Marxist Criticism on The Lottery by Shirley Jackson

BUSINESS ETHICS essay part 2

BUSINESS ETHICS essay part 2 BUSINESS ETHICS essay part 2 BUSINESS ETHICS essay part 2BUSINESS ETHICS essay part 13) What are the Virtues of a Capitalist Free Market System? What is the Marxist criticism of such a system as exemplified by the Capitalist system? Does it follow then that if Marxism is correct that Capitalism is inherently flawed? How does Capitalism provide a Moral defense of its system?  The Virtues of a Capitalist Free Market System include the set of morally justified principles which aim at the justification of the capitalist system and making this system grounded on moral principles (De George 115). In this regard, one of the main virtues of a capitalist free market system is the free and fair competition which implies that all individuals have equal opportunities but some of them just fail to exercise their opportunities, whereas others use the full potential of their opportunities that bring them success and wealth. Furthermore, the Virtues of a Capitalist Free Market System imply that the market develops freely wit hout any regulations (De George 118). Therefore, there are no external powers or factors that may influence the position of individuals or actions of moral agents. In other words, the capitalist system implies the free development of individuals which are not bound by any regulations imposed on them by the government, for instance. As a result, individuals being absolutely free cannot complain on the system because this system turns out to be regulated by natural market laws but not written laws imposed on individuals by the government or other authorities. In this regard, Marxism criticizes the major flaw of capitalism which is the class antagonism and the oppression of the class of oppressed by the class of oppressors, whereas oppressors accumulate their wealth at costs of the class of oppressed by means of the full control over means of production, whereas oppressed have nothing but their labor which is their only source of income (De George 122). In such a way, Marxism reveals t he intrinsic inequality between people in the capitalist system and the gap between social classes cannot be bridged, unless the social revolution occurs and leads to redistribution of power and change of the classes of oppressors and oppressed or the creation of the classless society. In response to such criticism, the capitalism provides the moral defense grounded on the initial equality of all people and persisting equal opportunities for all people because formally every individual has a chance to become rich and prosperous, if he/she has a good business idea, for instance. In such a way, the capitalism attempts to justify the possible inequality of individuals in their socioeconomic standing by the lack of abilities, while formally all of them have equal opportunities to exercise their abilities and available resources to reach success. However, this argument is not always effective and persuading, when confronted by Marxist ideas which reveal the essence of inequality based on the difference in the access to the means of production (De George 124). To put it more precisely, Marxists stand on the ground that people cannot exercise equal opportunities because they do not have equal access to the means of production. For instance, if a person invents a technological innovation allowing him/her to manufacture a new product, he/she holds the full control over the means of production because he owns the production line he/she has created his/her write to own it is protected by law in the capitalist system. As a result, the public cannot exercise benefits from this invention starting its mass production because the owner of the innovation is the only proprietor of the means of production and new technology. The inventor does not make his/her innovation available to the public production. Instead, he/she retains the full control over the production and means of production. In such a situation, employees have to work for the owner of the means of production to ma nufacture the innovative product and they cannot start the production of the similar product or the same product because they do not own the means of production. The only thing they own is their labor. Thus, Marxists reject the moral defense of Capitalism and insist that Capitalism is the unfair and unjust social system, where the inequality of the class of oppressors and the class of oppressed cannot be eliminated otherwise but by means of the social revolution.

