Colombian people Essay Example for Free

Colombian people Essay 2. List what is said about the British / Germans / Americans. British ?Bad food ?Not to easy going ?Pompous ?Arrogants ?Humorless Germans ?Stricts ?Punctuals ?Serious ?Precise ?Hardworkers Americans ?Loud ?Easygoing ?Ignorants ?Confidence 3. THEN MAKE A List of the adjectives / actions you think do stereotype the people from your country of origin. Colombians ?Easygoing ?Drug-dealers ?Like to party ?Coffee 4. Explain briefly whether you think there is some truth in them. Easygoing I think that Colombian people are very easygoing we can adapt to different cultures. Drug-dealers There is a belief that a huge of percent of the population work with cocaine, but actually there is small organization who deals with it and the vast majority of the population are normal people who work, study as the other population of the earth. Like to party In spite of the problems that the county has, we enjoy the life and seize any occasion for celebrate with passion and happiness. Coffee The best coffee in the world is produced in the Colombian’s mountains of a traditional and craft way.

Impact Of Media On Global Social Movements Politics Essay

Impact Of Media On Global Social Movements Politics Essay In this paper my aim would be to bring forth various views and theories of social movements and explore the evolution of global social movements in the recent past. In the later part of my paper I would be discussing the role of mass media in global social movements and would also include the concept of new media and contemporary social networks in the cyber space and their impact on global social movements. But first I would like to start with a few definitions and views on global social movements by eminent scholars and intellectuals. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS The term social movements was introduced in 1850 by the German Sociologist  Lorenz von Stein  in his book History of the French Social Movement from 1789 to the Present. Since then, the term has taken different meanings and interpretations. Charles Tilly  defines social movements as, a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on others  [1]  .  For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary peoples participation in public politics. Sidney Tarrow  defines a social movement as,  collective challenges to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities  [2]  . Scholars like Escobar see social movements as sources of alternatives, hopes and theories of how the world can be made differently  [3]  . Bourdieus argument on social movements is that, its not the market, as its tr ied to make us believe today, but the social movement, which has civilized the market economy while largely contributing to its efficacy  [4]  . Touraine, on the other hand, contends that social movements are not positive or negative agents of history, of modernization, or of the liberalization of mankind. They act in a given type of social production and organization  [5]  . His views differ from the romanticisers of social movements and from those who define a social action mainly in terms of effectiveness in bringing about social change or resistance, to varying degrees, like McAdam and Snow  [6]  . Social movements are also seen as organizational and political opportunities by some and as effects as well as results of power structures, class struggles and identity politics by others. Some like Rucht find the value by combining them and arguing that a social movement exists to the extent that the following qualities are co-present: In structural terms, social movement s are networks of groups and/or organizations; regarding their aims, they are attempts to fundamentally change society (including power structures and basic values) or to resist such changes  [7]  . Global social movements have intensified in recent years; some of these movements contest not only the actual nature and consequences of current global socioeconomic relations but also the very foundation governing them. One of the reasons may be the global economic and technological integration which has consistently been disarming the traditional welfare function of the state and in turn generating increased misery, inequalities and conflicts. This has provided grounds for citizens and civil society groups of diverse origins to express their resentment and advance claims in increased numbers. There has been an emergence and consolidation of global civil society which is believed to be bigger and wider, offering a positive response, even counterweight, to a narrow notion that linked globalization to economic processes alone. I would like to begin my discussion on GSMs with some theories relating to social movements. THEORIES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT Typically, European social movement theorists tended to view contentious collective action through a Marxian lens, proffering structural analyses to varying degrees. However, a paradigm shift occurred which delineated old social movement theory (class based) from new social movement theory (culture based). I would discuss some theories relating to social movements like collective behaviour theory, resource mobilisation theory, political process theory, social constructionist theory, new social movement theory and the networks theory. Collective Behaviour Theory This theory states that social movements differ a little from other group manifestations, such as panics, crowds and crazes. Generally, this theory advanced the notion that social movements were little more than the most well-organized and self-conscious part of an archipelago of emergent phenomena, ranging from fads and rumours, to collective enthusiasm, riots, movements and revolutions  [8]  . There have been different approaches to this theory. Beginning with Symbolic interactionism which is a variant of classic collective behaviour theory wherein creative agency triumphs over structural determination, and the creation and interpretation of meaning are the key. This model views collective behaviour as the spontaneous development of norms and organization that contest the status quo, and provoke individual reactions to social disintegration, which then form into a general, collective response. Another version of collective behaviour theory parallels the overarching theoretical paradigm of structural-functionalism in an attempt to link broad, structural factors to