studying media Essay -- essays research papers

Much of what we know about the world, beyond our immediate experience, comes to us through the media. Media studies gives us the tools to respond thoughtfully and critically to media content, and recognise media productions as deliberate constructions rather than windows on reality. The ‘mediated’ society in which we live, is heavily shaped by the transfer of information. Many of our values, our ideas, and our knowledge of the world come from beyond our individual daily or immediate experience, usually via the media. They play a vital role in democracy, shaping citizens\' understanding of social and political issues and functioning as gatekeepers through which issues, and events must be passed. By studying the media, and understanding the implications of mass communication, we are able to develop an understanding of how things work, how people become informed, and misinformed, and how the myths and ideologies that govern all of our lives are created and sustained. The media are an important part of our lives for many reasons. Primarily, they help to keep us informed about current affairs, both in the world at large and on the home front. The media are a central part of our lives. Think about how much time we spend being ‘exposed’ to their product’s everyday and how many different ways it can be used. Everyday, we use the media for information and perhaps less willingly, we also accept the media as a source of persuasion, most notably through advertising. Another way in which media represents an important part of our lives is through the influence and power they hold in society. Although it is not always clear what influence is held or whether it is good or bad, the media are often blamed for many of the problems in today’s society, most commonly with reference to the portrayal of violence. There are a disturbingly large number of cases in which the perpetrator of a violent crime has cited a relationship to the media, and in some cases has admitted to imitating a character or scene from a film. Though the media are a prevalent part of our lives, we need to recognise that there are other influences that are as strong, or even stronger. Family, education, religion, and peer groups all help to shape our ideas, values, beliefs and behavior. Whilst it is generally accepted that Hollywood films may desensitise children to the consequences of violence, we shou... ...dia and the way it reacts is especially important in society today. Everyday, interpretations of texts are made available to us in the form of mass media such as newspapers and television and it is in our interpretation of these media texts where the basis of public opinion is formed. In summary, the study of media is a crucial tool for regulating what is said and what should not be said. It gives us the power of choice and the power to question. Its main concern is with helping us develop an informed and critical understanding of the nature of media, the techniques used, and the impact of these techniques. More specifically, it aims to increase understanding and enjoyment of how the media work, how they produce meaning, how they are organized, and how they construct reality. It teaches us to understand the enjoyment people derive from texts and how audiences may be manipulated and deluded by stereotypical material. It helps us to develop important critical insights, and generate questions rather than taking what we are told at face value. Most importantly, it empowers us, its students, with the knowledge required to be active consumers and producers of the media. Words: 1,102.

