Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Using Norton Anthology World literature third addition volume F. Must pass turnitin.com
I copied two examples of previous paper as an example of my lack of writing skills. I do not request a technical paper because it will be obvious.

DIRECTIONS FROM INSTRUCTOR:

Ultimately, I want you to understand that literature is a
reflection of political, economic, and social realities. It is both a product of these different
facets of human life as well as a reflection of them. Literature can also be a call and/ or a
catalyst for social change (think of Swift, Moliere, Blake). We read literature to learn
about and speak of ourselves as individuals and ourselves as members of a larger group
as well as our society as a whole. Basically, literature is an examination of and a
reflection of everything that pertains to us and the world around us.
That?s really broad, right? The books are broken down into the major periods with the
focus on European and then American history (as well as broad sweeping looks at other
parts of the world: Asia, the Middle East, etc):
The Enlightenment, (Volume D)
Revolution (and Romanticism, which we did not cover) (Volume E)
Realism, Naturalism, and Symbolism, (which we did not cover)
and finally Modernism, Postcolonialism (which we did not cover) and the contemporary
world (Volume F)
The big picture question is: How does the literature of each period reflect the events and
philosophy and social changes of their periods?
If you understand the general characteristics of each period listed above and can
generally discuss events and trends and the characteristics of the literature of each period
and why that literature had those characteristics, you pretty much have it.
However, you have done all of this for every period except Modernism and
contemporary world literature.
Final exam question:
Discuss Modernism, and how the literature that is considered to be Modernist literature is
representative of the period. Then explain how contemporary world literature comes from
Modernism
How to answer the final exam question:
I would set it up by explaining how we got to Modernism, which will involve some
discussion of the periods that precede it, but this is much, much less involved than the
previous exam topic.
a. Discuss three Modernists and their work. You can bounce around the globe if you
wish, but if you do, you need to set up what Modernism is in that particular country.
Each country or region has been affected a bit differently due to different economic,
political, and cultural contexts.
b. Then discuss two contemporary authors. Explain how they represent NOW (or the
contemporary world which is from 1968 on.)
c. Then discuss the differences between Modernism and contemporary literature.
(Hint: the big difference will be between an internal examination, personal reflection
and person expression of reality (Modernism) and a focus on political forces and the
clash between traditional and new and the uneasy coexistence of cultures and beliefs
in this increasingly shrinking world (contemporary, now).
d. For extra depth to your paper, you can briefly explain the importance of the
Enlightenment and the Revolutionary periods to current thought. How are these periods
still with us?
d. This is going to be formatted like a paper, (MLA format!) and it will be due on your
final exam date, which I am changing because I want to give you extra time: Saturday
night, 11:55pm. My grades are due Monday at noon, so I cannot give you more time
than that.
e. There will be a discussion board on this, so feel free to post questions. I know that
this is weird, to know the final topic now, but this way, you can read with a purpose.
You know what you have to do, and you can prepare for it.
f. I should not have to say this, but I will: Submit to both the final exam dropbox in the
course and the final exam dropbox in turnitin.com.
g. You must have a Works Cited page.
h. Please, please pay attention to your formatting. Watch the video that I have posted. In
that video, I explain how to format your papers.
i. One last thing. Do not try to do this without reading the works. If you rely on
Puchner, you will not get a good grade on this. I want DEEP analysis of the works, not a
skimming of the main ideas.