Management Theory And Practice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Management Theory And Practice - Essay Example Management is the dynamic, life-giving element in every business. Without it the resources of production remain resources and never become production." (Sharma, 2004 11) This definition emphasizes that the managers achieve organizational objectives getting things done through the employees. Human resource Management is very essential for successful running of an enterprise. It ensures proper use of physical and human resources by deriving the best results. It leads to efficient performance and higher productivity. Human Resource Management is very essential for every organization to make productive use of human physical and financial resources or the achievement of the organizational goals. It helps in determination of objectives. No organization can succeed in tits mission unless its objectives an identified and well denied. Management helps in achieving these objectives by the efficient use of resources. "Planning is the selection and relating of facts and making and using of assumptions regarding the future in the visualization and formalization of proposed activities believed necessary to achieve desired results" (Sharma, 2004 26). Planning is straightforward, and the process of planning can be summarized in five steps, which can be adapted to suit any planning activity at any level in the organization with the support of highly skilled individuals. (Yvonne 28) Assess... Policies, procedures and rules are often referred to as standing plans; they are automatically activated when certain events occur. The Planning Process Planning is straightforward, and the process of planning can be summarized in five steps, which can be adapted to suit any planning activity at any level in the organization with the support of highly skilled individuals. (Yvonne 28) Step 1 Establish a goal, or a number of goals. Planning begins with defining what the organization wants to achieve. Being as specific as possible, and establishing priorities will assist the organization in focusing its efforts. Step 2 Assess the present situation and forecast the future situation. The current situation needs to be assessed and analyzed before future activity can be investigated. Questions such as 'How far is the organization away from its goals 'And 'What resources does it have to reach the goals' need to be addressed. A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis needs to be undertaken. This involves identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and determining the opportunities available to the organization and the threats it faces Step 3 Develop and evaluate alternatives. After auditing the resources of the organization and making forecasts, it is likely that there will be several courses of action, which could accomplish the organization's goals. These must be carefully evaluated. Step 4 Implement the plan. Once the choice has been made from the various alternatives, the plan can be drawn up and implemented. However, planning alone is not a guarantee of success. Success depends on the effective implementation of the plan, and involves management skills in organizing, staffing, leading and

Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 2

Law - Essay Example Eventually, this has led to the member states’ attempts to minimize stemming the burden that unbridled movement of persons place on them. The Regulation EEC 1612/68 has already been applied to more than 2 million EU citizens exercising this right. In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht created the Community model (amended Treaty of Rome), extended responsibility, and focused more on Community integration by exercising such rules. Originally, members of Community defined it as ‘economic activity’. However, this requirement has been abolished and under the new Directives, the nationals of the EU member’s state are classified as â€Å"Union citizens†1. Needless to say, the free movement of workers is secured2. This directly affects the EU member states by proposing and ratifying laws such as secondary law, Regulation (EEC) 1612/68, and Directives 2004/38. This essay will demonstrate and discuss the significance of Article 45, and potential issues such as (a) right to freedom of movement for job-seeker people; (b) right to freedom of movement after a failed marriage; (c) right to freedom of movement for non-married partners; (d) right to received allowances in another member states. Definition of workers: The definition of a ‘worker’ has a wider meaning as defined by the Community. However, it is not defined by the member of states3. For example, key case Lawrie-Brum4 concluded that a trainee teacher is a worker. It expanded the definition of a worker to a person who â€Å"for a certain period performs services for and under the direction of another person and in return receives remuneration†. This has given a broader interpretation of a worker, for example, if somebody works in a religious community he or she is still considered a worker5. This case law added further categories (i.e part-time chamber pupil6, part-time music teachers7, pacer in cycling race8, Professional footballer9); who were also regarded as worke rs because they engaged in an economic activity. The ECJ did not allow everyone because it restricts some categories under this broad worker definition. This is seen in the case of Bettray10. He claimed to be a worker while on drug rehabilitation programme. However, the ECJ declined to classify him as a worker because he was not engaged in any economic activity. However, scholars have heavily criticized it. 1.1 Job seekers: Article 45 (ex Article 39 TEC) gives the European Union citizens the right of movement from one union member nation to another in search of a job. However, Article 45 (3) subjects those rights to limitations because the state can derogate a person on the basis of the â€Å"public policy, public security, and public health†. Under the UK law, Procureur, 11an individual can be lawfully deported because he or she did not secure work within a limited time. However, the Court of Justice stopped a lawful deportation of an Italian job seeker12 by applying Article 45. Conversely, Aritcle14 (4) (b) of Directives 2007/38 allows citizens to enter into member states to seek for employment if they have genuine chances of getting a job. Nonetheless, the job seekers are not entitled to full benefits. Arguably, Antonissen13 and Collins14 confirmed this where the ECJ declined to give social security benefit because they were unsuccessful in looking for a job. In essence, this illustrates that citizens have the right to enter and reside in host country