specific occasions of collective behaviour unfolding in several necessary stages like, structural conduciveness, structural strain, generalized beliefs that provide meaning and motivation and events or actions that catalyse collective behaviour; physical mobilization of actors; and the absence or suspension of social control  [9]  . The third approach identifies Relative deprivation as the motivating force behind collective action represents another variant of classic collective behaviour theory. In sum, this concept stipulates that a group decides to act collectively when people judge themselves as lacking certain resources in relation to another group. Resource Mobilization Theory The demise of the collective behaviour paradigm came about during the tumultuous 1960s with the advent of new social movements. According to McAdam  [10]  , theorizing social movements as a response to social strain was problematic in that it did not take the larger political context into consideration. In assigning causation of social movements to individual discontent, collective behaviour was considered abnormal and apolitical. Resource mobilization theory arose during the 1970s as a response to the shortcomings of collective behaviour theory. It held that in contentious collective action, passion gave way to rational calculation, and the collective good acquiesced to individual gain as mobilizing factors. Thus, activism relied on the ability of social movements to muster resources and engage in planned, rational action  [11]  . In this analysis, activists were not considered under the sway of sentiments, emotions, and ideologies that guided his or her action; rather, coll ective behaviour should be understood in terms of the logic of costs and benefits as well as opportunities for action Proponents of this model argued that increased personal resources, the professionalization of activism and the availability of external financial support could adequately account for contentious collective action. The focus, therefore, was on resource aggregation, and facilitation by social movement organizations (SMOs), formal or professional organizations that identify their goals with those of a social movement. In contrast to collective behaviour theory, which focused on why collective action occurred, resource mobilization theory attempted to answer the persistent question of how social movements organized and mobilized. Political Process Theory The political process model developed as an alternative to resource mobilization theory. Here, the success or failure of social movements depended on political opportunities created by ruptures in the institutional structure and the ideology of power-holders  [12]  . Three essential components comprise this theory. The first demarks the political structure as an external factor not under the direct control of challengers, but critical to a movements success. The second is an internal factor: the organizational strength of activists, the product of interaction between movement members, leaders and incentives. The final component is McAdams  [13]  cognitive liberation, or a change in group consciousness whereby potential protesters see the existing social order not only as illegitimate, but also as subject to change through their own direct efforts  [14]  . Thus, revolutions owe less to the efforts of insurgents than to the work of systemic crises which render the existing regime weak and vulnerable to challenge from virtually any quarter. Social Constructionist Theory Social constructionism approaches collective action as an interactive, symbolically defined and negotiated process among participants, opponents and bystanders  [15]  . Central to this theory is, the concept is of framing, which describes how activists make sense of their social worlds  [16]  . Frames constitute shared understandings and identities that generate the trust and cooperation amongst activists necessary for collective action. In the context of social movements, frames dignify discontent, identify grievances and assemble the grievances of various groups  [17]  . Grievances are framed in three ways. Diagnostic framing identifies a problem as well as a target for action; and prognostic framing suggests solutions, including strategies and tactics specific to the target. Together, they mobilize consensus, creating a base from which movements may recruit; however, collective action is not the necessary outcome of this process. In order for people to act contentiousl y, they must have compelling reasons to do so. Thus, motivational framing provides inspiration and rationale for action  [18]  . New Social Movement Theory NSM theorists stressed that social transformation is mediated through culture as well as politics narrowly defined, that the personal and the cultural are as politically real as, and are not reducible to, power struggles in the state and economy  [19]  . As Melucci, observes, Conflicts move from the economic-industrial system to the cultural sphere. They focus on personal identity, the time and space of life, and the motivation and codes of daily behaviour  [20]  . That is to say, activists in new social movements turned their gaze inward, focusing on issues as they affected their personal lives, and pursuing social change through politicizing culture. Networks Theory The concept of networks helps to address the division created by a narrow focus on identity, as mediated through cultural analysis, in social movement theory. According to Castells, New information technologies, by transforming the processes of information processing, act upon all domains of human activity, and make it possible to establish endless connections between different domains, as well as between elements and agents of such activities  [21]  . Castells observes that, As people organized meaning around who they were, rather than what they did, the process of globalization relied on increasingly integrated networks of instrumental exchange  [22]  . According to Appadurai, the result of globalized communication and mass migration is the creation of diasporic public spheres, phenomena that confound theories that depend on the continued salience of the nation-state as the key arbiter of important social changes  [23]  . The electronic revolution has facilitated the g lobalization of capitalism; it has also enabled the globalization of protest, as Dyer-Witheford  [24]  observes: New information technologies therefore appear not