1st paper:
Greg Dodge
K. Carter
English 2333.3002
September 24, 2012
The reality to Satire The Reality of Satire?? Say something about the literature you will be analyzing
The eEighteenth century was a period in time thatduring which people, after seeing light at the end of the tunnel, started wanting to know where it was coming from ?This sentence makes no sense. The scientific and mathematical advancements that had been made in previous years, gave logical and factual explanations to the everyday occurrences around them.. They People were no longer giving Providence credit for everything that happened around them and had developed an eager ambition to look further into, not only more causes of the effects, but at themselves for solutions. The aristocracy resisted the notion that anyone other than themselves was capable of thinking for themselves, much like some of our politicians. Writers of the period were able to expose the hypocrisies and inhumane treatment of its society people in a light that could be understood by many different classes of people. Jonathan Swift and Jean-Baptiste Poquelin Moliere were two such writers.,
Jonathan Swift, born in the mid seventeen century, is a renowned satirist that who pokes fun at all different stature ofclasses people. ?What he said he most wanted was to ?vex? his readers with an uncomfortable awareness of the follies of the world.? (Punchner 265) At the time, the English Monarchy sold large tracts of land to rich Protestants aristocrats. The Irish were Catholics, and under the suppression as oppressed people, they were not allowed to hold public offices, join the military , or educate their children. (You need a parallel structure). and the children were not permitted to be educated. Swift is was born to such a Protestant family in Ireland. His father dieds This should be in past tense. young though and his mother moves back to England leaving him to be raised by his uncle, who is less than caring. He is well educated, hangs out with other affluent writers and begins writing papers and comics that expose the reality of government and society. (265) As you can imagine, Ireland becomes impoverished with the starving and uneducated, and thus invokes a need to makeSwift wrote A A Modest Proposal.
Through his satirical wit, Swift describes the situation of the Irish plight and provides a solution. It What is IT? Pronoun Reference problem. is pretty ridiculous in its very nature but plausible in the explanation of how it could be fundamentally and economically viable. Using statistics and logical reasons, along with hear-say confirmations of its acceptance, he proposes using the children as a cash crop. In reality, we know this cannot be a morally correct solution but logically, it could work under the pretenses that we treat the children as a commodity. It?s It is a win- win situation... , rRight? We then begin to sit back and explore the logic and morality of the idea and we discover we must think of another way to resolve a deplorable situation. Does he come out and say to the nobility that this is an age of enlightenment and we should be thinking of ways to better ourselves or that we are equal people in this world and one group of people should not be treated this way regardless of race, ethnicity or religion? No?, but he does accomplish his goal, and we are forced to rationalize that if eating the children is not the answer?,what is? Stop it with the ellipses.
It is quite witty the way he sets himself amongst the elite when describing how his suggestions are not merely his own but that he has been told by other, well to do Englishmen, that there is nothing wrong with eating children and that they are actually quite tasty. ?A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased, in discoursing on the matter, to offer a refinement upon my scheme.? (317) He describes all the benefit of his plan in an intellectual way describing how it will reduce the maintenance cost while increasing the capital of the country. Allowing the poor to harvest their own children and sell them to those that are more deserving and can afford finer foods, will give them a bargaining chip. Since most of them have already been stripped of everything, they will have something of value to barter with when they are either short on money or need something to forfeit after becoming delinquent on a debtpt. It would also promote unity in the family. Men will want to stay with a bread winner, the wife who gives birth to the babies, while creating pride in the woman?s ability to contribute to the support of the family. In reality, he is poking fun at the supposed ?enlightened? aristocracy, but because he is one of them and suggesting the idea, it becomes merely a modest gesture. The suggestion causes those that are probably most capable of making a change, to ponder the situation in not only an economical aspect light but a moral one. It will take much more creative thinking to resolve this issue, but they have the majority of power to do so.
A good comedian can describe a wrong without stating who is to blame or reveal serious flaws in the human nature without offending the particular group that is most likely at fault. They can make light of an issue that with humor and satire and may be seemingly funny but really needs to be addressed. Swift is able to do that with ?A Modest Proposal.? He satirically describes horrible a conditions but in a form that is humorous to all that is reading it. He does not point the finger to whom is at fault but allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions take their own responsibility. Is it the uneducated child that is resorting to stealing or the mother that continues to have more children or the wealthy that continue to suppress them? Men of such enlightenment should be able to come up with a more agreeable and moral solution.
Moliere?s Tartuffe is just as cynical about the corruption and hypocrisies in the church. He does not come out and tell everyone that the church is full of a bunch of swindlers, but the hypocritical actions of Tartuffe, who represents pietythe hypocrisy of false piety, sheds a light on this divine authority that most people have come to accept from their priest. Moliere portrays Orgon as a simple and caring person who, while deeply committed to his faith, is blinded by it as well. It is dangerous to contradict the church or to even talk negative about its members and his play is banned. His point in this story is, not so much to make people hate the church or to mistrust all the people that wear a robe awkward structure., but to influence people to open their eyes to the reality that all people are human, especially including priests, and as such, they are prone to use other?s weaknesses to their advantage. Tartuffe uses his position in the church to justify his lust for Elmire and even suggest that heaven gives a wink of approval if his desires are pure. He first suggest that Ggod knows and it is ok and then, when that does not seem to be working fast enough, suggests that as long as nobody knows, then it is ok. When he is trying to seduce Elmire, he tells her, ?There?ll be no sins for which we must atone, ?Cause evil exist only when it?s known. Adam and Eve were public in their fall. To sin in private is not to sin at all. (186). He wants her really bad and like the dog that he is, will say whatever he must to get his way with her. I am sure there was weremany a fair lady made to feel part of god?s God?s good work back in the day. I am sure everyone is aware of all the little boys the Vatican has had to pay off in present years also. The character Moliere creates is certainly a hypocrite and gives you the reader justification to question his integrity and that of the church he represents.
We learn that Tartuffe is a fraud from the servant in his opening pages. He is soon exposed by the son n law, the son and even his wife. It is only after he has lost everything that Orgon realizes that he should have questioned what he has been taught to never question. Fortunately, the king who is a big supporter in reality, is given a big plug in the play. He is shown to be an enlightened person also, as all us readers certainly are, in having the intuition to look past the black cloak. Orgon is probably representative of most of us at some point in time. We see and hear things but somehow choose not to listen, even against our own best judgment. It is Moliere?s objective to make his readers question the things they are told not to and that they have a duty to look out for their own best interest. Enlightened people are thinkers and, as so, should use reason rather than emotion to make decisions.
I find Moliere a bit more cynical, than Swift in his approach to exposing the hypocrisies and realities of a real world but they both induces the same effect. They both reveal very important social issues of the time period in somewhat the same fashion. The ways in which both stories are written allow us to examine the faults of the characters and the situation from the outside. As a third party looking in at Tartuffe?s behavior, the reader is able to criticize the fictional character without actually criticizing a real person or church. We can look at Swift?s crazy idea from a third party as well. While scoffing at the idea of eating all the children, we are unconsciously being forced to examine the reality of starving children. It is easier to pass judgment and suggest solutions to difficult issues when, we as the reader, will not be affected by the outcome.
This was what the Age of Enlightenment was about and how Moliere and Swift complimented it. They helped to induce a behavior to question all the things that were going on around them. If it does not feel right or sound right than it probably is not right. The people were persuaded to not look at the church, its leaders or providence anymore for strict guidance but to use the voice of reason and the laws of nature and science to see and explain the hypocritical things in life. The atrocities that they were experiencing or could view going on around them, was not necessarily right just because it was, as Pope suggested, (351) but real events that could be explained and solved. As a reasoned person and in an enlightened society, they had a duty to examine and with all the new developments in science, be able to solve and eradicate all the sufferings of the human race.

