Social Psychology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 4

Social Psychology - Essay Example The study of social influence, social comparison, conformity, obedience, motives, group processes, attitudes and attitude changes involve social psychology to very large extent in understanding the culture and background of a region together with its history and social practices, and helps to track the means to change mindsets and augment the economy. Undoubtedly, the individual has a huge responsibility in social behavior and practices. Human nature is hereditary and follows the pattern and practices an individual sees and observes around him. As such, the study on self and one’s identity has a special place in the study of social psychology. Every individual is naturally inclined to be self-centered, and central to all his or her life is the concern for the security and well-being of the individual within the social standards, resources and beliefs being followed in the region. The purposes and goals of the individual have a lot to do with the resources and influence society brings about with the help of the natural environment, traditional customs and leadership unique to the region. Man has always had the capability to understand what he is like and the desire to know what he would like to be. Progress is achieved when one puts one’s perception and experience to work and grasp what is feasible and attainable. It makes sense to the individual to seek better things in life and see all round progress and prosperity where he is concerned as well as where others are also involved. The means to these issues are interpersonal relationships, social standards and understanding of one’s culture. The events in Rwanda some decades ago shocked the world and exposed the incapacity of the United Nations to quickly and effectively deal with the situation. A mute world looked on as marauding mobs went on rampage, looting and massacring a hapless minority whose only fault lay in the lopsided governing

Ancient Political Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Ancient Political Philosophy Essay What is Philosophy? The Central Questions of Philosophy – Political Philosophy †¢ Value – Ethics (Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, Justice) †¢ Political Philosophy – Aesthetics (Beauty) †¢ Reality – Metaphysics (Cosmology, Ontology) †¢ Knowledge – Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge) PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 1 What is Philosophy? Political Philosophy Some central questions of Political Philosophy: †¢ What ought the relationship between a person and society (government) be? †¢ What does society owe its citizens? – Safety (Protection)? Education? Health Care? A Job? †¢ What do the citizens owe society? – Pay taxes? All their possessions? Serve in the military? †¢ What is the just form of government? PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 2 PHI 7100 Richard Legum, Ph. D. 1 8. The Central Questions of Philosophy Political Philosophy 7/8/2013 The Central Questions of Philosophy – Political Philosophy Plato The state is the individual writ large (The state is the same as an individual, but on a larger scale) †¢ Three Parts of the Soul – Rational (reason) – Spirited (emotional defender/enforcer) – Appetitive (emotional – driven by basic desires). PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 3 The Central Questions of Philosophy – Political Philosophy Plato †¢ Three kinds of the citizens – Gold – Those possessing reason (Wisdom/Knowledge) philosophers – Silver – The enforcers of the law – the guardians/soldiers – Bronze – The craftsman, merchants, farmers, etc. †¢ The Republic is the Utopia Teleology – The goal of the state is to achieve harmony †¢ The gold people, The Philosopher King (the one who knows best) , should rule PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 4. PHI 7100 Richard Legum, Ph. D. 2 8. The Central Questions of Philosophy Political Philosophy 7/8/2013 The Central Questions of Philosophy – Political Philosophy Aristotle †¢ The city (polis) is the natural political community or partnershipâ€Å" †¢ The aim of the city is to allow citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts †¢ Justice is having a constitution (a social contract of sorts) supporting the accomplishment of these goals PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 5 The Central Questions of Philosophy – Political Philosophy Aristotle. †¢ Goals of the state are much greater for Aristotle than they were for Social Contract Theory of the Renaissance (Thomas Hobbbes Leviathan (1651), John Locke Two Treatises of Government (1689), Jean Jacques Rosseau The Social Contract (1762) ) – in the pre-government state (pre-social contract) the state of nature– people fear of violent death, unstable economic relationships, losing their property – The government arises from a Social Contract for the purpose of protecting the citizens PHI 7100 History of Philosophy: The Classical Philosophers  ©2013 Richard Legum – all rights reserved 6 PHI 7100 Richard Legum, Ph. D. 3

