The Killing of Osama Bin Laden by United States Forces Dissertation

The Killing of Osama Bin Laden by United States Forces - Dissertation Example Only the courts have the right to sentence a criminal or the erring to death or imprisonment. On 2 May 2011 Osama Bin Laden was killed. President Barack Obama’s 2 May 2011 account of the circumstance of the killing is this: â€Å"†¦We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda --- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies†¦.I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network†¦.Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.† British Broadcasting Company’s documentation of President Barack Obama’s 2 May 2011 statement on Osama bin Laden’s death corroborated the version posted in the official webpage of the White House. The British Broadcasting Company’s documentation of Obama’s 2 May statement reflected that President Barack Obama said that Osama bin Laden was killed AFTER and NOT DURING A FIREFIGHT. The 2 May 2011 press briefing provided by the US President Office of the Press Secretary via conference call described the Obama killing in this manner: â€Å"Bin Laden was a sworn enemy of the United State

The Lottery Essay Example for Free

The Lottery Essay The Lottery The specific details Jackson describes in the beginning of â€Å"The Lottery† set us up for the shocking conclusion. In the first paragraph, Jackson provides specific details about the day on which the lottery takes place. She tells us the date (June 27), time (about 10 A.M.), and temperature (warm). She describes the scene exactly: there are flowers and green grass, and the town square, where everyone gathers, is between the bank and post office. She provides specifics about the town, including how many people live there and how long the lottery takes, as well as about neighboring towns, which have more people and must start the lottery earlier. In the paragraphs that follow this introduction, Jackson gives us characters’ full names—Bobby Martin, Harry Jones, and Dickie Delacroix, among others—and even tells us how to pronounce â€Å"Delacroix.† Far from being superfluous or irrelevant, these initial specific details ground the story in reality. Because she sets the story firmly in a specific place and time, Jackson seems to suggest that the story will be a chronicle of sorts, describing the tradition of the lottery. The specifics continue throughout the story, from the numerous rules Mr. Summers follows to the names of the people who are called up to the box. In a way, there is safety in these details—the world Jackson creates seems much like the one we know. And then the stoning begins, turning reality on its head. Because Jackson is so meticulous in grounding us in realistic, specific details, they sharpen the violence and make the ending so incredibly surprising. Themes The Danger of Blindly Following Tradition The village lottery culminates in a violent murder each year, a bizarre ritual that suggests how dangerous tradition can be when people follow it blindly. Before we know what kind of lottery they’re conducting, the villagers and their preparations seem harmless, even quaint: they’ve appointed a rather pathetic man to lead the lottery, and children run about gathering stones in the town square. Everyone is seems preoccupied with a funny-looking black box, and the lottery consists of little more than handmade slips of paper. Tradition is endemic to small towns, a way to link  families and generations. Jackson, however, pokes holes in the reverence that people have for tradition. She writes that the villagers don’t really know much about the lottery’s origin but try to preserve the tradition nevertheless. The villagers’ blind acceptance of the lottery has allowed ritual murder to become part of their town fabric. As they have demonstrated, they feel powerless to change—or even try to change—anything, although there is no one forcing them to keep things the same. Old Man Warner is so faithful to the tradition that he fears the villagers will return to primitive times if they stop holding the lottery. These ordinary people, who have just come from work or from their homes and will soon return home for lunch, easily kill someone when they are told to. And they don’t have a reason for doing it other than the fact that they’ve always held a lottery to kill someone. If the villagers stopped to question it, they would be forced to ask themselves why they are committing a murder—but no one stops to question. For them, the fact that this is tradition is reason enough and gives them all the justification they need. The Randomness of Persecution Villagers persecute individuals at random, and the victim is guilty of no transgression other than having drawn the wrong slip of paper from a box. The elaborate ritual of the lottery is designed so that all villagers have the same chance of becoming the victim—even children are at risk. Each year, someone new is chosen and killed, and no family is safe. What makes â€Å"The Lottery† so chilling is the swiftness with which the villagers turn against the victim. The instant that Tessie Hutchinson chooses the marked slip of paper, she loses her identity as a popular housewife. Her friends and family participate in the killing with as much enthusiasm as everyone else. Tessie essentially becomes invisible to them in the fervor of persecution. Although she has done nothing â€Å"wrong,† her innocence doesn’t matter. She has drawn the marked paper—she has herself become marked—and according to the logic of the lottery, she therefore must die. Tessie’s death is an extreme example of how societies can persecute innocent people for absurd reasons. Present-day parallels are easy to draw, because all prejudices, whether they are based on race, sex, appearance, religion, economic class, geographical region, family background, or sexual orientation, are essentially random. Those who  are persecuted become â€Å"marked† because of a trait or characteristic that is out of their control—for example, they are the â€Å"wrong† sex or from the â€Å"wrong† part of the country. Just as the villagers in â€Å"The Lottery† blindly follow tradition and kill Tessie because that is what they are expected to do, people in real life often persecute others without questioning why. As Jackson suggests, any such persecution is essentially random, which is why Tessie’s bizarre death is so universal. Motifs Family Family bonds are a significant