Greg, I honestly do not know how to grade this. Your Swift section is terrible. Your Moliere section and your conclusion are very good. It?s like this paper was written by two different people.
72/100 Revise if you wish. The grade will jump up if you get Swift as good as your Moliere section. You could do with a little bit of revision on Moliere as well.



2nd paper revised: Greg Dodge
K. Carter
English 2333.3002
October 10, 2012
The Reason for Satire: An Analysis of (Titles)
The Eighteenth century was a period during which people, after seeing light at the end of the tunnel, were not afraid to walk towards it. Funny first sentence. Scientific and mathematical advancements proved that there were logical and factual explanations for the everyday occurrences .around them. The philosophy that was spreading was that of common sense and that there was more to people?s existence than simply being on earth to follow the orders of the ordained or to accept life as it was. Writers explored the moral and the social issues of the time and wrote about them in satires that grabbed people?s attention, regardless of class. They caught the interest of the peasants because the stories spoke about their hardships but in a humorous way that gave way to optimism. The middle class could relate to the characters, as well, but without assuming that they were the ones being ridiculed. The real purpose for their writings of the Enlightenment authors, the catalyst for the animosity, is the reason for satire. You could not pissThe people in charge were angering everyone else , and the Enlightenment authors used this anger to fuel their creative genius. off the people that were ruling the country. The church still had great influence, and the nobility could ban your their plays, ruin you them financially or have you them killed. These writers were truly genius in their approach and why they were areso representative of this period. The use of intellect and reverse psychology sheds light on the issues of the day. without shedding too much light on them self. Huh? Jonathan Swift and Jean-Baptiste Poquelin Moliere were two such writers.
Jonathan Swift was born in the mid seventeenth century and had become a renowned satirist. He developed a unique skill of addressing issues in a way that was not offensive or insulting but provocative enough to make people see the need for change. ?What he said he most wanted was to ?vex? his readers with an uncomfortable awareness of the follies of the world.? (Puchner 265). The English Monarchy, at the time, was selling large tracts of land in Ireland to rich Protestant aristocrats. The Protestants, as a way of suppressing the Catholic Irish people, would not allow the Irish to hold public offices, join the military or educated their children. The country of Ireland became rampant burdened with a population of impoverished men, women and children. Swift is wasborn to such a Protestant family in Ireland but devotes devoted most of his life to writing papers and comics that expose the hypocrisies of the church, the corruption of the government and the follies of society. (Puchner 265).
Swift?s, A Modest Proposal, describes the Irish plight and provides a solution. He proposes using the children as a cash crop and says that. aA healthy one year old child is a delicious delicacy that the wealthy and more deserving would be willing to pay for. It is a pretty ridiculous idea in nature and morally wrong to eat your one?s children but with the confirmation of other well-to-do Englishmen, he is able to support a fundamentally sound plan. ?A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased, in discoursing on the matter, to offer a refinement upon my scheme.? (Swift 317) He supports the rest of his argument with statistics that would suggest benefits to the government, as well as to the common people. If No vague you. You are doing this a lot, too. you reduce the amount of children you automatically reduce the maintenance cost and thus increase the general capital of the country. The majority of the poor have already been stripped of anything of value, and so this would provide them an income and an additional resource that could be tapped, if they were to ever run short on money or become delinquent on debpts. The plan would also encourage family unity and thus become a benefit to the common good of the community. Men would want to stay with a bread winner, a woman that could produce more children. This would also create pride in the woman?s ability to contribute to the support of the family. It seems like a win-win situation, right?
Swift?s story affects the human psyche and the reader must at least explore the logic and morality of his idea. Is it the uneducated child that is resorting to stealing or the mother that continues to have more children or the wealthy that continue to oppress them? Huh? Is what the uneducated child? Is what the mother? His satirical approach promotes a positive response rather than a response of denial. He does not point the finger at who is at fault but allows the readers to come to their own conclusions of responsibility. Men of such enlightenment should be able to come up with a more agreeable and moral solution. Nice!
Moliere?s Tartuffe is just as cynical about the corruption and hypocrisies in the church. He Moliere cannot just come out and say ?watch out for falsehood and swindlers,? but, through Tartuffe?s character, he illustrates what could happen when you we live life blindly and never question things involving faith. Tartuffe, who represents the hypocrisy of false piety, sheds a light is a bad example of on the this divine authority that most priest were expected to have. Moliere portrays Orgon as a simple and caring person who, while deeply committed to his faith, is blinded by it as well. ?NiceHis point in this story is not to make people distrust the church or want them to question everything the church represents. He does want though, to influence people to open their eyes to the reality that all people are human, including priests, and as such, they are prone to use others weaknesses to their advantage.
Tartuffe uses his position in the church to justify his lust for Elmire. He first says God knows everything and it is ok. He even suggests that heaven might give him a wink of approval if his desires were pure. When this tactic does not seem to be working fast enough, he changes his story altogether and says as long as nobody knows, then it is ok. ?There?ll be no sins for which we must atone, ?Cause evil exist only when it?s known. Adam and Eve were public in their fall. To sin in private is not to sin at all. (186) He wants her really bad and like the dog that he is will say just about anything to get his way with her. I am sure there were many a fair lady made to feel part of God?s good work back in the day. I am sure everyone is aware of all the little boys the Vatican has had to pay off in present years, also. The character Moliere creates is certainly a hypocrite and gives the reader justification to question his integrity and that of the church he represents.
We learn that Tartuffe is a fraud from the servant in his opening pages. He is soon exposed by the son-i n- law, the son and even his wife. It is only after he has lost everything that Orgon realizes that he should have questioned what he has been taught to never question. Orgon probably represents most of us at some point in time. We see and hear things but somehow choose not to listen, even against our own best judgment. It is Moliere?s objective to create this character bond so we cannot judge Orgon negatively, as we cannot judge ourselves negatively, for believing blindly in a faith. It is the priest who is misrepresenting the faith and the church, that he is sheltered from, that must be looked at.
I find Moliere a bit more cynical than Swift, in his approach to exposing the hypocrisies and realities of a real world but they both induces the same effect. They both reveal very important social issues of the time period in somewhat the same fashion. The ways in which both stories are written allow us to examine the faults of the characters and the situation from the outside. As a third party looking in at Tartuffe?s behavior, the reader is able to criticize the fictional character without actually criticizing a real person or church. We can look at Swift?s crazy idea from a third party as well. While scoffing at the idea of eating all the children, we are subconsciously being forced to examine the reality of starving children. It is easier to pass judgment and suggest solutions to difficult issues when, we as the reader, will not be affected by the outcome.
This was what the Age of Enlightenment. Moliere and Swift complimented it in similar but also in different ways. They helped to induce a behavior to question all the things that seemed hypocritical or unjust around them. If it does not feel right or sound right than it probably is not right. Society was explaining the laws of nature through scientific methods and the works persuaded the reader to use these methods along with the voice of reason to guide their life.