Sports and International Relations

Sports and International Relations In the past, international relations (IR) mainly focused on the high political issues such as military and economic issues. However, the nature of international politics has changed dramatically recently. Interaction between states is not limited to the high political area but also low political area such as social cultural areas. It is hard to determine which one is more prevalent in this time, but one thing very obvious is the role of low politics is getting broader. In the post Cold War era, there are many cases that low politics have healed in inter-states conflicts which had developed into high politics. Among these, because of its popularity across the globe, sports plays a significant role in international relations. Modern sports, which was limited to the local, regional or national level in the past, now spread to international level and have access to social and political area. Considering that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has 202 members states, even more than the number the number of UN member states which totals 192, it is obvious that international sport is now an arena of international politics and diplomacy. Worldwide sports events also have great impact to international relations and politics. With the development of media, related technology and services, people all over the world can sit in front of television, and watch major international sports events at the same time. Thus international sports games are a good opportunity to display a states ethnic features or a states believed national superiority to their counterparts. In history, many national leaders abused sports games because of such purpose, and sports events were often used as a tool of political and ideological propaganda in international relations. However, at the same time, sports also possesses the aspect of promoting peace and raising mutual understanding in international relations. Many countries took advantage of this aspect of sports to build a positive image of them. In terms of sports diplomacy, the United States has employed sports as a diplomatic channel throughout the history. However, the way sports has been used was different from time to time due to different international political circumstances which influenced the United States foreign policy. (This paper attempts to analyze how international conflicts were reflected in the Unites States foreign policy and what the strategy of the United States sports diplomacy was. During the Cold War era, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two pillars of the international system. The ideological rivalry between Soviet Union and the United States could represent the international relations in this period. Therefore, the United States practiced sports diplomacy to deteriorate the influence of the Soviet Union to show the superiority of the United States ideology. However, after the collapse of Soviet Union, the United States became the only superpower, resulting in the rapid growth of the i nfluence of the United States in the world. The political aspects of sports Sports themselves do not have political value, but when it is practiced as a medium between different countries, it has political contents. First, sports can be a tool for diplomacy between states, being the first step of engagement between states in a hostile relationship. Exchanging sports between states can imply that both states recognize each other as a nation-state. The United States president Richard Nixons use of table tennis to initiate diplomatic relations with China in Cold War era, known as Ping pong diplomacy, cited as a prototypical example. The other way around, boycotts of sports game or denial of visa to athletes are seen as ways to break off the relations between states. Second, sports may serve as an advertisement for spreading ideology. States often use sporting games to show their superiority of ideology. Especially, during the Cold War era, this tendency is often observed in the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. In this period, many of the United Sates legislators worried about the Soviet athletes continuous success in international sports games. They saw it in the context of national prestige in the face of communist challenges. They acknowledged that people in the United States would see the sporting defeat by the Soviet Union not as a matter of sports or the athlete, but the matter of national pride. Soviets victory in sports games could be interpreted as a victory for the Soviet culture, system and decay of capitalistic way to a certain extent. Third, sport raises mutual understanding and promotes peace in international relations. Sport exchanges have been served as a way to identify other states and their people, and furthermore, to overcome prejudice against each other. As a result, sports exchange between states often have used as a tool of public diplomacy, considering that the aim of public diplomacy is also to see to foster mutual understanding. Fourth, it is a safe way of expressing displeasure with other country and its policies because it is a peripheral issue to the international political system. To show discontentment or raise objections about a political issue, using sports is a circumambulate way of expression. The most common means of expressing discontent through sports events is to boycott the sports game. It is regarded as a strategic and low cost alternative to any other political action which states can take. It possibly gives huge influence or pushes on other states without using traditional sense of state power. Fifth, sports often spark the conflicts that might become the warfare later on. It often initiates or aggravates political conflict in international relations. Since an athlete or a team represents his or their nation, hatred of the counterpart could become an antipathy of the nation. This ill feeling could draw actual war, like the one between Honduras and El Salvador, most famously known as the Football War, during the World Cup tournament game in 1969. There had been preexisting conflicts between Honduras and Salvadorans, including immigration from El Salvador to Honduras, but the tensions between the two states exploded by the football competition. This match actually triggered the war between Honduras and El Salvador. Sports as an efficient tool for diplomacy The United States recently implemented sports diplomacy as a part of its public diplomacy. The United States dispatched famous sports figures as sports diplomacy envoys to increase understanding of the American people and its culture. It is because sports has been highlighted recent times as a newly rising tactic to implement international relations for some reasons. First, the influence of sports is growing bigger. Sports is now global because of the revolution in the transportation and telecommunication/media industries. Every broadcasting corporation has sports channels and even in the headline coverage they deliver the sports news. Originally, this is initiated due to peoples interest of sports but it reversely started to draw the attention of people who had not been interested in sports. Also, this revolution has created a global sport labor market and global migration, and thus peoples interests in sports extend to international sports. People are cheering for athletes who are their fellow countryman who are playing a game outside of their own country. People often watch sports games not because they are interested in those sports but to see specific national athletes. The sport team owners know this well, and thus they trade foreign athletes to increase its attention and popularity internationally. The international political environment has also changed. Different from the past when most serious concern for states was national survival through military strength, now there is a covert consensus of non-use of military force in international relations, and thus likelihood of was is decreasing. The level of interdependence among states is heightened and became more complex. According to Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, the world has moved into an era of complex interdependence, characterized by multiple channels between societies, including both state and non-state channels, such that military security does not consistently dominate the agenda. Yet, this does not mean that the rate of inter-state conflict is declining. Rather, because of enlarging scope of engagement among nations, there is more possibility of emerging conflicts. The factors of national threat or concern have become more diverse and complex. Therefore, in this changing world, the definition of power in international relations is not same as the Hobbesian explanation. Military force cannot be the best way to solve the conflict or influence other states. These old tools of diplomacy are no longer appropriate in the contemporary world and something more moderate, indirect but efficient and influential way of diplomacy needs to be practiced. In this context, sports is a good medium, by playing mediating and pivotal role in inter-state relations. Attaching sports to the scope of international relations would be a helpful to boost the size of diplomacy.