Leibniz: Theory of Monads

Introduction Whether ultimately correct or not, Leibniz rejects both Cartesianism and atomism. What ought not be missed is that throughout his objections Leibniz's focus never strays far from the mereological issues of wholes, parts, their unity, etc. Indeed, the very nature of his arguments against the mechanist project clearly demonstrate Leibniz's underlying concern for the problem of the continuum, which seems never very far from his mind. (Thompson) In rejecting Cartesianism, Leibniz's concern is with its inability to make sense of the whole, except at the expense of the reality of the parts. In rejecting atomism, his concern is with its inability to make sense of the parts, except at the expense of the unity of the whole. Neither can provide illumination sufficient to escape from the second labyrinth, and the entire mechanist project therefore finds itself impaled effectively on both horns of a dilemma. Since the problem of the continuum has so much relevance to the unity of substance, Leibniz considers mechanist philosophy inadequate. (Brown) Remaining entirely in character, it should not be surprising that Leibniz's own metaphysics is most fundamentally an attempt to reconcile the mechanistic philosophy to that of Aristotle. He attempts to take the best of each of these two systems and synthesize a new theory that manages to escape their individual defects. (Thompson)   Monads are the unit of substance which supposedly bridge the gap between the old and the new, and plug the holes in mechanist theories. Thus, it is with this in mind that his argument for the existence of monads must be examined, for it is the very heart of Leibniz's theory of substance. At the core of Leibniz's metaphysics one finds monads, which are dimensionless and â€Å"windowless† centers of force, the true substances that comprise the created universe. Infinite hierarchies of monads populate the continuum of all created things, each one mirroring the rest of the universe from its own unique point of view, expressing every other monad with a greater or lesser degree of clarity. Monads are the â€Å"metaphysical points†, so to speak, which are the indivisible, unified, and simple substances that are the foundation of the created world. (Mercer) Distinguishing Features of Leibniz's Ontology There are two particularly significant distinguishing features of Leibniz's ontology as a whole. In brief, Leibniz's ontology remains as true to his desire to be the great reconciler as it does to his expectations for substance, epistemology, and the problem of the continuum. This ought not be forgotten amidst the details that follow. Monads are a Synthesis of Old and New It is not surprising, in light of Leibniz's reconciliatory nature, that monads bear hallmarks of both Aristotelian and mechanistic philosophy. In terms of the former, they do the work of substantial forms, possessing an entelechy which guarantees that they unfold through time as they ought. In terms of the latter, they do the work of atoms, explaining how features in the phenomenal world (i.e., the macro-level world) come about as a result of changes of state in the real world of monads (i.e., the micro-level world). The monad is, by its very definition, designed to leverage the strengths of the two opposing theories, while simultaneously inheriting none of their defects. (Mercer) From this it is clear that Leibniz's theory of substance is determined by his expectations, and by the perceived failures of mechanism. In assembling it, Leibniz borrows liberally from what he considers the best features of the old and the new. Regarding those aspects in which Leibniz finds either of them inadequate, he crafts his own philosophy so that it avoids said inadequacies, essentially by definition. Qualitative, not Quantitative What is arguably most interesting and quite unique about this synthesis of systems is the shift in focus. To elucidate, Leibniz sees the mechanist philosophy as a fundamentally quantitative and extensive endeavor. The Cartesian defines the very essence of body as extension, which is quantitative in its extensive nature. Similarly, the atomist cannot help but construct the macro-level world by aggregation, through the grouping of many extended entities in the micro-level world, which is also quantitative by nature. Both variants of mechanism therefore sustain a quantitative and extensive view of the relationships between wholes and parts, explaining or reducing qualitative features of the macro-level world in light of or to quantitative features of the micro-level world. (Mercer) Given the problems he finds with quantitative theories, Leibniz concludes that that the correct theory must instead be uniquely qualitative and intensive, rather than quantitative and extensive, and this unique notion is given flesh along very Aristotelian lines. Latta (1965) provides the following apt description: Accordingly, the essence of Leibniz's argument is that a quantitative conception of the relation of whole and parts affords an inadequate theory of substance. The common element in the contrary positions of the Cartesians and the Atomists is the explicit or implicit reduction of qualitative to quantitative differences. And it appears to Leibniz that the solution of the dilemma is to be found in the opposite hypothesis, namely, that the essence of substance is non-quantitative, and that the relation of whole and parts must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive. Thus a ‘simple substance' has no parts, i.e. no quantitative elements, and yet it must comprehend a manifold in unity; that is to say, it must be real, it must be something, it must be qualitative, specifically determined. (p. 27). The suggested intensive view of the relations between parts and wholes is noteworthy for its novelty if nothing else. What Leibniz seems to have in mind is that the parts of a whole somehow â€Å"participate† in that whole, and similarly that the whole somehow â€Å"participates† in all of its parts. The nature of this participation isn't entirely clear, but it is certain that the conception Leibniz holds is not the traditional understanding of the part-whole relation. There is something deeper at work here, some understanding that is intended to allow both the