Thank goodness. This is a good paper. Now where the heck is your works cited page?

96/100
72 + 96 =168/2 = 84/100.

Essay Instructions: WE WILL PAY MORE FOR THIS ORDER!!! EMAIL for the sources (we have them)!!!!

Dear Sir,

I will acplish chapter 1 to chapter 3 myself. Therefore, I am expecting you acplishing chapter 4 and chapter 5 with the total of 50 pages. Please develop them based on my proposal basis. I will send you my proposal, survey questionnaire, and survey data via e-mail for your better understanding of my research and hopefully they will assist your statistical analysis and results (chapter 4) and discussion (Chapter 5).it MUST use the statistics analysis (I already have all the data survey done and will e-mail to you)

Plus, I would like to have the statistical processing data (including figure or table) from the writer in case my mittees would challenge me any statistical issues in the dissertation defense. For statistical package, please use SPSS is possible. Thank you for your highly cooperation!!

Below is the dissertation format. Hopefully you can help me to acplish chapter 4 (Results) and chapter 5 (Discussion) within my expecting days (7 days).

Chapter 4: RESULTS
Criteria for Coding Data
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis Four
Hypothesis Five
Hypothesis Six
Hypothesis Seven
Hypothesis Eight

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION
Study Design Based on Contemporary Literature
Review of the Findings
Other Findings
Limitations
Educational Implications
Future Research
Summary and Conclusions

There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: You are to write 1-page paper. Read the article below, and answer the question. State the question first. Do Not Use Outside Sources!

In talking about social identity, Hardin suggests that the way a group remembers its history "contributes to mystification rather than explanation or understanding"...

1.Do you think this is an accurate statement?