Shakespeares Othello - Iago Essay -- Othello essays

Othello’s Iago  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚   We find in William Shakespeare’s tragic play Othello an example of personified evil. He is the general’s ancient, Iago, and he wreaks havoc and destruction on all those under his influence.    Louis B. Wright and Virginia A. LaMar in â€Å"The Engaging Qualities of Othello† comment on how the character of Iago is the wholly expected type of villain for an Elizabethan audience:      Iago at once captures the attention of the spectator. He is the personification of the villain that Elizabethans had come to expect from Italian short stories and from Machiavellian commentary. Villains of this type, as well as those of domestic origin, had long been popular on the stage. From the days of the mystery and morality plays, the characters personifying evil invariably had gripped the attention of audiences, for iniquity always stirs more popular excitement than virtue. (127)    First of all, Iago’s very words paint him for what he is. Robert Di Yanni in â€Å"Character Revealed Through Dialogue† states that the evil antagonist reveals his character quite plainly through his speech:    Iago’s language reveals his coarseness; he crudely reduces sexual love to animal copulation. It also shows his ability to make things happen: he has infuriated Brabantio. The remainder of the scene shows the consequences of his speech, its power to inspire action. Iago is thus revealed as both an instigator and a man of crude sensibilities. (123)    David Bevington in William Shakespeare: Four Tragedies enlightens us on the ancient:    Iago’s machinations yield him both â€Å"sport† and â€Å"profit† (1.3.387); that is, he enjoys his evildoing, although he is also driven by a motive. This Vice-like behavior inh... ...gton, David, ed. William Shakespeare: Four Tragedies. New York: Bantam Books, 1980.    Coles, Blanche. Shakespeare’s Four Giants. Rindge, New Hampshire: Richard Smith Publisher, 1957.    Di Yanni, Robert. â€Å"Character Revealed Through Dialogue.† Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint from Literature. N. p.: Random House, 1986.    Shakespeare, William. Othello. In The Electric Shakespeare. Princeton University. 1996. http://www.eiu.edu/~multilit/studyabroad/othello/othello_all.html No line nos.    Wright, Louis B. and Virginia A. LaMar. â€Å"The Engaging Qualities of Othello.† Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint from Introduction to The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice by William Shakespeare. N. p.: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1957.   