just as instruments for the circulation of commodities, but simultaneously as channels for the circulation of struggles. Thus, social movements become increasingly global both in target and in form. The movements that oppose corporate globalization, like the Zapatistas and the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement (ACGM), are prime examples of network-based social movements. My further discussions would primarily be based on this theory of networks in social movements with an emphasis on the rise of social networks in GSMs and their role in felicitating them. MEDIA AND GSMs In this part of my paper I would give a brief evolution of media as a tool for social change and would also discuss the use of ICTs in GSMs. I would give some examples of social media and would conclude this part with views of authors and scholars who are divided on the positive and negative role of media in social movements. MEDIA FOR CHANGE TRADITIONAL MEDIA Soon after the end of World War II the importance of mass media like newspapers, radio, cinema and television as accelerators in spreading ideas about progress and development began to be recognised. There are numerous examples in history where movements have been influenced by media. The issues at that time were more political than social but slowly, the same process was followed in carrying out social movements. It was already well documented how during War times radios and newspapers were used along with televisions to create a public sphere where people shared ideas and issues of common interest in a democracy. How leaders through their mesmerising speeches were able to instil patriotic feeling in their countrymen. These established norms gave way to the use of mass media in different social movements. In the Indian context one can find the use of such means during the Green Revolution, Family planning Communications. In Latin America, Paulo Freire (1971) used it for adult litera cy programmes. Even with the advent of the ICTs one can still find that the maximum amount of information dissemination in social movements, even today, is done through these means. May it be an environmental campaign or anti-corruption campaign, this mode still remains a dominant player in social change. NEW MEDIA: INTERNET The battles of Seattle, Washington, Prague and Genoa, with an unforeseen mixture of nationalities and movements, became world news. Interestingly, the new media seemed to play a crucial role in the organization of these global-protests. Internet has been widely used as a tool for social change and social movements in the recent past. I will illustrate some popular examples corroborating my statement. Zapatistas Movement Beginning in 1994, the Zapatistas used the Internet to turn a local dispute over land in Chiapas, Mexico into an international debate over the ill effects of corporate globalization. They incorporated their localized concerns over the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into an international agenda opposed to global economic policies that usurp national political sovereignty and recolonize debtor nations. The Zapatistas and their supporters worldwide thus fashioned an ideology that rejected neoliberalism, which for them refers less to policy or theory and more directly to degrading environmental conditions and escalating human rights abuses  [25]  . Thus, they used the Internet to weave a new electronic fabric of struggle  [26]  to rally support for their revolution throughout Mexico and across the globe. The Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement The Anti-Corporate Globalization movement built on the foundations laid by the Zapatistas, using the Internet to connect with social justice activists around the world, to serve as a forum for education and discussion, and to disseminate information unavailable in the corporate mainstream press. The Internet was also critical in the logistical organization of the massive demonstrations against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in 1999. This protest marked the birth of the ACGM, which gathered within its folds other activist movements, organizations and networks. For the first time in living memory, possibly ever, many different grievances and causes were represented under one broad banner: social justice. Thus workers walked arm in arm with environmentalists, feminists, human rights workers, farmers, and fair trade advocates. The Battle of Seattle marked the beginning of a new form of activism: the new communication technology that made the globalization of capital possib le also spurred the globalization of protest and facilitated globalization from below. The Internet was instrumental in both shrinking vast geographical distances, and in disseminating a new sort of global consciousness. There was also the increased use of SMSs by the protestors in organizing and carrying out their protests. There were termed as Smart Mobs, though it is still not a major tool of social movement it has had its impact during the 1999 Battle of Seattle, 1992 Critical Mass Bicycle demos of San Francisco and September 2000 protest in Britain over fuel price rise. Many social movements relating to environment, health, etc. have taken post Seattle through use of ICTs, social networking, websites, etc. The Coffee Party on Facebook is one such example of a movement that was initiated and primarily carried out on the social networking site Facebook. Though these developments seem to hold both a bright future for social movements and interesting times for social movement researchers, nothing assures us that movements always make society more democratic  [27]  . Tilly advocates that, technological determinism ought to be avoided and that one should recognize that not all new features of soci al movements result from technical innovations but most of them from alterations in their social and political contexts  [28]  . Relying on ICT services also requires being able to cope with their risks and dangers therefore most 21st century social movement activity continues to rely on the local, regional, and national forms of organization that already prevailed during the later 20th century  [29]  . HOSTILE MEDIA One of the first detailed examinations of a social movement protest in the media focused on a mass demonstration held against the Vietnam War in Britain  [30]  . The demonstration involved approximately 60,000 protesters, most of who marched peacefully through