part of the lottery, but the emphasis on family only heightens the killing’s cruelty because family members so easily turn against one another. Family ties form the lottery’s basic structure and execution. In the town square, families stand together in groups, and every family member must be present. Elaborate lists of heads of families, heads of households within those families, and household members are created, and these lists determine which member draws from the box. Family relationships are essential to how the actions of the lottery are carried out, but these relationships mean nothing the moment it’s time to stone the unlucky victim. As soon as it’s clear that Tessie has drawn the marked paper, for example, her husband and children turn on her just as the other villagers do. Although family relationships determine almost everything about the lottery, they do not guarantee loyalty or love once the lottery is over. Rule s The lottery is rife with rules that are arbitrarily followed or disregarded. The intricate rules the villagers follow suggest that the lottery is an efficient, logical ritual and that there is an important purpose behind it, whereas the rules that have lapsed, however, reveal the essential randomness of the lottery’s dark conclusion. Mr. Summers follows an elaborate system of rules for creating the slips of paper and making up the lists of families. When the lottery begins, he lays out a series of specific rules for the villagers, including who should draw slips of paper from the black box and when to open those papers. When someone is unable to draw, the lottery rules determine who should be next in line. At the same time, there are ghosts of rules that have been long forgotten or willfully abandoned altogether, such as those for salutes and songs that accompany Mr. Summer’s induction as the  chairman of the lottery. The fact that some rules have remained while others have disappeared underscores the disturbing randomness of the murder at the end of the lottery. Symbols The Black Box The shabby black box represents both the tradition of the lottery and the illogic of the villagers’ loyalty to it. The black box is nearly falling apart, hardly even black anymore after years of use and storage, but the villagers are unwilling to replace it. They base their attachment on nothing more than a story that claims that this black box was made from pieces of another, older black box. The lottery is filled with similar relics from the past that have supposedly been passed down from earlier days, such as the creation of family lists and use of stones. These are part of the tradition, from which no one wants to deviate—the lottery must take place in just this way because this is how it’s always been done. However, other lottery traditions have been changed or forgotten. The villagers use slips of paper instead of wood chips, for example. There is no reason why the villagers should be loyal to the black box yet disloyal to other relics and traditions, just as there is no logical reason why the villagers should continue holding the lottery at all. The Lottery The lottery represents any action, behavior, or idea that is passed down from one generation to the next that’s accepted and followed unquestioningly, no matter how illogical, bizarre, or cruel. The lottery has been taking place in the village for as long as anyone can remember. It is a tradition, an annual ritual that no one has thought to question. It is so much a part of the town’s culture, in fact, that it is even accompanied by an old adage: â€Å"Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.† The villagers are fully loyal to it, or, at least, they tell themselves that they are, despite the fact that many parts of the lottery have changed or faded away over the years. Nevertheless, the lottery continues, simply because there has always been a lottery. The result of this tradition is that everyone becomes party to murder on an annual basis. The lottery is an extreme example of what can happen when traditions are not questioned or addressed critically by new generation s. Foreshadowing and Suspense Many of the seemingly innocuous details throughout â€Å"The Lottery† foreshadow the violent conclusion. In the second paragraph, children put stones in their pockets and make piles of stones in the town square, which seems like innocent play until the stones’ true purpose becomes clear at the end of the story. Tessie’s late arrival at the lottery instantly sets her apart from the crowd, and the observation Mr. Summers makes—â€Å"Thought we were going to have to get on without you†Ã¢â‚¬â€is eerily prescient about Tessie’s fate. When Mr. Summers asks whether the Watson boy will draw for him and his mother, no reason is given for why Mr. Watson wouldn’t draw as all the other husbands and fathers do, which suggests that Mr. Watson may have been last year’s victim. Jackson builds suspense in â€Å"The Lottery† by relentlessly withholding explanation and does not reveal the true nature of the lottery until the first stone hi ts Tessie’s head. We learn a lot about the lottery, including the elements of the tradition that have survived or been lost. We learn how important the lottery is to the villagers, particularly Old Man Warner. We go through the entire ritual, hearing names and watching the men approach the box to select their papers. But Jackson never tells us what the lottery is about, or mentions any kind of prize or purpose. She begins to reveal that something is awry when the lottery begins and the crowd grows nervous, and she intensifies the feeling when Tessie hysterically protests Bill’s â€Å"winning† selection. And she gives a slight clue when she says that the villagers â€Å"still remembered to use stones.† But not until the moment when a rock actually hits Tessie does Jackson show her hand completely. By withholding information until the last possible second, she builds the story’s suspense and creates a shocking, powerful conclusion. Quotations 1. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. This quotation, from the fifth paragraph of the story, reveals how firmly entrenched the villagers are in the lottery’s tradition and how threatening they find the idea of change. The villagers have no good reason for wanting to keep the black box aside from a vague story about the box’s origins, and the box itself is falling apart. Beyond shabby, it barely resembles a box now, but the villagers, who seem to take such pride in the  ritual of the lottery, do not seem to care about the box’s appearance. They just want the box to stay the same. Their strident belief that the box must not change suggests that they fear change itself, as though one change might lead to other changes. Already, some towns have stopped holding lotteries, but these villagers do not seem to be headed in that direction. Instead, the y hold firm to the parts of the tradition that remain, afraid to alter even this seemingly insignificant part of it for fear of starting down a slippery slope. 2. Although Mr. Summers and everyone else in the village knew the answer perfectly well, it was the business of the official of the lottery to ask such questions formally. This quotation appears about halfway through the story, just before the drawing of names begins. Mr. Summers has asked Mrs. Dunbar whether her son, Horace, will be drawing for the family in Mr. Dunbar’s absence, even though everyone knows Horace is still too young. There is no purpose to the question, other than that the question is part of the tradition, and so Mr. Summers adheres to the rule despite the fact that it seems absurd. Even though other parts of the ritual have changed or been discarded over the years, this rule holds firm for absolutely no logical reason. Large things, such as songs and salutes, have slipped away, and wood chips have been replaced with slips of paper. Yet this silly, pointless questioning continues. The villagers seem strident in their adherence to the tradition. Old Man Warner, in particular, is adamant that tradition must be upheld and the lottery must continue. But the reality is that there is no consistency among what rules are followed and which are discarded. This lack of logic makes the villagers’ blind observance of the ritual even more problematic because the tradition they claim to be upholding is actually flimsy and haphazard. 3. Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. This quotation, which appears near the end of the story, distills the lottery down to its essence: murder. The villagers may talk of tradition, ritual, and history, but the truth—as this quotation makes clear—is that the traditional parts of it have long been discarded. The original ritual and box may indeed have borne along a tradition, violent and bizarre as it may be, but now, without the original trappings, songs, and procedures, all that remains is the violence. The  haphazard ritual, the bits and pieces that have been slapped together into some semblance of the original, have led to this essential moment of killing. The villagers are all too eager to embrace what remains, eagerly picking up the stones and carrying on the â€Å"tradition† for another year. Character Analysis Tessie Hutchinson When Tessie Hutchinson arrives late to the lottery, admitting that she forgot what day it was, she immediately stands out from the other villagers as someone different and perhaps even threatening. Whereas the other women arrive at the square calmly, chatting with one another and then standing placidly by their husbands, Tessie arrives flustered and out of breath. The crowd must part for her to reach her family, and she and her husband endure good-natured teasing as she makes her way to them. On a day when the villagers’ single focus is the lottery, this breach of propriety seems inappropriate, even unforgivable; everyone comes to the lottery, and everyone comes on time. The only person absent is a man whose leg is broken. Although Tessie quickly settles into the crowd and joins the lottery like everyone else, Jackson has set her apart as a kind of free spirit who was able to forget about the lottery entirely as she performed her chores. Perhaps because she is a free spirit, Tessie is the only villager to protest against the lottery. When the Hutchinson family draws the marked paper, she exclaims, â€Å"It wasn’t fair!† This refrain continues as she is selected and subsequently stoned to death, but instead of listening to her, the villagers ignore her. Even Bill tells her to be quiet. We don’t know whether Tessie would have protested the fairness of the lottery if her family had not been selected, but this is a moot point. Whatever her motivation is for speaking out, she is effectively silenced. Old Man Warner Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, has participated in seventy-seven lotteries and is a staunch advocate for keeping things exactly the way they are. He dismisses the towns and young people who have stopped having lotteries as â€Å"crazy fools,† and he is threatened by the idea of change. He believes, illogically, that the people who want to stop holding lotteries  will soon want to live in caves, as though only the lottery keeps society stable. He also holds fast to what seems to be an old wives’ tale—â€Å"Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon†Ã¢â‚¬â€and fears that if the lottery stops, the villagers will be forced to eat â€Å"chickweed and acorns.† Again, this idea suggests that stopping the lottery will lead to a return to a much earlier era, when people hunted and gathered for their food. These illogical, irrational fears reveal that Old Man Warner harbors a strong belief in superstition. He easily accepts the way things are because thi s is how they’ve always been, and he believes any change to the status quo will lead to disaster. This way of thinking shows how dangerous it is to follow tradition blindly, never questioning beliefs that are passed down from one generation to the next. Mr. Summers Despite his breezy, light-hearted name, Mr. Summers wields a frightening amount of power in the village, power that seems to have been assigned to him arbitrarily. A married, childless business owner, Mr. Summers is â€Å"jovial† and pitied by the townspeople for having a nagging wife. No one seems to question his leadership of the lottery, and it seems to have never been challenged. Perhaps he took on the role himself, or perhaps someone offered it to him. Whatever the case, he now has complete control. Mr. Summers not only draws the names on the day of the lottery, but he also makes up the slips of paper that go into the black box. It’s up to him to make the black circle that ultimately condemns someone to death. Jackson never explains why the villagers put such pure faith in Mr. Summers, and the assumption that he will continue to conduct the lottery is just one more inexplicable but universally accepted part of the ritual.