Abraham Lincoln: The Great Emancipator? Essay

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States of America, was the man who rose to the presidency and took the steps needed to end the situation of separation by making sure the South didn’t secede from the Union and continue to be a slave-owning population. An emancipator frees people from bondage or oppression, Lincoln’s main priority in his term in office was to re-unite the North and South, not to free the slaves. He believed that white people were superior to African-Americans and he was ‘playing politics,’ in the sense that he wanted to please the majority of the population, not the slaves he was freeing. President Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, but that didn’t make him â€Å"the Great Emancipator.† In the end, the South was defeated, slavery was dissolved, and the United States of America lived, but President Abraham Lincoln was inaccurately labelled as the hero. While in office, Abraham Lincoln’s main objective was to re-unite the North and the South, which had seceded. Although many believed the Civil war was started to free slaves, it was mainly started so the South would become part of the Union again. If Lincoln did nothing, the Union would be permanently severed, the war was to save the Union (1). He would do anything to save the Union. In a letter in 1862, he proclaimed that everything he did with slavery and the Blacks, he did because he believed it would help save the Union (2). He lead the population to believe that the Civil war was all about the freedom of slaves. Lincoln just figured that the South would back down if there was the threat of freeing slaves (3). Abraham Lincoln could have cared less about the freedom of slaves, his goal was to get the confederacy to re-unite with the Union. Abraham Lincoln felt that African-Americans were inferior to white people. Lincoln stated the there was a distinguishing difference between white people and African-Americans in general. In the Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Lincoln presented his views on how Blacks are not equal in colour and moral or intellectual endowment (4). He often stated the African-Americans were not equal in social or political aspects. He stated his opposition to Blacks becoming voters, jurors, office holders, or intermarrying with white people (5). Lincoln felt that the Republicans were wrong in thinking the  Declaration of Independence included all men. He felt it didn’t include Blacks, therefore stating that Blacks aren’t people (6). Abraham Lincoln believed that whites were superior to African-Americans, thus they were not treated equally. Lincoln wanted to please the majority of the population, not the African-Americans he was freeing. One of Lincoln’s concerns was to keep slavery out of the territories. He wanted to preserve that land for poor white people in North and in Europe, who wanted cheap land (7). He proceeded to make a personal strategy to benefit some states. The gradual, compensated emancipation provided financial aid to any state which took that approved that idea (8). Lincoln also had ideas that he thought the bulk of the population would approve of. He persuaded a large group of Blacks to set up colonies in Panama, Haiti and Liberia (9). President Lincoln didn’t care about the slaves and their reactions and feelings towards his actions, he was playing politics and pleasing his people. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862, ensuring the freedom of slaves. He issued it so that all slaves in the confederate, controlled by South, would be free (10). Blacks should have the right of life, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness (11). The Emancipation Proclamation was the first law about freeing slaves that was written down on paper. Lincoln had always verbally stated his ideas on how to free slaves, this was the first idea in ink (12). The slaves had something to finally look forward to in their lives. The Civil War filled them with high hopes for freedom and prosperity (13). Abraham Lincoln took the steps needed to encourage the possibility of freedom of slaves through the Emancipation Proclamation. However, even thought the Emancipation Proclamation was endorsed, it didn’t make him â€Å"the Great Emancipator.† Blacks within the confederacy were still slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation would not come into action for three months after it was signed (14). He only signed it as a bribe towards the South to save the Union. He confirmed that the would do anything to saved the Union, â€Å"What I do about slavery, and the coloured race, I do because I  believe it helps save the Union.† (15). He didn’t have the authoritative power to just go ahead and free the slaves. The Congress was the only group that had the power to pass and make the Emancipation Proclamation into a legitimate law (16). Lincoln’s actions may have gave hope to slaves, but it was false hope, therefore just by signing the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t make him â€Å"the Great Emancipator.† Abraham Lincoln was not â€Å"the Great Emancipator.† Throughout his time in office, he worked harder trying to re-unite the Union, rather than free the slaves. He felt that white people were superior to African-Americans and ‘played politics’ in the sense that he wanted to please the majority of the people rather than the blacks he was supposedly freeing. Lincoln did however sign the Emancipation Proclamation, ensuring the slaves in the South would become free, but it gave slaves false hope and didn’t make him â€Å"the Great Emancipator.† Lincoln may have been named the hero for the work he did in uniting the Union, but not with freeing slaves. Although I believe that President Lincoln was not â€Å"the Great Emancipator,† he was the man who rose to presidency to take on the roll of bringing the Union back together. Also, even though he didn’t actually free the slaves, eventually they were free through the steps he started to make. I think the moral of this story is just that â€Å"its better late than never† and that you should take a stand in what you believe because it could possibility turn out for the best in the future.