parts and the whole to remain distinct and unified, the parts in themselves and the whole through its special relationship to the parts. (Thompson) What Leibniz seeks is some sense in which the whole somehow mirrors or expresses all of its parts, containing within itself the explanation for why the parts are precisely as they are. And similarly, the parts must somehow mirror or express the larger whole as well, containing within themselves their explanations, while also mirroring the explanation of the whole, albeit with a lesser degree of clarity. The important degree of mutual inter-participation is what is key to the more organic or holistic relationship Leibniz intends. (Swoyer) Despite the present vagueness, however, this much remains clear: Leibniz believes that the part-whole relation in genuine unities must be something far more special than other philosophical systems have taken it to be. Leibniz's use of monads is therefore intended not only to reconcile Aristotle with the mechanists, but also to lay the groundwork necessary to make such a special relationship logically possible and plausible. (Thompson) The Argument From â€Å"The Monadology† In the first few sentences of â€Å"The Monadology†, Leibniz gives one formulation of his argument for the existence of monads, a formulation which might be described most charitably as terse. Though this is not the only argument Leibniz gives for monads, it is probably the most well known. As early as 1671, for example, Leibniz argues for monads qua indivisible unextended things, though in a much different fashion involving the proper beginnings of extended entities. (1969, p. 139-140) Because his earlier argument is even more terse than the later argument it shall not be discussed any further. It is worth mentioning only because its similarities mark it as a clear precursor for Leibniz's later thinking on the subject. Further, Leibniz claims elsewhere that the existence of monads may be inferred from his doctrine of the pre-established harmony, though his reasons for this remain obscure. (1985, p.80) Returning to the better known argument of â€Å"The Monadology†, while it would be unreasonable to fault Leibniz for his brevity in making the argument, it is nevertheless the case that much remains to be said before the argument can be accepted, rejected, or even understood adequately. Because the monad is at the very heart of Leibniz's metaphysics, one might reasonably expect a more complete formulation of his argument to be possible, just as one might expect Leibniz's critics to focus their attacks upon that argument if monads qua simple substances are to be rejected. For the purposes of this essay, it is necessary to understand this argument and the issues underlying it in order to make clear precisely how Leibniz takes the monad to be united and simple. The following is Leibniz's argument for the existence of monads as given in â€Å"The Monadology†: The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance, which enters into compounds. By ‘simple' is meant ‘without parts.' 2.  Ã‚   And there must be simple substances, since there are compounds; for a compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simple things. (1989, p.213) Common Sense Observations Relevant Observations For Leibniz, the observations relevant to a theory of substance are those of entities in the world. As established already, Leibniz simply looks at the world and takes inventory of what he sees. Among the entities perceived he finds what might be called â€Å"macro entities† of a relatively mundane variety such as tables, chairs, rocks, streams, etc., as well as perhaps not so mundane macro entities such as plants, animals and persons. With the aid of the microscope, one may similarly perceive â€Å"micro entities† both mundane (e.g., crystals) and not so mundane (e.g., unicellular organisms). Further, with the aid of a telescope, one may perceive entities at the large end of the macro scale, if not, in fact, objects of an altogether different order of size. (Mercer) There are two primary points of interest as regards this body of observations. The first is that each entity, because it has extension, is divisible into parts. The second is that despite this divisibility into parts, the entities in question are more or less unities in some sense; i.e., each entity is numerically one, and it is what it is rather than something else. To put these two points a bit differently, this body of observations indicates that for all such objects there seems to be a unified whole, just as there seems also to be discernable parts, which are similarly real and unified. A third less interesting but important point is that in each case one seems to find entities at every scale. No matter how high one turns up the telescope or the microscope, one never reaches the end of things. Wherever one looks, one finds worlds within worlds. Existing Theories This body of observations requires explanation. More to the point, Leibniz takes this body of observations to require an explanation in terms of some sort of substance. In virtue of what is it the case that some particular entity is a whole? In virtue of what is it the case that the parts of that entity are themselves both unified and real? Further, what relations are sustained between the wholes and their parts? And finally, what conclusions may be drawn more generally once answers to these questions have been established? These are the sorts of questions Leibniz has in mind when considering existing theories. A successful theory must address them adequately without falling into either internal conceptual contradiction or external contradiction. That is, the theory must cohere with the present body of observations, just as its predictions (if any may be made) must also cohere with both present and future observations. (Thompson) In terms of evaluating mechanist theories, there are only two that Leibniz takes as plausible candidates, Cartesianism and atomism. As established already, Leibniz considers both of these views to be inadequate for explaining the body of observations under consideration. Having already examined Leibniz's reasons for rejecting these systems in some detail we may move directly to the next step, which involves synthesizing a new theory that avoids