Analyse And Discuss Strategic Issues In Unilever Food Marketing Essay

Analyse And Discuss Strategic Issues In Unilever Food Marketing Essay Introduction Because the market in which the world of business operates is highly dynamic, it is essential for a company performing in this industry to understand its background and structure in order to develop a business strategy. This essay focuses on strategic issues in one of the foods business giants, Unilever Food Division and based on the Porters five forces of competition framework, the aim will be to analyse the strategic positioning of Unilever food division. Porters Five Forces of Competition Framework In order to cope with the competition, it is necessary to understand the rivals and the industry in which the company performs. In addition to the knowledge about competitors, the knowledge about suppliers, customers, potential entrants and substitute products has a major role in developing strategic issues in a company. (Porter, 2006, 2008) In order to analyze and comprehend Unilever Food Divisions strategy, the five forces of competition framework is chosen since it recognizes the main influences in industry. (Porter, 2008, p.80) Rivalry among existing competitors Unilever Food Division has numerous competitors -transnational companies such as Nestlà ©, Kraft Foods or Mars Food which are generally equal in size. All these companies offer a wide range of products to a customer, which leads to an intensive rivalry. The Unilever products are divided into strategic groups: edible fats, ice-cream, beverages, meals and meal components. (Maljers, 1992, p.47) These are represented by brands such as Flora, The Heartbrand, Lipton, Bertolli and Knorr, respectively. (Unilever, 2010) Although Unilever Food Division owns such premium brands, the products of its competitors are in most cases nearly identical, e.g. Maggi, a  Nestlà © solutions brand (Nestlà ©, 2010) or Mars Foods Uncle Bens brand providing ready meals (Mars, 2009). Moreover, for the food products are perishable, there is a relatively urgent need to sell them before their value is lost. Rivalry among existing competitors takes many familiar forms, including price discounting, new product introductions, advertising campaigns, and service improvements. (Porter, 2006, 2008) It can be thus concluded that the competition from established rivals does play a large role and is worth considering while developing a strategy. The bargaining power of buyers The buyers play a vital role in the industry by forcing prices down, demanding better quality or more service (thereby driving up costs), and generally playing industry participants off against one another. (Porter, 2006, 2008) With regards to all the Unilevers competitors, a customer has a wide range of products to choose from. It is to be acknowledged that although one customer might stay loyal to one particular product or brand, the buyers costs of switching from one product to another is not high. This is, however, relative since for Unilever supplies with food retailers such as Tescos or Carrefour, such distributors risk losing their customers (thus decrease in profits) by not providing Unilever food products. In many cases, the importance of the buyers price sensitivity needs to be emphasized. Given that a consumer is offered two similar products of the same quality but different prices, there is a higher possibility that the cheaper product will be chosen. Even though one might stay loyal to the brand, the other can incline to try a rival product. The power of buyers is therefore of high importance. The bargaining power of suppliers Suppliers can exert bargaining power on participants in an industry by raising prices or reducing the quality of purchased goods and services. (Porter, 2006, 2008) Even though every company is dependent on its suppliers, it can be stated that in terms of food production there is a wide range of raw materials providers that Unilever can choose from. In this case, Unilever becomes the buyer. Hence, it is suggested that Unilever has a wide range of substitutes at disposal and a strong bargaining power. Moreover, what Unilever might need in order to perform is office and technical equipment, means of transportation and spaces for production. As previously discussed, Unilever in the position of a large customer can choose and negotiate prices. The emphasis should be instead put on labour suppliers since the workforces in warehouses play a vital role in production processes. Having understanding of the scope of the employment can avoid many complications. Other workforces also play a vital role. In order to develop new tasteful and healthy options of solutions, cooks and specialists are needed. Unilever, in term of its Foodsolutions division trains its people, thus ensuring development of its employees knowledge. (Unilever Foodsolutions, 2010) It is suggested that the bargaining power of the suppliers shapes the strategy only to some extent, given that the price of suppliers drives the price of products as well. However, for Unilever has many substitutes for use, in this case the prices are not driven significantly. Threat of substitutes As stated, a substitute performs the same or similar function as an industry product by a different means.  [1]  (Porter, 2006, 2008) In case of Unilever Foods, one of the possible substitutes would be a homemade product. The customers might use alternates due to various reasons; due to the belief that the costs of e.g. preparing a homemade pasta sauce will be lower than actually buying a Bertolli pasta sauce. (Unilever, 2010) Other buyers might switch to this alternative in order to live healthier. Nevertheless, homemade products do not signify a huge competition to the food giant Unilever. Recently, there is an increasing trend of eating out. Using services can also be considered to be a substitute to purchasing food. The foodservice division of Unilever Unilever Foodsolutions, therefore co-operates with restaurants and caterers, by providing them with its brands and products. In doing so, Unilever benefits from peoples using services. It can be thus concluded that the threat of substitutes to Unilever Foods is not high. Threat of Entry New entrants to an industry bring new capacity and a desire to gain market share that puts pressure on prices, costs, and the rate of investment necessary to compete. (Porter, 2006, 2008) The threat of entry in food industry is, however, low. As already mentioned, Unilever is one of the leading companies in food business. It already competes with other food giants (Nestlà ©, Kraft Foods or Mars Foods). Due to positions of the mentioned companies, it would be difficult for new companies to enter the market. Relatively high barriers to entry will have to be overcome in order to success. Besides restrictive government policies and the need of large financial resources or diversification of products, there will be also lack of tradition, experience and advantages that incumbents already possess. The competition from entrants is thus relatively insignificant. Conclusion Whilst not underestimating the threat of new entrants, the power of suppliers and the threat of substitute products or services, it can be concluded though that mainly the power of buyers and the rivalry among existing competitors shape the strategy of Unilever Food Division.