Marx and Carnegie Essay

For centuries, many philosophers have discussed the issue of class struggle. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie both developed theories of the unequal distribution of wealth a long time ago; however the only Carnegie’s ideology could apply to American society today. In â€Å"The Communist Manifesto†, Marx first introduces the two main social classes: bourgeois (the upper class) and proletarians (the lower class or working class). He points out the revolution of industrialism has made changes of Capitalism to Communism. He suggests that the rich should redistribute property evenly because the proletarians have put a lot effort contributing in the revolution. In contrast, Carnegie analyzes in â€Å"The Gospel of Wealth†, the unequal distribution of wealth is a natural consequence of civilization. Both Marx and Carnegie present the problem within society because they want to contribute their own experiences from various views to resolve the tension between the rich and p oor efficiently. By eliminating the gap between rich and poor, Marx believes Communism should replace the economic system of Capitalism. In his perspective, he claims, â€Å"They have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite† (Marx 476). Because he sees the Capitalist system exploits workers who are unfairly treated, he asserts that the proletarians should become the ruling class. The principle of Communism is the ideology of collectivism. Marx states, â€Å"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation† (470). This means that no private property should be allowed, and no one has even a less or more power in a Communist society. Because Marx illustrates the property ownership would enhance greed, and ambition to win in the competition despite of any consequences, he concludes the more competitions are eliminated, the better people would satisfy into their work. The goal of it is to bring up an  economic more and more efficient as well as its equality. Despite the fact both Marx and Carnegie agree that people who work hard deserve to live a successful life, Carnegie insists the great solution to the issue between rich and poor is depend on the wealthy class in society. He expresses, â€Å"The best minds will thus have reached a state in the development of the race in which it is clearly thoughtful and earnest men into whose bands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good† (495). Instead of conforming to Marx’ ideology of letting the proletarians rule the society, Carnegie thought that the rich provide an important responsibilities which means to improve the better standard of living in society. Since the poor will always be among us, he has mentioned the word â€Å"best minds† to identify the rich who represent the most educated and successful group within the population. Carnegie offered the solution of having the wealthy provided institutions and education programs, so the poverty could learn how to build their own wealth and have the great social benefits. In â€Å"The Gospel of Wealth†, Carnegie also mentions in the theory of Social Darwinism, society can’t be better because the wealthy have such a great deal amount of money, but they are not thinking carefully in what and how to spend their money properly. He said it is only useful when they find a good way to use that money to help the poor’s problems. He doesnâ€℠¢t support everyone who give generously to charity because the poor are not educated enough to use the money wisely, perhaps spend it on useless frivolities. He condemns, â€Å"It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy† (494). Thus, instead of spending money on useless things, he suggests that the rich should leave their wealth for public good. He used the Cooper Institute to expand his point that the public had used this institution to have themselves better rather than using the money Cooper had donated to them. He illustrates, â€Å"Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure† (494). In the Communism and Individualism, Marx and Carnegie passionately contrast against each other’s ideologies. In Marx’s perspective, the wealthy doesn’t seem to consider the effort of laborers so there is an inequality gap between two social classes. However, Carnegie strongly refuses Communism because he  believes Communism only work on theory but not in reality. He asserts that through Communism, people expect to be treated the same, so it maybe lead them to do nothing better for their lives and society. On the other hand, Carnegie explains the concept of Individualism can promote independence and enhance good communication between two separate social groups. He adds, â€Å"Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it† (488). It means people work hard individually can achieve good education and as well to have a better chance to develop their standard lives. Nevertheles s, Marx is also against Carnegie’s perspective. Marx proved that Communism promoted equality among individuals, creating a mutual agreement in regards to moral standards. Moreover, all different classes have the rights to trade and sell any products of manufacture to create a best standard living. Even though, Marx and Carnegie both represent the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist societies, they discuss the tension between two social classes in different perspectives. In Marx’s ideology of Communism, he wants the proletarians ruling society while Carnegie believes the bourgeois are qualified to improve the standard of living. Carnegie also mentions that the rich must spend their wealth in appropriate way such as contribute their money wisely to public uses. Each of their ideologies propose the advantages and disadvantages in the Communism and Individualism; however, the purpose of presenting the different perspectives of Marx and Carnegie is to reducing the gap between rich and poor as well as bringing the economic equally to develop a better standard life for all social classes. Works Cited Carnegie, Andrew. â€Å"The Gospel of Wealth.† A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ninth Ed. Eds. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2013. 485-495. Print. Marx, Karl. â€Å"The Communist Manifesto.† A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ninth Ed. Eds. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2013. 456-476. Print.