Hardin 2001
Identity Social
Problems of social, group, and collective identity have become a major focus of contemporary research. Such identity supposedly is determined by ethnic or other important characteristics. Interests in these issues presumably has been sparked by two factors. First, there are concerns of and concerns for minority ethnic groups in many nations, either from immigration, as in the US, or from historical intermingling, as in Belgium and most nations of the world. Second, the assertion of ethnic and gender identity has become a central element in recent politics in many nations. Much of the research on social identity has an inescapably normative tone and much of it is written as though by advocates of particular identities were even implausibly by advocates of identity per se. A social sciences must view identity as largely as social construction that is malleable to some degree especially in younger ages and as plural rather than singular at least an advanced societies. People who declare their identity, and leave you it as objective and normatively commanding. Hence, identity and identity politics pose a sharp example of the common phenomenon that social science explanations are rejected by the very people whose behavior they ostensibly explain. This may be part of the reason that especially postmodern advocates of the importance of identity reject explanations of ideological corrupted. There are three central issues in social identity that will be discussed here. What does it mean? What are its moral implications? And what motivates people to act on their identities? The first question raises the issue of what is means Bulls to a social scientist and also what it means to an individual who has some putative identity. The second and false claims about what actions or policies are justified by aspects of social identity, especially when those characterize substantial groups. The last question shifts the focus from supposedly objective facts of identity to subjective issues a motivation and, hence, as discussed below, from identity to identification. This question arises independently of whether identity is socially constructed or objective. For example, philosophers once suppose it the possibility of an ardent Nazi, so ardent in his commitments as to think it right that, once his Jewish identity was discovered he should be expelled from Nazi society.
These three questions have answers that are not entirely severable, because they inform each other. The third question involves issues of explanation. How do we explain an individual’s identification with a particular group? If meanings are theory-laden then the first question also involves issues of explanation. The most common categories of social identity are racial, gender, religious, national, communal, an ethnic, all of which are taken to be chiefly or ascriptive. We might add familial , professional, and other identities to the first list for at least many people but for many of the theorists of social identity these categories suggests the breakdown of the central idea as the plural ties of modern societies also commonly do. Indeed some of the discussions of identity take the form of advocacy of a restoration of some of the earlier forms of social life without the corrosive effects of modern liberalism and pluralism on community. There is a long history of the analysis of individual or personal identity by psychological theorists, from James 1981 forward. And there is a rich history of the effort to socialize the idea of a person or the self, from at least Mead 1934. An implication of such of the latter literature is that social identity is important in large part because it determines personal identity so heavily. Advocates of social identity sometimes are accused of having an over-socialized conception of the person. Some of the strongest contemporary advocates of social activity shared the postmodern and communitarian rejection of any strong notion of individual autonomy, such as has descended from the universalist stances of the utilitarian’s and Immanuel Kant. They therefore think it makes no sense to speak of your identity without essentially definitive resource to your social context and background. Bridges between the psychological study of personal identity and the sociological study of social identity are, however, few and often narrow. Most of the discussion is not empirical and it often has a strong scent of ideological pleading. This is a topic that is sorely in need of explanatory accounts. One of the great strengths of psychological approach to personal identity is that it had leash troubles with and has some chance of explaining the formation of such identities. For example, Sigmund Freud and many others have argued that the narcissism of minor differences. Bourdieu 1984 supposes that social identity lies in difference, and difference is asserted against what is closest, which represents the greatest threat. If we are to understand social activity we probably need to have accounts and explanations of its formation. Commonly, its genesis simply is assumed and accounts start from a present, assumed identity. Indeed, many writers even give credit to some notion of collective memory that connects, say, contemporary Serbs with the dreadfully lost the war with Turks in 1389 in the field of the blackbirds. Somehow, the English seemed to be exempt from the effects of the dreadful memories of Hastings Field and Americans do not even remember much less recent the burning of the White House by the British. The assertion of historical memory contributions to mystification is, in a famous remark of Ernest Renan required for nationalism, because one can be committed to the rightness and purity of the nation only by forgetting its brutal and messy past. Mystification is also required for many claims of group identity.
The Meaning of Social Identity