the streets of London (with an insignificant number of protestors involved in violent actions). However, despite the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of the march, the media concentrated most of its coverage on the issue of violence  [31]  . There were differences between media outlets in their coverage; they were all united by the overall focus on the same limited aspect the issue of violence. The misrepresentation of this massive political rally, and the totality of the negative coverage across all media outlets led the investigators to conclude that such reporting poses extreme problems for democracy, which may only be remedied by some form of institutional rearrangement  [32]  . For any social movement to draw beneficial attention to its activities in the mass media, the first barrier it must overcome is the structural constraints of the medium itself. According to Herman and Chomskys  [33]  Propaganda Model, there are five filters through which all news must pass, that actively shape the medias content. These are (1) the size, ownership and profit orientation of the media, (2) advertising, (3) sourcing, (4) flak (criticism) and (5) anti-communist ideology, which can be interpreted as keeping the discourse within the boundaries of elite interests. According to Sidney Tarrow, The media are crucial in a social movements efforts to broadcast its demands. But the media are anything but neutral in the framing of activists concerns and events. On the one hand, the media provide a broad base for consensus formation that is difficult for movements to achieve on their own. On the other hand, while the media may not work directly for the ruling class, they certain ly do not work for social movements  [34]  . CONCLUSION The mass media is an important outlet for social movements, where the quality and nature of media coverage strongly influences how they are perceived in the public eye. It is important for social movements, whose transitional and adversarial nature weakens their ability to secure public legitimacy. Their outsider status, along with their usual resource-poor nature, means that traditional avenues of publicity are not easily accessible and forces them to rely on alternative methods to obtain media access. Traditionally, this involves some form of public spectacle like a protest to attract media attention. These activities have become accepted as mechanisms by which social problems are communicated in the public sphere, alongside public opinion polls and elections and they act as vital means by which citizens can signal their discontent  [35]  . Key to any social movements eventual success in reforming the current world order is its ability to garner majority support, which is severely restricted by the mass media. Global justice movements profess to want to mobilise entire communities worldwide to enable truly participative decision-making. However, if this is really the case, they need to consider whether the same media system that serves to naturalise and legitimise elite decision-making, can really encourage its antithesis, collective grassroots decision-making. It seems an anathema to even consider that by working on the terms set by the mass media, social movements are actually legitimising and tightening its hegemonic power over society, even while it simultaneously acts to de-legitimise or ignore the global justice movement. Therefore, it is time for social movements to take collective action. To start with, democratic media reform needs to be recast as an end in itself, a public good, not simply a means by which eac h movement can get its message out  [36]  . In this way, a media reform project can be linked to the wider array of social movements calling for a more equitable and participatory democracy.

Cold War Manderin Essay -- Comparative, Ngo Dinh Diem, Seth Jacobs

The book, Cold War Mandarin Ngo Dinh Diem and the Origins of America’s War in Vietnam 1950-1963, by Seth Jacobs is a comprehensive retelling of the rise and fall of Ngo Dinh Diem’s government in South Vietnam. In that retelling Jacob focuses on the major events that took place in Vietnam as well as showed how America backed a leader that did nothing to booster his nation and led America into one of the worst wars in its history. The Diem regime was a corrupt and tyrannical government that used the United States’ fears of communism to push its own goals that ultimately led to its own demise. Jacob viewed the escalation of America’s involvement in Vietnam as the following, â€Å"The nine-year â€Å"experiment† that ended when Diem died was America’s crossover point from advice and support to active cobelligerency in a Vietnamese civil war† (8). Jacob in his book is very critical of the actions that both the Americans and Diem took in the establishment of South Vietnam. As the title of the book suggests, the author claims that Diem and his actions resulted in America becoming stuck in a war that would last over a decade. Diem, who was not very well known in either the United States as well as his own nation at the time the book starts in the early 1950s, was able to perpetuate himself into a position of power through use of both his faith as well as perpetuating generalized American fears. In the first chapter of his book, Jacobs looks at Diem’s early rise to power. Diem first worked under the French where he stood as a Minister of the Interior in the Bao Dai puppet government. Where Diem hated that the French who had control over Vietnam both economically as well as politically, one thing he hated more where the Viet Minh. The Vi... ... Ngo Dinh Diem and his regime. In Diems attempts to maintain a sense of national independence and ignoring American advisors in regards to how to manage his nation placed both himself and America in a very bad situation. Jacob broke down the reasons why Diem’s policies and decisions as head of state in Vietnam ultimately led to its demise, from his totalitarian policies and misuses of American funding/support. Jacobs does not put all blame on Diem but also points out that despite information gathered from American officials in Vietnam the American government supported a government that was unpopular and full of corruption. In the end Jacob reinforces his claim that the United States and their â€Å"Diem experiment† pushed America into a shifting relationship with Vietnam that would ultimately lock the nation into a state involvement that it could not back out of.