the inadequacies of mechanism while embracing its strengths. A Novel Theory of Substance If both ends of the spectrum of mechanist philosophy are unacceptable, then why not head for the middle? Leibniz is convinced of unities in the world because of a wealth of observations, and he believes both the Cartesians and the atomists to be unable to explain such unities with their theories. (Thompson, p. 24-6) What is needed according to Leibniz is a theory whose fundamental unit of substance is both real and indivisible. It must be real for the obvious reason that it simply will not do to explain what does exist by appeal to what does not, and it must be indivisible in such a fashion that it may explain the genuine unity of the observed entities in the world. Further, it must provide a qualitative and intensive, rather than quantitative and extensive, construal of the part-whole relation, as previously discussed. Leibniz concludes, therefore, that what is needed is a new, basic unit of substance:  Ã¢â‚¬ ¦physical points are indivisible only in appearance; mathematical points are exact, but they are merely modalities. Only metaphysical points or points of substance (constituted by forms or souls) are exact and real, and without them there would be nothing real, since without true unities there would be no multitude. (1989, 142) This conclusion, which lays the foundation for the development of the remainder of Leibniz's metaphysics, owes its support to the two factors given earlier as motivations. Most central to it is the fundamental assumption that monadic unity is necessary â€Å"at bottom† for the production of all compound things. In light of this, it is possible to summarize the more complete formulation of Leibniz's argument for monads as follows: P1  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Common sense observations show that real, unified entities exist. P2  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   What is real may be explained only by appeal to something real. P3  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   What is unified may be explained only by appeal to something indivisible. C  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Therefore, the explanation for such entities in the world must involve real and indivisible substances, namely, monads. This bears little relation, prima facie, to the less detailed argument given in the first two sections of â€Å"The Monadology†, but it is nevertheless reducible to that argument. P1 amounts to nothing more than the initial premise that compounds exist. P2 and P3 do not appear at all in â€Å"The Monadology†, but it is tolerably clear from the preceding discussion that these principles are indeed assumed by Leibniz. Finally, the conclusion is just a restatement of the conclusion that monads exist. Again, to restate the argument more succinctly: compounds exist, therefore simples exist. The remainder of Leibniz's metaphysical deductions in â€Å"The Monadology† follow from this more complete formulation at least as well as they follow the abbreviated version. Because monads must be both real and indivisible, Leibniz may argue that they can have neither extension nor form and must therefore be immaterial. Because they cannot be divided, Leibniz may still maintain that they cannot go out of existence in any natural way, by the dissolution of parts. Similarly, they cannot come into existence in any natural way, by the aggregation of parts, and so forth. Thus, this more complete formulation of the argument acts as a â€Å"drop in replacement† for its far more concise sibling. Conclusion To summarize, Leibniz's argument for monads is an enthymeme, an argument with an implied premise. Examining the logical derivation suggests a line of thought that Leibniz's other writings explicitly affirm, namely, that there is no reality without unity. With this additional premise in hand, the argument for monads is rendered formally valid. What's more, this additional premise provides a starting point for untangling the issues previously suggested as problems for monadic simplicity. The close tie between reality and unity prompts one to consider what Leibniz means by ‘simple' in a different light. It seems that what he intends in his argument for monads is not merely that they have no parts, but rather that they also include a kind of indivisibility, an inability to be divided in any way that destroys them. If there is no reality without unity, then things that are fatally separable and thus not unified are not intrinsically real. The relation between reality and unity helps suggest the fatal inseparability criterion for simplicity. Further, it also seems that mereological simplicity and fatal inseparability are but negative entailments of a more positive construal of simplicity, namely, ontological simplicity. A thing is ontologically simple if it stands alone, or described negatively if it is self sufficient in the sense that it bears no internal relations of ontological dependence to any other thing. Such an understanding of simplicity resolves the problems raised previously for the mereological construal, helps to make sense of Leibniz's argument for monads, and coheres nicely with the various other texts in which Leibniz uses the term. References Brown, Stuart. The Young Leibniz and His Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1999. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. (1969) Philosophical Papers and Letters, 2d ed. Translated and edited by Leroy E. Loemker. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. (1985) Theodicy. Translated by E. M. Huggard, edited by Austin Farrer. Open Court Publishing Company. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. (1965) The Monadology and other Philosophical Writings. Translated and edited by Robert Latta. London: Oxford University Press. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. (1989) Philosophical Essays. Translated and edited by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Mercer, Christia. Leibniz's Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Swoyer, Chris. (1995) Leibnizian Expression. Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (1), 65-99. Thompson, Garrett. On Leibniz. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.