Many descriptive accounts of social identity virtually essentialize it to suppose that if we know relevant descriptive facts about you we know your social identity. Against any such move others note that even a descriptive account could conclude that your identity is quite varied. You are an Italian, Catholic, New York accountant with particular social activities and specific groups. There may be no one you know who shares all of these characteristics that are, together, central to your own life. Hence, it would make sense to say that you have multiple activities which likely are evoked in different contexts or on different issues. But maybe you disliked your Italian neighbors and their vocal style you have rejected Catholicism and have stopped going to mass and you wish you could move out of New York and change your profession. All of the things you’ve now reject might nevertheless have effect on you and might help others to understand parts of your behavior and attitudes so that in some explanatory since they are part of your identity. Still in your case there is an odd difference between the use of your characteristic identity to explain things you do or think and your actual commitments. Much of the literature that explicitly or implicitly justifies actions from identity takes relevant commitments for granted one’s identity is established. But your case suggest that this correlation of ascriptive characteristics and commitments can be entirely wrong. The idea of social identity in a pluralist’s world in which individuals themselves have plural commitments seems to break down and the recent efflorescence of communitarian thought is largely a response to this break down. In a pluralist society the philosophical concern with identity and its fundamental meaning for even a mere physical object becomes acute. The traditional philosophical example is the boat that is rebuilt over many years, one rotted plank at a time. Suppose no piece of the original boat remains but that the boat continues to sail. It is the same boat? Are you in any meaningful sense the same person who was born and live for many years in a different society before you migrated, went to university, developed radically different taste, rejected your prior religious views, and lost contact with virtually everyone you earlier, and so forth? And if personal identity is in question, can social identity be any more stable? Identities that are asserted forcefully are often virtually invented by leaders with agendas on the deliberate creation and manipulation of national identities. Many other communities with which individuals identify are hierarchical or otherwise diverse in ways that suggests there is not a unique identity or kind of person at issue. The ascriptive variables on which identity might be based are, as noted, numerous and varied. It is therefore almost impossible to talk about social identity without making the term he noted, without virtually pointing and saying, that is an identity. What is missing is some standard set of characteristics that defines a social identity beyond the fact that some significant members of people assert that they have such an identity. Social identity theory is woefully under-theorized.
The Ethics of Social Identity
Much of the contemporary literature on identity is normative, not casual, and is therefore unlike the early Chicago school of sociological work on ethnic minority groups. It is driven partly by the postmodern rejection of explanation and its focus on descriptive and normative judgment that seems to float merely from description, contrary to the famous principle of David Hume that one cannot deduce a moral conclusion from a mere fact of an ‘ought’ from and ‘is.’ Of course specific claims of identity is actual context typically are normatively loaded. They commonly are claims from political rights or redress of wrongs. How should the social theorist for policymaker respond to identity claims? We generally do not honor relativistic moral claims such as that you or your group has a special status that others must honor. Rather, we expect moral claims to be universalistic in some sense. For you to make a moral claim you must grant implicitly that all who are in similar circumstances somehow define can make the same moral claim. If you insist that your claim should motivate others the claims of those in a position analogous to viewers should motivate you to some extent. Assertions of the rightness or goodness of one’s own group and its claims often are little more than group solipsism normally has. When an identity is enforced on an individual or group by others as in context of racism, we might agree easily that there is a moral aspect to the individuals claims from identity. Indeed, racist treatment seems to be a simple case of universalistic concern. It is perhaps this quality, when it is present, of much of the assertion of identity by suppressed groups in their defense that has motivated concerned with group identity and that has elevated it to the status of a moral issue. Actual supporters of group identity in many contexts would blanch at the thought of support for, say, Caucasian Americans, Anglo-Saxon, or German identity, although each of these historically has been asserted against immigrant groups and in the US former slaves. From contemporary identity theorist the only apparent candidates for claims of rights of identity are minorities those in secondary status and Third World populations. But these are not moral status is per se. However we would have to be articulate about what characteristics of these groups entitled them to special concern. A particular social identity cannot be good or write except contingently. Otherwise it would be wrong for me to reject mine--or, more typically, some of mine. We could have compelling explanatory discussions of social activity; the contemporary literature to date has few such discussions. Instead authors commonly take identities for granted and they focus on the normative qualities of social identity and typically therefore of communal life. They often pose such like as good and as hostile to traditional liberal principles of universality and autonomy which would seem to entail opening the doors of community to free and tree by outsiders much I’ll be determined it off the community ur-members. To establish the something is good we my showed that it follows from some theory of the good or that it fits human nature or that it was brought about by a relevant procedure. Communitarianism is essentially proceduralist about the good. If the community generates a practice that practice is good for the community. This is a peculiar move and standard ethics because proceduralism typically has been the path to the right not to the good. The question for a communitarian definition of good is what the procedure is about and how it works. In law, procedures often are supposed to work for discovery of truth or for the protection of people from particular kinds of official abuse. However they make right. Communal creation of values commonly is supposed by communitarians to make those values could at least for the community that creates them. Because we assert our identity, that identity has more weight, it is part of our of good. Unfortunately, although practicing communitarians are almost always partial to their own group and hostile and even murder was to certain other groups this implication has a universal quality that suggests that any group that inserts its identity has their right has thereby define the content of much of its good and the good of its members. It is partly therefore a Communitarianism has taken a dramatically conservative turned and that defenders of the goodness of stultified narrowly focused communities that often entails severe restrictions on the opportunities of their children have become communitarians. This quasi-universal quality of communitarian thought is about the universality of the way he eight groups good gets defined, not about the content of that good. Some communitarians seem to espouse a return to religion for others not because of the rightness of the content of the beliefs but because of the discipline and control of self that religiosity brings.