Green permits :: essays research papers

Green Permits Transferable discharge permits create an economic incentive to reduce pollution and exhibit many other advantages over the current command and control pollution regulation system. However, ‘green permits’ on a large scale would be difficult to allocate fairly, and the efficient economic outcome may not be the socially desirable outcome. Introduction to Green Permits 1. Green Permits as an incentive to reduce pollution: cost to pollute- tie up money induces costs/benefits of pollution to owner of permits a. polluter pays incentives for research and development 2. Green Permit benefits over Command and Control under CAC delay is profitable new technology must develop to ever-changing EPA standards fixed cost of pollution -free if under guidelines no incentive to reduce each pollution written into law b. who determines value of each pollutant c. special interest groups ruling majority 1. Problems with Green Permits initial allocation c. auction off - generate revenue but create barriers d. give away - harm firms already environmentally friendly trading rules leading to socially undesirable outcome a. anybody trade - geographic concentration problem b. mixing problem - receptor sites and ambient standards 4. Green Permits as a market failure can’t have failed without trying on large scale example - rapid phaseout of lead gasoline References: Develin, Rose, Grafton, Quentin. Marketable emission permits:efficiency, profitability and substitutability. Canadian Journal of Economics, Ap(96). Vol.29,260-264 Rothschild, Micheal. (1992) Green Markets. Upside. Bionomics Institute Field, Barry, Olewiler, Nancy. Environmental Economics (First Canadian Edition). Toronto: McGraw Hill. 1994 Cost-effectiveness has emerged as a major consideration in the design of environmental policies. Cost-effectiveness means that with prudent policy design, the same level of environmental improvement can be achieved at a lower cost, which implies real cost savings for the affected polluters. Alternatively, a higher level of environmental quality can be achieved at the same cost, which implies a real gain for the population affected by pollution. Cost-effectiveness thus generates win-win opportunities between polluters and the community at large and has emerged as a concept that can bring the battling parties in the political controversy about pollution control policies together to one table. While charges fix the cost of pollution control but leave the total level of emissions to be determined by the market, a system of tradable permits fixes the total amount of emissions from all sources but leaves the price of pollution and the allocation of the total emissions to individual sources to the market.

National Stock Exchange

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED DEPARTMENT : FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS Download Ref. No. : NSE/FA/21156 Date : June 29, 2012 Circular Ref. No. : 3/2012 To the trading members in the F&O and CD segments Sub : Levy of charges for High Order to Trade Ratio In continuation of Exchange Circular. No:NSE/CMTR/20662 dated April 30, 2012 on additional SEBI guidelines governing decision Support Tools / Algorithm for trading through Non-Neat front end and as directed by SEBI, Trading Members are hereby informed that the following charges will be levied for high algo order to trade ratio with effect from July 02, 2012.The said charges will be computed at member level on a daily basis and will be collected on a monthly basis, after reckoning all algo orders and trades of the member: Daily algo Order to Trade Ratio Less than 50 50 to less than 250 (on incremental basis) 250 to less than 500 (on incremental basis) 500 or more than 500 (on incremental basis) * Charges (per algo orders) Nil 1 pai se 5 paise 5 paise * In case the ratio is 500 or more than 500 during a trading day, the concerned member shall not be permitted to place any orders for the first 15 minutes on the next trading day(in the continuous trading session) as a cooling off action.However, the trading member shall be permitted to enter transactions in risk reducing mode in the respective segments during such a cooling off period. Members may note that for the purpose of calculation of Daily Order-to-Trade ratio all algo orders, i. e. , order entry, order modifications and order cancellations will be considered. Regd. Office : Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Page 1 of 2 It may further be noted that, a) if the orders entered and/ or modified are within 1% of the last traded price (LTP) of the respective security/ contract ((Absolute (Limit price – LTP)/LTP)

Stratification Theory Essays

Stratification Theory Essays Stratification Theory Paper Stratification Theory Paper Max Weber Socia Stratification So, while the above quotation may be a rather hackneyed phrase (to me and countless long-suffering sociology examiners, if not to you, since youre probably encountering It for the first time), it does sensitive us to a couple of major ideas (my advice here is to remember these ideas and forget about trying to sneak the quotation into your exam). That Weber addressed many of the same concerns addressed by Marx. That Weber came to substantially different conclusions to those interpreted by Marx. While this should come as no great surprise if youve been studying sociology for some time (and I would suggest that its probably a good idea to have gained some experience In handling sociological ideas and concepts before you attempt to tackle he concept of social stratification In any depth) sociologists frequently Interpret evidence In radically different ways It should alert you to the fact that there are a number of clear differences between the ideas, arguments and conclusions put forward by Weber and Marx in relation to social stratification. The task of these Notes, therefore, is to help you understand and evaluate both Weepers ideas and their relationship to Marxist ideas. Before we continue any further however, It might be useful to note that, for theoretical purposes, Ive classified Weber as a Conflict Theorist, for three good seasons: A. Firstly, because that is my interpretation of his general sociology. B. Secondly, because he talks In terms of the way In which social structures condition unman Detonator. Deer recognizes ten way In wanly structural relations denotable at the level of social class, status and power affect