Laertes and Fortinbras as Foils for Shakespeares Hamlet Essay

Laertes and Fortinbras as Foils for Hamlet  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Hamlet, the major character in the Shakespeare play of the same name, was faced with a decision upon learning that Claudius murdered his father. Should he believe the ghost, and avenge his father's murder? Or is the ghost evil, trying to coerce him into killing Claudius? Throughout the play, we see Hamlet's struggle with this issue. Many opportunities arise for him to kill Claudius, but he is unable to act because he cannot convince himself to believe the Ghost. Shakespeare uses Laertes and Fortinbras as foils to Hamlet, in order to help us understand why Hamlet acts the way he does. Foils are used in plays so that the readers are better able to understand the major character (Hamlet). In a foil, the minor character is similar in many ways to the main character so that we will compare the two. However, it is through these similarities that we are able to see the more important differences between the two. The major foil for Hamlet is Laertes, the son of Polonius. The most obvious similarity is that they are both young men. They also come from relatively similar backgrounds, a Danish aristocratic upbringing. They also both have some college education. This leads us to another similarity; [Semicolons vs. colons] they both have the ability to use logical and rational reasoning. However, they do differ on their applications of logical reasoning. We see this logical and rational reasoning in Hamlet, in Acts 1& 2 when he sets up the "mouse trap" for Claudius, in order to determine if he is guilty of murdering his father. Hamlet's ability to think many moves ahead and predict what the king's reaction will be if he is guilty, shows a type of reasoning beyond a norma... ...f the papers in this set, you will see that the similarities between Fortinbras and Hamlet are not so obvious-- few writers picked up on them, and none did as good a job at specifying them as did this writer. Here again, this writer backs up the statement with numerous specific examples. Some weak writers who are also weak thinkers will use words such as "obvious" when they have no evidence and may in fact be wrong. In such cases, the use of the word "obvious" is an attempt to cow the reader by implying that if the reader does not see what is supposed to be "obvious" then the reader is stupid. Be careful in using such words, and beware when you find them in your reading. (Another favorite is the phrase "of course.") Works Cited: Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet. ca. 1600-1601. Ed. Edward Hubler. A Signet Classic. New York: Penguin Publishers,1963.

Critique of Robert Frost Essay examples -- essays research papers

Marion Montgomery, â€Å"Robert Frost and His Use of Barriers: Man vs. Nature Toward God,† Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. Reprinted by permission of The South Atlantic Quarterly.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Robert Frost is considered by the casual reader to be a poet of nature like that of a Wordsworth. In a sense, his poetry is about nature, yet with strong underlying tones of the drama of man in nature. Frost himself stated, â€Å"I guess I’m not a nature poet,† â€Å" I have only written two without a human being in them (138).† Marion Montgomery’s critical essay plays with the epitaph that Frost proposes for himself in The Lesson for Today: â€Å"I have a lovers quarrel with the world.† Montgomery says, that the lovers quarrel is Frost’s poetic subject, and states, â€Å"throughout his poetry there is evidence of this view of mans’ existence in the natural world (138). The essay examines how Frost’s attitude toward nature is one with armed and amicable truce and mutual respect interwoven with boundaries of the two principles, individual man and the forces of the world. But the boundaries are insisted upon. The critical essay examines how Frost’s direct addresses of nature are often how man is essentially different from objects and features of nature. Montgomery insists, â€Å"†¦his trees and animals, though he speaks to them, do no take on grave countenances (140).† The jest of Montgomery’s ideal is when Frost speaks directly to or directly of natural objects or creatures, â€Å"that ...

Pygmalion. The identity of Eliza how does it change and is it for the better?