Motivations to Act
Perhaps the least addressed of the three questions central to understanding social and didn’t he is what motivates individual to act on their identities. In a sense this question changes our focus from identity to a identification for a sense of inner identity which was a central concern of Erikson 1964. Such identification has not often been addressed in the contemporary claims for identity. Indeed there is often not even a clear distinction between personal and social identity. There have been three major approaches to be analysis of identity beyond mere assertion or description of it. There are psychological, moral, and rational choice accounts. The most influential psychological account has been that of Erikson focus is not on social identity but rather on the individual’s creation of an identity for a self, all, of course, under massive social influence. Despite the initial promise of compelling qualities of Erikson’s work on identity, however, psychological accounts have often had an ad hoc quality that has perhaps kept them from being fouled out extensively by anyone other than their original authors. There is, therefore, not a coherent body of work that gives clear insight into why one’s objective circumstances of language, religion, skin color, gender, prior huge tree, and so forth should motivate one to energetic and even risky action on behalf of whatever one might identify with. It is not difficult to give a more count of the motivations of many individuals who act on behalf of a group, as example, for example, Frederick Douglass did for African-Americans or as Mahatma Gandhi did for lower castes India. But it is difficult to construct a moral story that justifies Serbian ethnic cleansing or to see scurrilous leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic or Franjo Tudjman as moral. Many members of various ethnic groups do claim that they have been wrong morally and that their actions against others are morally grounded. But it is hard to moralize the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, most of which has been carried out by soldiers on the orders or the spontaneous violence by uncontrolled mumps that have wreaked havoc and death on Sikh’s in India after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, on African-Americans during hundreds of lynching’s in the US, and on Tutsis in Rwanda during the incomparably bloody rampage of the Hutu extremists interahamwe. Interestingly there are all instances of majority at the groups attacking minority groups and the acting groups committing these atrocities were in political power at time although the Hutu soon lost power. One way of ostensibly explaining any specific motivations is to reduce it to other motivations that are well understood and that have such broader application. Some explanations of social identity implicitly posit it as a motivation of its own kind, a kind that has only relatively recently been discovered. This is a very unsatisfactory moves because supposed social identities do not correlate with actions following from the motivation. Psychological accounts are relatively fragmented because they do not reduce the relevant motivations to some widely accepted core. Rational choice explanations again what power they have from the attempt to reduce particular motivations to some narrower set of motivations often simply to interest, which can be moderately well-defined and measured across a large variety of contexts and actions. In such an account of individual identification with the group, we look to see how certain interests of the individual might be satisfied by participation in the light of the group. And we look to see what interest members of the group might have to impose constraints on each father to enforce their commitments to the group. In essence, groups commonly produced norms of exclusion whose content is rules for belonging to the group and whose chief means of sanction is the possibility of excluding miscreants from the group. If membership has its pleasures, the sanctions of exclusion has bite. It might be trumped by inducements from outside the group and therefore many people leave groups with which they have previously been strongly associated. Indeed they have nations and home communities even at great cost for the benefits they might expect elsewhere. It is a striking feature of norms of exclusion that their sanctions are often easily motivated while the sanctions against violating universal norms are very hard to motivate unless they can be brought to bear in essentially dyadic or small number of context (Hardin 1995). Such an account of their commitments is unlikely to satisfy members of a group who are more likely with Renan to justify their commitments by mystifying the value and reason of the group. Unfortunately the only account that would not have this problem of rejection by the group is the account the members themselves would give. The account is unlikely to be to understanding and it’s typically likely to be almost entirely normative. The social scientist who tries to explain communal commitments and social identities is apt to lead an existence somewhat barren of such community. Gellner 1998 argues that moderns with their individualistic life and thoughts may suffer a romantic wish for or even insistence on, community and a particular social identity. Wishing will not make it happen and most moderns will be able to speak of their own social identity only in the plural, often the extremely plural, and, as James argues long ago, in a plural that is in frequent flux. An irony of the lives of the theorists of social identity and community is that they are too inherently plural in their own identities and that they typically lead their lives in the cold comfort of anti-communal, universalistic universities.