Advantages & Disadvantages of E-Learning

E-learning is a broad term that generally refers to any kind of learning done with a computer and Internet connection or CD-ROM. It is used by individuals, educational institutions and businesses. As with any type of learning, it works better for some than others. The quality of e-learning has improved in recent years, as teachers and students have become more comfortable with the technology. 1. Considerations * E-learning is an excellent option in education, particularly when there are hindrances to traditional learning situations.For example, some people wish to continue their educations but do not live within driving distance of a college or university and don't find it feasible to relocate. E-learning is a viable alternative for these students. Another hindrance to traditional learning, especially in grades K through 12, is the â€Å"one size fits all† mentality it embraces. Many students just do not learn well in a traditional learning environment, but thrive in a more fl exible setting. To address this issue, parents are turning to e-learning opportunities for their children.Some choose full-time enrollment in a virtual school, while others use e-learning to supplement a home school curriculum. In the business world, e-learning provides a way for companies to train and instruct employees without requiring them to travel to a central location. Advantages * Convenience is one of the major advantages of e-learning. It allows students to work and learn at their own pace without the unyielding time restrictions of traditional learning. Because e-learning provides access to learning materials at any time, students have the flexibility to schedule around families, jobs and other activities.Another major benefit of e-learning is the accessibility it provides. Students can learn from anywhere in the world. This is an especially important consideration for students who wish to study in a different country. In addition, because e-learning can be done from home , students have less clothing and driving expenses than with traditional learning. Disadvantages * A major disadvantage to e-learning is the self-discipline it requires. While being able to work at your own pace can be an advantage, it can also be a disadvantage.This is especially true for students who have difficulty with time management and procrastination. These students tend to be more successful with the structure of traditional learning. Another disadvantage to e-learning is the technology involved. Some people do not have ready access to a computer and Internet connection. And some who do have the required equipment feel ill-equipped to use it. Lack of interaction between teacher and student is another drawback to e-learning. Some students need the immediate feedback that interaction provides. Types * There are several types of e-learning situations.The most common include taking a single course online, full-time enrollment in an online high school or college, distance learni ng via satellite and learning from information on a CD-ROM. Many businesses and organizations offer training for their employees using various e-learning methods. Warning * E-learning greatly increases the availability of educational opportunities. Unfortunately, it also increases the number of scams related to online education. Persons considering e-learning possibilities should be alert to such scams and thoroughly investigate any program before making a commitment.

Men; Useless After Procreation essays

Men; Useless After Procreation essays In the inquisitive eyes of society the womans daily life has dramatically changed. Their role has morphed into an almost independent lifestyle. From liberation to suffrage, ladies have molded the lives of our future generations, and changed the worlds views of art and politics. The current status quo is unstable for the feminine being, there are feminist extremists, and in the same way there are some who believe that complete submission is the only way a woman should behave. Religion plays a large part in the life of a particular female. Of course the life one female leads can and is completely different than the life of another. Especially in the twenty first century where women work longer hours and sometimes make more money than their husbands, if they are married. Marriage is not as common as it was fifty years ago. In the primitive church females played a distinctive role. Early Christianity has been quite debated in the recent gender arguments. In a letter Paul wrote he greets women and calls them co-workers in meaning equals. Paul is even documented as referring to women of the church with a Greek term which translated means deaconess. We learned from Pauls writings in Acts that women also owned the houses in which early Christians met. Therefore women held the first church services, and were key in the spreading ministry of Christianity (Clark 2). Paul also welcomed women into the churchs activities and many had prominent parts. Hence it would be later in time before women were seen as more than a mother and keeper of the home. Females were, in biblical times, to dress in a certain attire. They were not to wear mens clothing, even as work clothes. It was not all considered compulsatory for women to wear veils. They were then and are still expected to be submissive in the church and at home. A literary example of a wifes submission is Arthur Millers L...

Different Areas of Knowledge Essays

Different Areas of Knowledge Essays Different Areas of Knowledge Essay Different Areas of Knowledge Essay After reading the topic question, straight away a thought came to my mind. Are numbers, pictures, lines, dots, characters, images, music a form of language? That is the ultimate knowledge issue when it comes to language. What is language? What does it consist of? There is no way to define language so that our entire society can conform to it. This creates a situation where this knowledge issue is almost insoluble. People communicate using many tools and methods. They understand each other with sounds as well as pictures. But does this make one more of a language then the other? To be able to make a clear argument, I will define language as a tool of communicating ideas, objects and actions. Within the IB Program there are only a certain number of Areas of Knowledge. I for one am taking a full diploma with six subjects. One of my subjects is English. In English we mostly discuss literature, English and international, and there is a lot of analyzing that takes place. I think that language in a language course obviously plays a tremendously huge role. We need to read, write and share our opinions. A lot of the work I do in that class consists of personal response. I read passages, novels, plays, articles, journals and with every piece of information I gain, a form an opinion. This opinion then needs to be supported by using the work as back up. To do every single part and aspect of that class, language is required. Language in the sense of the communicating tool required to read, and write. A counterclaim to this argument would be that when we do personal responses and we write about what we feel, we are not necessarily sharing it with anyone else. Many times authors will write things and then he will have an audience that will read his work. What the audience understands might be completely different than what the author intended. He did not communicate anything with them in this case. According to my definition of language, if the author portrayed his ideas and it was misinterpreted, then there was limited communication that occurred. There might have been some form of exchange but the communication was frayed and broken. You could argue then that personal response papers and anything that is an interpretation of another work is therefore not language. It is more a method of keeping track of emotions. To counter that counterclaim however, I would argue that even though the author isnt communicating what he wanted to, to me, I am still getting information from what he has written. He might not be giving me what he intended, but he is giving me something. That sharing of information is considered communication. The whole point of writing novels and plays is for them to be shared. Regardless of what is passed on, something is transferred from one being to another through the work.

History Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

History Assignment - Essay Example During this period all racial groups including whites, blacks, Indians, Mexicans and others were affected. Between the country’s Civil War and World War II, the US underwent profound racial reorganization with officially recognized group categories expanding and contracting, socially acknowledged boundaries between groups becoming blurred and shifting, and with both citizen and public actors passionately debating on who belonged to which group. The country’s basic components on racial order were revised, revisited and generally altered; however, whites never lost their position at the top of status hierarchy. Q.1 Between 1870 and 1910, USA witnessed the greatest influx of immigrants with more than 20 million immigrants entering the nation in this period partly as a result of the country’s gains in industrial revolution. Initially, new immigrants from northern and western Europe with industrial skills were welcomed; however, other immigrants coming from south and Eastern Europe were unwelcomed by resident Americans. These immigrants lacking skills came at a time when huge arrival of untrained labor caused the Native Americans feel that their lifestyle was under threat by arrival of fresh immigrants having various values and ideas. Some immigrants had an extra burden of the easily noticeable characteristics that made them prone to attacks by anyone seeking justification to carry out such attacks. The onset of hard financial times in 1870s saw immigrants and European-Americans struggle for jobs usually set aside for the Chinese. The hard economic times resulted in dislike and even racial suspicion and hatred, which resulted in anti-Chinese riots in California for exclusion of Chinese immigrants in the USA. Hatred and intolerance toward immigrants resulted in endorsement of immigration laws that greatly hampered immigration. In 1875, the USA passed the page law that prohibited entry of Chinese women and the Chinese exclusion act of 1882 refused entry of all Chinese laborers without making explicit mention of Chinese women; hence, page law continued to regulate their entry. The law prohibited the entry of all Chinese women since immigration officials assumed most of women were prostitutes. Nevertheless, Chinese merchant class was exempt since the law hindered male Chinese laborers from bringing their family to the US, hence limiting their permanent settlement in USA. Later, Japanese immigrants who came three decades later after passage of the page law experienced less harsh policies (Lee 249). Since the exclusion of Chinese from gold mines in California in 1850s, segments of California society consistently opposed the employment of Chinese and the pressure to exclude Chinese increased. The slowdown of 1870s meant the notion that Chinese men and white women were able to share became unpalatable and difficult to maintain. The depression indicated to white women that the Chinese had not only usurped jobs from them but also fo rced the reduction of wages of women who had jobs (Brown and Peter, 64). Convergence toward exclusion relied on the logical racial workings construction and attachment of mediocre status and meaning to immigrant groups via discourse, formal and informal categorization. The convergence relied on racial claims that Japanese were inassimilable and racially undesirable in the same way as the Chinese; hence, early racial claims offered an effective framework for meaningful construction and ultimate exclusion. Gender and race mattered in this period with their meaning constructively interconnected; hence, race was not an objective truth for exclusionists to discover but rather the claims that they had to make to express. Through discursive and symbolic

Ethical Issues Concerning Marketing Departments of Major Global Essay - 1

Ethical Issues Concerning Marketing Departments of Major Global Corporations - Essay Example The paper tells that interests in the ethical issues that pertain to international business have grown enormously due to the complexity of the global business environment of the 21st century. Ethical issues for corporations are very important, especially in the age of the internet as information is accessible to everyone. Marketing activities usually pose significant ethical issues in business such as price discrimination and unfair pricing, miscellaneous unfair competitive practices, dishonest advertising, price collusion with competitors, exploiting social paradigms, establishing guilt, post-purchase dissonance, insufficient expertise and cutting corners. Ethical dilemma, otherwise called moral dilemma, are situations in which there are two alternatives whereupon choice is to be made between them, however neither the option has the capacity to resolve the situation in a morally or ethically acceptable manner because the individual and societal ethical or moral guidelines are not ab le to provide a satisfactory result or outcome for the chooser. A circumstance is viewed or regarded as a moral dilemma on the off chance that it fulfills the accompanying three conditions. The first basic condition obliges that an individual must make a decision about the best course of action. Also, there must be different courses of action for the chooser to select from. Finally, there should be no perfect solution so that regardless of the course of action taken; at least one ethical principle is compromised. Therefore, the chooser is subjected to an intricate circumstance that involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives and complying with one option results in transgressing the other.