human behavior and consciousness and his interpretation of this relationship makes him, I would suggest, rather different to Interactions sociologists. C. Although Weber puts more emphasis than most structuralism sociologists on the importance of human consciousness and subjectivity, he does not make this the coco of his research. On the contrary, like most Conflict theorists, Weber analyses the nature of human consciousness within a structural context he may have come to different conclusions to Marxist Conflict theorists, but he appears to have more in common with the latter (in terms of his central sociological concerns) than with Interactions perspectives. However, since the whole perspective question is such a significant one in relation to A-level sociology, this might be a good place to note a number of points raised by Mary Maynard (Sociological Theory) in relation to the whole idea of sociological respective A. How Social Stratification Is Defined. Unlike Marx, Weepers analysis of social stratification was not rooted in or linked to any attempt to formulate a general historical analysis of social development. While, in common with Marx, Weber argued that class stratification had a clear and important economic dimension, he believed that two other related dimensions of stratification, namely: a. Status and b. Party (or political power) needed to be included if a full analysis and understanding of the rich social variety of different forms of social stratification was to be obtained. Thus, as has been suggested above, in order to understand the relative significance of Weepers three dimensions of stratification: a. Class b. Status and c. Party we need initially to know how they are both defined and inter-related and, in order to do this we need to further understand that all three dimensions are, for Weber, rooted in the concept of power. If you are unsure about how Weber (and others) have defined and used the concept of power then it would be useful to work your way through the Notes on Concepts ere In ten Power Ana Politics section AT ten course Detour you go any Turner since the following assumes you have a basic understanding of Weepers use of the concept of power). Central to Weepers analysis of social stratification in all its forms was the idea that we need to understand two basic things: Firstly, how societies are organized in hierarchical systems of domination and subordination (in terms of both individual and collective hierarchies). Secondly, the significance of power in the determination of social relationships based upon domination and subordination. In this respect, there are two basic dimensions to the concept of power that we need to understand: a. The possession of power: According to Weber, the ability to possess power derives from the individuals ability to control various social resources. These resources can be anything and everything and might include things like: Land, Capital, Social respect, Physical strength, Intellectual knowledge, In basic terms, the definition off social resource is simply something that is both socially desirable and in some sense limited (that is, it can be possessed by some but not others). As I hope you will appreciate, this concept of social resource is both: 1 . Extremely flexible (almost anything can qualify as a social resource) and 2. Liable to vary in time (for example, at different points in the historical development of a society) and space (for example, between different societies / cultures). Activity Give examples of social resources that have varied in their significance in both time and space. For example: Time In our society in the asses, ownership of a television was a form of power since it conferred status upon owners of this social resource. Nowadays, because television ownership is not limited, no such status is given to ownership of this resource. Space In our collects, meal doctors are generally well-pal Ana nave Nell status This is not true of all societies (the old Soviet union being a good example). B. The exercising of power: The ability to exercise power takes a number of different forms, but all involve the idea that it means the ability to get your own way with others, regardless of their ability to resist you. In terms of understanding the relationship between power and social stratification, Weber theorized the various ways in which societies are organized in hierarchical systems of domination and subordination using the following major concepts: 1 . Class Power (Class): This was theorized by Weber on the basis of unequal access to material sources. For example, if I possess something that you want (or, better still from my point of view, need) then this makes me potentially more powerful than you. I am in a dominant position and you are in a subordinate position because I control access to a desired social resource. A classic illustration here is the relationship between an employer and employee. Explain this relationship on the basis of control of resources / power. 2. Social Power (Status): If you respect me or view me as your social superior, then I will potentially be able to exercise power over you (since you will respond positively to my instructions / commands). In this respect, social status is a social resource simply because I may have it while you may not 3. Political Power (Party): This form of power is related to the way in which the State is organized in modern social systems (involving the ability to make laws, for example). If you can influence this process of law creation then you will be in a potentially powerful position. Thus, by your ability to influence a decision-making process you possess power, even though you may not directly exercise that power personally. Political parties are the organizational means to possess power through the mechanism of the State and they include not Just formally organized parties, but any group that is organized to influence the way in which power is exercised legitimately through the machinery of the State. For example: Status groups (political organizations that exist to protect the social status of a particular group Walton society Tort example: I en Brattles Meal Escalation) Interest groups (political organizations that exist to advance the interests of a particular section of society by attempting to influence the way decisions are taken by government). Give some examples of: a. Status groups: b. Interest groups: What this means, therefore, is