Essay Instructions: Very briefly discuss how critical literacy has forced readers to contemporise their reading habits by comparing early and contemporary literature for young children. For example in early literature the author is all-knowing and tells the reader what to think and in contemporary literature readers have the ability to fill in gaps. Write a discourse analysis, focusing on some factors such as gender imbalances, Indigenous Australians as represented from a white perspective, dominating roles in families, political climates, stereotypes, normalisation, same sex marriages etc. Briefly discuss why the authors may have written the novel the way they did and the influencing factors. Make reference to Authors such as: James Thurber and his role reversals, Ethel Turner, Wendy Morgan, Mary Bruce Grant, Dorothy Walls and her variations of fairytales and the Blinky Bill series, Mary O’Neill, Anthony Browne, Bronwyn Mellor, Annette Patterson, George Eliot and how she had to take on a male name to get published. In your discussion include examples from http://cbca.org.au/awards.htm , http://www.dawcl.com/ and http://www.carolhurst.com/ if appropriate. An example of a topic you could discuss is: Jan Needle's Wild Wood which was published in 1981. It is a re-telling of the story of The Wind in the Willows from the point of view of the working-class inhabitants of the Wild Wood. For them, money is short and employment hard to find. They have a very different perspective on the wealthy, easy, careless lifestyle of Toad and his friends. Discuss why Jan Needle may have adapted the story including the political climate of the era or other influencing factors. Do not focus on one story but instead write short, sharp comparisons of discourses in a few different stories and discuss more than one discourse. Try to include some reference to Australian children's literature.
Customer is requesting that (hophead) completes this order.