Pygmalion was written by Bernard Shaw in 1914. The play tells the story of a man called Henry Higgins; a professor of phonetics who makes a bet with a friend Colonel Pickering that he can successfully pass of a low-common cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle as a sophisticated lady by teaching her how to speak with an upper class accent and an improvement in etiquette. Eliza Doolittle by chance meets Higgins and grabs the opportunity to better herself. Eliza wants to improve herself so she can be a flower-seller in a shop instead of on the streets. Eliza manages this after a lot of hard work and she changes in a number of ways. The changes Eliza makes include: learning to speak correctly by Higgins tuition, she learns about personal hygiene, she learns manners from Mrs Higgins; she learns how to dress properly by Mr Higgins, her confidence and self-esteem increases with Mr Higgins behaviour towards her. The ending of the play is ambiguous because although Eliza has changed her identity, she is so unrecognizable to the other street flower sellers that she no longer fits into her old class and society anymore; she is no longer sure of who she actually is. The first time we meet Eliza is when she is trying to sell flowers to people who are running for shelter from the rain into the porch of St. Paul's church. It becomes apparent that Liza is a low-common flower girl with her gutter speech. There is a note taker who is taking down what the flower girl is saying, which then leads her to think he is a police officer. At this time the flower girl is the only person who doesn't have a name. The significance of this is that, it's as if she doesn't have an identity, however she does have some sort of identity with her personality. â€Å"Thank you kindly, lady. â€Å"I'm a good girl, I am. † This evidence shows how she is has a general sense of manners, she treats people well and with consideration, which as the play continues is something that Higgins doesn't have. Higgins was treating her like she was nothing and he and her father look on her as commodity as Doolittle offers Higgins to pay for her. A change that Liza encounters is her hygiene, in order for Liza to be treated like a lady and receive her lessons; she must wash and dress properly. It soon becomes apparent that Liza is apprehensive about having a bath, one thing Liza rarely does. You expect me to get into that and wet myself all over! Not me I should catch my death†. This evidence clearly shows Liza's working class stigma – a disgrace to others around her after finding out she's never had a proper wash before. Liza's appearance also causes a controversy in the way she wears ‘rags' all the time, as appearance is an important factor when a change of identity occurs. This is a very positive change in Liza because now she has changed to be a hygienic person and looks like a lady. Throughout, the play when Liza is growing and learning every day, she gets respected mo re from other people. (Very courteous) won't you sit down? † This suggests the great respect Pickering pays Liza from the beginning. As a result of Liza's improved treatment from others, it make her self esteem increase, she gets more confident. The audience will notice Pickering acting like a true gentleman. Liza needs respect during her change in identity, so this is a positive change. After a period of time, Higgins decides to test Liza to see if she has learnt anything of what he has taught her. He takes Liza to his mother's at-home day. However, after a while Liza suddenly starts to relapse back into her old gutter speech and mind. They done the old woman in† â€Å"Gin was mother's milk to her. † This evidence suggests that Liza hasn't actually changed at all. The language she used reminds us of her old cockney flower girl image and that she still reflects on her now. There is still more work that Liza needs to do in order to be a lady, this reflects badly on her after her hard work to achieve where she was. Throughout the play, it has been seen that the way Liza is treated by Higgins is rather unpleasant, he puts her under a lot of pressure. He treats her with disrespect and with a certain dislike. Put her in the dustbin† this evidence shows how Higgins doesn't have any respect for the girl, this treatment continues throughout the play. The language used would create the effect that he doesn't like her cares what happens to Liza, it looks like they have a bad relationship, but he's teaching her to stand up to him which could be the greatest of all her identity changes, so this is a positive change to her because he is forcing her to stand up to him but it could also be a unhappy encounter because of the lack of respect at the time. Liza only originally planned to have the lessons to make her speech better, so she could achieve her dreams of becoming a flower-seller in a shop; however more fundamental changes have taken place. â€Å"she must be a princess at least† this evidence shows that she has achieve her original goals, but she has also gained some which include confidence from her new voice and appearance; her appearance has changed quite a lot, her posture changes, her manners and respect change and also her hygiene along the way. So this is a very positive change however, Liza may feel as if she has become two separated from her original plans. After Liza's hard work and determination she feels she cannot go back to the gutter. â€Å"I have forgotten my own language, and I can speak nothing but yours† this evidence suggests how she has lost her old life behind and doesn't want to be part of her old life again. Liza has grown as an independent lady and doesn't want her past to reflect her new life- but this doesn't fit into her new life because she has become so far away, she doesn't know who she really is anymore. This creates an effect on the audience because she is showing she has changed and is not the same person, she used to be. Liza has shown an external change rather than on the inside because she still reverts back to her gutter speech at certain times. Overall, Liza has changed. She has changed in many different ways which include her new identity which has come along with her improved hygiene, self-esteem/confidence, etiquette, views, goals/ambitions and her relationships such as one which formed with Freddy. Liza has found her self-importance and independence which she can now leave Higgins, without his need all the time, as she leaves with Freddy, which doesn't entirely make her happy. Liza would have liked to stay with Higgins but he didn't want her. She can't return to her previous life because Higgins has left her unfit for it, example is Liza's father Doolittle, who hates being rich. If anything Liza's transformation has taken away her identity because she no longer knows who she is; she isn't Doolittle's daughter anymore, no longer a street flower seller and no longer Higgins experiment. She doesn't know what her future holds and doesn't know what she is going to do.