that if you are in a position to influence a decision- making process then you are in a position of power. By your ability to influence this process you possess power, even though you may not directly exercise power. Obvious examples here might be exercising power through your ability to influence: a. Political parties (for example, through donating money to them). B. The making of laws (for example, through ownership of the mass media, your influence with a party in government). In our political system, political parties are organized to possess power through the Achaeans of the State. As Ive suggested above, this involves not only formally organized political parties, but also any group that is organized to attempt to influence the way in which power is (legitimately) exercised through the agencies of the State (pressure groups, status groups, interest groups . One of the strengths of this approach to the understanding of social stratification is the fact that it identifies three separate but inter-dependent dimensions of stratification: namely class, status and power. Its important that you dont see these three dimensions of stratification as either / r categories (that is, an individual as either economically powerful (class) or socially powerful (status) or politically powerful (party)). In the real world each dimension tends to be very closely related to one another such that: People who are economically powerful tend also to have a relatively high standing in the community (status) and are able to use these two forms of power to influence the political process in some way (for example, attempting to influence the government into passing laws favorable to such people). Slung ten concept AT values, snow now we can apply tens concept to unreason TN allegations between class and status in our society. This separation between class, status and power was not unique to Weber, since if you think about it for a moment, we have seen that Marx was well aware of these three different forms of power. Like Weber, Marx viewed these dimensions of stratification as: a. Theoretically distinct and b. Empirically inter-dependent. What this means, in simple terms, is that we can define these dimensions separately for the sake of theoretical convenience / clarity, but it is impossible to separate them empirically in the real world of human social interaction. Where Marx tended to differ from Weber was in the basic emphasis he placed upon each of the three dimensions the economic dimension was, according to Marx, the most significant one, since possession of economic power invariably leads to the possession of status and political power. In this respect, we have already seen, in an earlier Study Pack, the way in which Marx related economic power to status and political power when he talked about the distinction between infrastructure and superstructure in society. To which of these areas, according to Marx, does each dimension of power belong? Weber was, of course, also aware of the problems involved in the personalization of these three concepts, since it is evident that: High class, High status and High power are most commonly found together in our society (it is unusual, for example, to find someone who is immensely wealthy without their also enjoying high social status and political power). However, where Weber differed from Marx was in the relative emphasis that he placed upon the significance of each dimension of stratification. As we have seen, class forms of stratification (your relationship to a means of production) tended, for Marx, to be most significant. The focus of Mars analysis tended to be on the system as a whole, rather than the individual problems of placement within that system. Weber, on the other hand, was more concerned to analyses the way in which social systems were stratified at the level of individuals / social groups the way in which, for example, people doing much the same sort of work could have quite different levels AT status Ana / or power. In this respect, we can see here two things: a. The importance of theoretical perspective. Both Marx and Weber were looking at the same things, using very similar incepts. However, their analysis and conclusions tended to differ mainly because they were concerned to explain different things. B. Marx and Weber were in many ways complimentary to each other, sociologically, in the sense that they both tell us useful things about the nature of social stratification. Marx tells us something about the general nature of social stratification (a kind of macro picture). Weber tells us something about the specific nature of social stratification (a kind of micro picture). In this respect, this difference is reflected in terms of their overall theoretical respective, whereby Mars conflict approach can be contrasted with Weepers conflict perspective on the basis that the former emphasized the importance of social structure (the way in which individual behavior is conditioned by the general structure of social relationships) while the latter emphasized the importance of social action (the ability of individuals to influence the nature of their social relationships in sociologically significant ways). Since Weepers conception of social action is important, it might be opportune here to digress slightly by outlining some f the major elements in Weepers approach to the understanding of the social world Social Action Theory: A Hibernia Perspective. Max Weber is a difficult sociologist to pigeon-hole in perspective terms (for reasons that will become clear in a moment), since he doesnt fit neatly into the usual Structuralism / Interactions dichotomy so beloved of sociology textbooks. However, in terms of this dichotomy, Weber is closer to the Conflict Structuralism perspective since it is clear that in much of his sociological analysis he focuses upon the way in which the structure of peoples relationships influence (but not determine) peoples behavior. The confusion over his theoretical status largely stems from the fact that Weber concerned himself with the attempt to make sense of the rational basis of the choices of behavior made by individuals in their daily lives; that is, he attempted to analyses human behavior at an individual level within the context of a clear sense of structural constraint (the choices we make about how to behave socially are clearly contralto others). A Day ten structural relationship wanly we Don Tort Ana are Tort