversify and expand the maintenance literature by identifying possible avenues for future inquiry and proposing ways to integrate work across disciplines.

This chapter provides an analysis of the structure of love in Kierkegaard’s thought, which takes its most developed shape in Works of Love. This analysis will help us understand the four key elements of Kierkegaardian love that constitute it in its proper sense. The four elements of love are: repetition, time, commitment, and the good of the other. The overall argument in this chapter is that for Kierkegaard love necessitates a repeated, hence time-oriented, commitment to the good of the other. The object of this commitment is the other and that which is truly their good, which is their “abiding in love.”

Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon’s promise during the 1968 presidential election campaign to extricate the United States from the Vietnam War, combined with the loss of American domestic political support resulting from the January 1968 Tet Offensive, saw a fundamental change to how the war was conducted. The United States began a process of withdrawing their own combat forces and placing the burden for future combat operations on ARVN formations. While the Australian Government was aware of this change in policy, it was not actively included in American political deliberations and hence was unable to take an active position in the face of Vietnamisation. Left with no detailed guidance on the intended timelines for American withdrawal, the Australian Government could provide no direction to Army on the level of future commitment to the war, other than to reinforce the existing rhetoric that participation in the conflict remained vital for Australian national interests. In this policy vacuum, Army leadership concentrated on the military aspects of the war, with the CGS Exercises of both 1967 and 1968 exploring the implications of increasing the size of the force deployed to South Vietnam.

On 29 April 1965 the Australian Government announced the commitment of an Australian battalion to South Vietnam. Prior to the public announcement, discussions had taken place in Hawaii as to the nature of any future commitment in Vietnam. The staff talks, held early May to late April, were between the American Commander-in-Chief Pacific Command, Admiral U.S.G. Sharp Jr, an Australian delegation led by Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, and a New Zealand delegation headed by the Chief of the New Zealand Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Peter Phipps. The participants discussed broad American strategy and possible options as to where any future Australian and New Zealand forces could be deployed within the overall American design. Sharp strongly supported the concept of American forces being deployed in enclaves. He believed that the mere existence of American forces within these enclaves would deprive the North Vietnamese Government of an opportunity for victory and thus encourage them to begin negotiations. If the Australians and New Zealanders did deploy in an enclave, the Americans would provide all combat support capabilities (armour, artillery and air support) as well as the necessary logistic support.

At the Australia, New Zealand and the United States (ANZUS) security treaty council meeting in May 1962, the US Secretary of State asked the Australian Minister for External Affairs for a contribution of instructors to help the US training mission in South Vietnam. This approach was hardly a surprise to the Australian Government, as the US State Department had made similar approaches for military support to the Australian Embassy in Washington, DC in November and December of 1961. After some negotiation on the nature and conditions of the Australian commitment, on 24 May 1962 the Minister for Defence, A.G. Townley, announced that Australia was to deploy up to 30 military instructors to Vietnam.

In 1968 the dual operational requirements to conduct counterinsurgency and main force operations simultaneously also challenged the way 1ALSG provided logistic support to 1ATF. In 1966, HQ AFV and 1ALSG had constructed a logistic system to provide support to 1ATF centred on a static base at Nui Dat, with 1ATF conducting operations within Phuoc Tuy province. However, the events of the impending VC Tet Offensive in January to February 1968 would bring a radical change in how 1ATF operated, requiring 1ALSG to provide support not only to Nui Dat but also to a series of air-mobile operations and associated fire support bases (FSBs) established outside the province.

The announcement by Prime Minster Holt on 8 March 1966 to send a task force to South Vietnam represented an expansion of the policy associated with the initial deployment of the battalion group. While 1RAR was making an Australian contribution to the conflict, the small size of the force meant it had operational and political limitations. A battalion was too small to conduct operations independently from an American parent unit, reducing its operational flexibility and the political effect of the Australian involvement. Increasing the size of the Australian commitment to a task force would enable Australian forces to exercise their own operational doctrine. It would also placate some criticism that under American leadership 1RAR was suffering a disproportionate number of casualties compared to the American battalions – even if such criticism was unwarranted. Politically, a task force would mark a substantial Australian contribution to the war and thus further reinforce the Australian commitment to ANZUS.

The geography of South Vietnam posed particular challenges for the conduct of any military campaign. Dominated by a mountain chain that runs from the China–Vietnam border to just north of Saigon, the landscape comprises dense jungle in the highland areas flanked by a coastal strip on the South China Sea. South of Saigon, the Mekong Delta combines with the Mekong River to form a vast alluvial plain. The climate is either hot and wet or hot and dry, these conditions respectively producing excessive mud or debilitating dust. The climate also created tropical diseases in endemic and epidemic proportions, adversely affecting the health and efficiency of troops in the field and making medical treatment challenging since it was difficult to ‘preserve and maintain medical supplies and sophisticated medical equipment’.