Broad Political Theory Questions

Picking on materialism in Feuerbach, Marx claims sensuousness and actuality as the main objects of contemplation. This implicitly implies that humanity is interested on selfish issues which result to individual pleasure. Objectivity is also viewed in regards to whether humanity can remain objective. Marx‘s position is of critical importance though the stand on whether it has changed the world remains debatable. Locke’s philosophy has played a big part in the present day events. A look at the American constitution serves as a pointer to this view.Even the unites nations charter on human rights seems to have made reference to Lockes’ work especially on property rights. Locke seems too be an advocate of a free society in which individuals get to benefit equitably. Though this has not been achieved, the society has made remarkable improvements towards attaining certain universal goals like the millennium development goals. The pursuit of objectivity as implied by Marx is thus a unifying feature of the two philosophers. Plato only interpreted the world while attempting to achieve his goal of indicating or underscoring the importance of the republic.Whereas, the pursuit if justice is of noble consideration, it remains to be seen whether, it has been achieved or whether it will ever be achieved. The effect that the Plato philosophy has had remains persistent and unbroken. The academy the philosopher opened in Athens remains a pillar of the works undertaken by the scholar. The influences of Plato are known to have played a significant role in shaping various religious developments over a long period of time. If justice is to be attained, then objectivity is a prerequisite, a fact observed by Marx. 2. Machiavelli used hypocrisy to lay siege on the Christian faith.The philosopher was always against morality apart from the support he gave to those intending to stand on its way. Christianity is based on what its faith call good morals. As Machiavelli pu ts it, morality is not an issue if it cannot be justified. Machiavelli believed that it’s the ‘end that justifies the means’. Machiavelli saw every piece of religion as an act of propaganda. Machiavelli thought that the Christian faith would collapse before the world itself came to an end. Through social relativism, Machiavelli claimed the absence of the Christian god.In this construction, it was claimed that since God never existed to offer universal morals, then there were no morals top be followed. Socrates is believed to have carried a study on what constituted holiness. This in itself presented an act of impiety. While facing a case in Xenophon, Socrates twice objected to using a divine sign ass he prepared his defense. Socrates in another case chose to save Euthyphro instead of saving himself. In short, the prime focus rests on the accusation against Socrates as introducing new gods in the town. The two philosophers appeared to have veered off societal godl y underpinnings.The fact that Socrates is accused of bringing gods to town serves as a pointer to the fact that there are respected and un-respected gods. Machiavelli’s rebuttal of the Christian faith also presents the philosopher as a person that objects to well crafted societal religious leanings. It is thus held that these two philosophers played a role in jeopardizing well regarded traditions during their time. 3. Socrates uses the human tendency to corruption to propagate his preferred type of leadership. Socrates points to timocracy, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny as unacceptable forms of government.Socrates finally submitted that if ruling was to attain the best for society, then it should be left to philosopher leaders. In Socrates’ thinking, the philosophers were the most just and least susceptible to graft. The scholar augmented the position by claiming that the philosophers were in a position to rule in pursuit of the good for the city as opposed to for t he self. In a legitimate society, there is no room for societal divisions; all citizens should enjoy same level benefits. Thomas Hobbes’ views on the best possible form or structure of government were premised on a society led by a powerful leviathan.Based on social contract theories, the focus remains on the creation of a strong centre of administration. This type of government as proposed by Hobbes will guarantee the security and welfare of the people. Any abuses that may arise as a result of the leadership by the leviathan must be accepted. This is premised on the fact that the people by setting up the leviathan, agreed to cede their natural power. Socrates manages to drive to his peers that a government is a role played best by people disconnected with self interest.On the other hand, one gets the impression that Hobbes was driving home the need to have a powerful leadership that was not answerable to people. In the Socrates’ society individuals would have a say, w hile in the Hobbesian society, individuals would not hold a say on public issues. 4. Thomas Hobbes believed that human desires, selfish interests, pleasures and pains of a moment played a key role in decision making. These factors among others imply tat the human nature cannot be relied upon in passing judgment on a number of issues as distortions may occur.Hobbes focal point in relation to human nature remains premised on the concept of motivation. Hobbes saw man as a self centered and rationally calculating individual. It is thus highly unlikely that people will pursue common good. Individuals due to their selfish stances are thus destined top pursue personal goals even if this means putting the goals of the rest at stake. In Hobbes thinking, common good is thus an illusion. In reference to Plato, the pursuit of happiness had to lie with the observation of virtues and commonly accepted doctrines.Plato held the Sophistic view concerning knowledge which saw it as subjective and rela tive. This, in reference to Plato, undermined morality. It thus led Plato into believing that there was no infallible truth. Plato failed to see the point why a person who could not understand the self and rules of morality would be bound to look beyond the principle of self actualization. In short, if morality does not take care of individual interests, then individuals are not bound to observe its dictates. Plato saw man’s nature as rational and expected society to be organized in tandem with requirements of civility on rational principles.As a rational being, a human being knows or is in a position to evaluate every case scenario and pursues what best serves the interests desired by the individual in question. 