For Weber, therefore, society is created through social interaction (it is not something hat is naturally given) and such interaction involves the conscious behavior of thinking, reflective, individuals. People, in effect, make choices about their lives, their group memberships and so forth and these are neither pre-determined nor pre- destined. As we have seen, power was a very important concept for Weber and he used it to explain the way in which societies both change and remain relatively stable and orderly. Social change, for Weber, came about in many ways: a. Purposeful social action people thinking about the nature of society and acting purposefully to develop and change the way they live. . The unintended consequences of social actions for example, wars bring about social change in ways that may not have been intended by their participants . Economic conflicts that marry both purposeful social action and unintended outcomes. In this respect, we can see that, unlike Marx, Weber emphasized the way in which social change could come about in ways that did not simply involve class conflicts (as we see when we look at his analysis of the relationship between social change and the role of religion). In this sense, therefore, power struggles occur throughout society and, while economic power is a crucial variable in this st ruggle, it is not the only one. Powerful groups other than social classes may arise within a society from time to time and the power struggle between them may involve interests that are not specifically economic. In this respect, Hibernia sociology is sometimes seen as a pluralist perspective, in the sense that societies are invariably seen to involve a variety of different groups (a plurality), each possessing (or competing for) greater or lesser forms of power. As we have already seen, such groups may be of the class, status or party variety (or, more usually, a combination of each) The basis of each group is: Class the relationship each group has to the means of economic production, in addition to a variety of factors such as technical skills and educational qualifications that affect an individuals market situation independently of the ownership / non-ownership of property. B. Status a group that is related on the basis of a parity of esteem (a group of equals), ten Oasis Tort wanly Is a groups pattern AT consumption (or Testily). C. Party a group that is organized in some way for the taking / exercising of political power. Such groups may be class based, but they may also draw their membership from a variety of social classes. On the basis of the above, social stratification represented, for Weber, the way in which the distribution of power in any society becomes institutionalized that is, starts to assume a relatively stable pattern of social behavior that exists over a long period and the economic aspect (class) was considered to be neither more nor less important in terms of stratification than the status and party dimensions. To understand why this should be so we need to look briefly at the different sociological tauter of the concepts of class, status and party. . Economic class, for Weber, was considered to be an objective sociological / political category. That is, it was a statistical category to which people could be sociologically allocated on the basis of their market situation. While people could, of course, be conscious of belonging to a particular economic class, Weber argued that this was not assured; Just because, as sociologists, we can objectively allocate people to a particular category doesnt mean that: a. People accept that they belong to that category. For example, someone who can be classified as working class on the basis of their objective market position as a road sweeper may (subjectively) believe themselves to be middle class and this will have important social consequences for their social behavior. B. People placed into the same objective category necessarily think and act in similar ways. One major problem for Marxist is the fact that class is such a central theoretical concept in their analysis. Class is more than Just a statistical category; it is the expression of a whole set of norms, values, beliefs, interests and so forth. In this respect, to (over)simplify the situation, each class in capitalist society has its own set of class interests the proletariats interests involve taking-over the means of production and holding them in common, while the interests of the bourgeoisie are basically to prevent the proletariat doing Just that. Whereas the ruling class recognize their basic class interests, a problem arises when the proletariat do not seem to recognize their class interests when, in effect, they show no overwhelming desire to overthrow the bourgeoisie. For Marxist, the robber here is how to explain why something has not happened in the way that it should be happening / should have happened. In short, based upon the assumption that the proletariat should see it to be in their interests to throw off their exploitation Day ten Doorbells, Marxist nave to explain winy ten proletariat nave not Addenda predicted and to do this they have employed a variety of concepts (false consciousness, ideological indoctrination and so forth) to try to explain the shortfall between prediction and reality. According to Weber, on the other hand, we must avoid the trap of assuming that, cause people can be objectively assigned a particular class their failure to act in ways that further their objective class interests have to be explained in terms of such concepts as false consciousness or ideological distortions introduced through a ruling class control of various agencies of colonization (education, mass media, etc. ). People may appear to act in ways that are not in their interests for a variety of reasons and we can only understand these reasons by looking at the (subjective) dimensions of status and party. The concepts of status and party add a subjective dimension to social stratification, n terms of the fact that they allow Weber to theorize an element of conscious social organization that is related to but also separate from economic class. In this respect, we can see the basis for some of the theoretical confusion that tends to surround the pigeon-holing of Weber, in the sense that his form of conflict structuralism includes reference not simply to social structures but also to the subjective consciousness of individual social actors.