5. On the basis of Aristotle, happiness is not primarily premised upon an exercise of virtue but rather on the administering of an ideal state. In a nut shell, the interests of all are closely knit together such that the interests of all resemble the interests of a s ingle individual in the republic. In precise terms, all individual acts are for the common good. This altruistic stance remains questionable as it is difficult in practice top find such states.Niccolo Machiavelli is famous for the advice given to the monarch with a view to power monopolization. Machiavelli advocated for policies that would discourage mass activism in political affairs. Machiavelli believed the citizenry was well exercising its energies in private practice in the process leaving out political and state activities. In his book, the Prince, Machiavelli urged the monarch to use violence and force to achieve the government goals. Machiavelli held the view that political aims could not be led by a single set of religious or moral ideas.From the above two positions, it emerges that there are interests to be protected by any state or society. The societal or state claims are wide varied as the ruled and the rulers may conflict on interests. Even if there were no conflicts, still issues regarding approach would arise. This puts the leaders, the few, against the ruled, the many. On this basis, Machiavelli sought to have the ruler have enormous responsibility in making decisions as the many could spoil the aspirations of a republic. However, Aristotle envisaged a scenario; whereby the interests are melted down to reflect a single position, a position difficult to reach.Hence this implied that the leaders had to take a position that they thought would serve societal interests. 6. Aristotle viewed natural justice as a special species of political justice. Inn this view, Aristotle believed that a society had to enlist distributive and corrective measures to ensure societal cohesion. Aristotle claimed further, that the best regime may not after all the one that observes the rule of law in its operations. On the basis of Aristotle every civilized society had a set of rules and regulations it used to govern behaviour.In Aristotle’s views, civilized soci ety emerged as a result of the emerging need to develop laws to regulate certain aspects of life within different societies. Thomas Hobbes uses the term leviathan to capture the collective will of people. These people come together to form a government that retains the sovereign authority. To Thomas Hobbes, collective will is the major force behind the formation of a civilized society. The people realized that they had collective desire, to achieve the different desires; they saw it worthy to establish an authority to take care of their needs.The biggest need being the provision of security so that each individual gets to go about their business without undue disturbance. The differences appear minute in this case as Aristotle’s view of a civilized society was based on the need for cohesiveness in society. On the other hand, the need for civility in reference to Thomas Hobbes rested on the drive to protect collective will. The act of protecting collective will is almost in li ne with regulating societal aspects so as to exact compliance. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that the two mean the same thing as only similarities exist.7. Aristotle believed that family existed just for the sake of political life. Further to this, Aristotle supposedly viewed politics as practiced for friendship purposes. Contrary to this position, Aristotle discussed family relations as types of friendships which are used as designs of political rule. He thus obscures the ordering of the relationships that he advocates in politics. The practice of politics must observe friendly relations just as a family does. In the terms of Aristotle, politics is thus useful in strengthening family ties.The family integrates people into a family and thus aids the formation or the commencement of political life. John Locke’s 2nd treatise of government aimed to show that there was a legitimate foundation between people and power. This was captured by the social contract th eory. Locke believed that a political society is not a form of family. In this regard, Locke was trying to discredit the patriarchal kingship. Locke went further to claim that a magistrate’s position on a case could not be compared o a father’s on a child’s case. Locke saw two distinct societies in this scenario.Locke further claimed that the creation of the two societies was different and meant to achieve different goals. In Locke’s observation, the political society’s end is to possess property unlike a familial one that aims at raising children. The major separation point between the two scholars is premised on the aims of the two societies and how they are formed. Whereas Aristotle assumed that the two societies pursue one aim, Locke clearly shows that the aims are distinct in the two societies. The reasons for formation are equally found to be different as opposed to the views posited by Aristotle. 8.Locke’s position on money is viewed in relation to the right to ownership of property. In Locke’s opinion, each individual had the right to acquire property through hard work. However, Locke only saw it necessary that an individual amasses what they only need and ensure that in that pursuit, their labor does not become destructive. In precise terms, what Locke stood for was acquisitions of needs. He was opposed to excessive accumulation of wealth which defines the current society. Locke appeared to assume that all things were naturally available to everybody and thus objected to the systems of accumulation.An accumulation beyond what one could use at the time amounted to acquiring an unfair share. Aristotle saw the necessity of money in human life. However, he made a number of proposals regarding currency. Aristotle saw money as a common measure of al things available for consumption. In a nut shell, Aristotle saw money as the surest way of equalizing all consumables. In Aristotle’s terms, money was nece ssary to ensure a just and fair exchange system. The philosopher thus argued that money came up in a bid to ease the problem of exchange.In Aristotle’s terms good money had to be durable, portable, divisible, and intrinsically valuable. On the basis of the above presentation, it is crystal clear that Locke saw money as a potential for unfair practices. It could only be fair if each individual would acquire a rightful amount so that everybody’s interests are taken care of. In reference to Aristotle, money was good only if it could be used for constructive purposes. Aristotle did not envisage money to be used in a commercialized manner. This is because of what Aristotle perceived as the nature’s limited nature.