Feminist Critique of Classical Criminology

Feminist Critique of Classical Criminology The feminist critique of classical criminology has focused first on the marginalization of women in its studies and secondly on the contention that when women are studied, it is in a particularly limited and distorting fashion. Attempts to construct a distinctly feminist criminology have been made with use of methodologies including empiricism and standpoint theory. However, these theories have received criticism for their essentialist assumptions and universal claims. The feminist criminological theories detailed in this opinion have resulted from these criticisms and focus on postmodern ideas which consider more carefully how categories of identity are constituted and how power relates to knowledge. Particular attention will be given to the impact of Foucauldian notions of normalisation and disciplining power on the explanations of female conformity and deviance. Discourses on hegemonic masculinity which have grown from feminist epistemologies and methodologies will also be address ed. For every one hundred males convicted of serious offences there are only 18 females so convicted. Age and sex remain the best predictors for crime and delinquency better than class, race or employment status.(heidensohn, 1995, p143)  [1]. The discipline of criminology has been increasingly criticised by feminists and pro-feminist writers for its lack of gender analysis. As Ngaire Naffine has asserted, the costs to criminology of its failure to deal with feminist scholarship are perhaps more severe than they would be in any other discipline.(Naffine, p6)  [2]  The reason being that the most consistent and prominent fact about crime is the sex of the offender. As a rule, crime is something that men do, not women, so the denial of the gender question and the dismissal of feminists who wish to tease it out seems particularly perverse.(Naffine. 1996, p6)  [3]   The field of literature on criminology would suggest that it is a discipline of academic men studying criminal men and, at best, it would appear that women represent only a specialism, not the standard fare. .(Naffine. 1996, p1)  [4]  Similarly feminism as a substantial body of social, political and philosophical thought, does not feature prominently in conventional criminological writing. Feminism in its more ambitious and influential mode is not employed in the study of men, which is the central business of criminology. The message to the reader is thus that feminism is about women, while criminology is about men. (Naffine. 1996, p2)  [5]  Naffine has stated, the neglect of women in much mainstream criminology has, therefore, skewed criminological thinking in a quite particular way. It has stopped criminologists seeing the sex of their subjects, precisely because men have occupied and colonised all of the terrain. (Naffine. 1996, p8)  [6]   Traditional criminology which has sought to explain female criminality has been almost summarily rejected by feminists. The feminist critique of classical criminology was inaugurated by Carol Smart who rejected the biological positivist account of criminality propounded by Lombroso and Ferrero. Smart contended that the common stance, which unites classical theorists, is based upon a particular misconception of the innate character and nature of women, which is in turn founded upon a biological determinist position.(Smart. 1977, p27)  [7]  The emphasis on the determined nature of human behaviour, asserted Smart, is not peculiar to the discipline of criminology, or to the study of women, but is particularly pertinent to the study of female criminality because of the widely-held and popular belief in the non-cognitive, physiological basis of criminal actions by women.  [8]   Feminist criminologists sought to rectify the inadequacies of traditional criminology through new methodologies and research. Two of the earliest and most prominent schools of thought were feminist empiricism and standpoint feminism. Much of the early writing of feminists in criminology assumed the methods and assumptions of empiricist criminology. The concern of these early feminists was that women had been left out of the research of scientists and the result was a necessarily skewed and distorted science.  [9]  It accounted for men and explained their behaviour in a rigorous and scientific way, but it did not account for women, though it purported to do so. Feminist criminologists pointed out the blatant sexism of this double standard and argued that women and men should receive the same scientific treatment. Harding labels this method of thought feminist empiricism.  [10]  To feminist empiricists, scientific claims are thought to be realisable, but have not yet been realised in relation to women. Feminist empiricists alleged that classical criminologists had not considered the effects of their own biases and preconceptions on their work: on what they chose to do, how they did it, and what they made of it.  [11]  Thus feminist empiricists endeavour to develop a scientific understanding of women as the missing subjects of criminology, to document their lives both as offenders and as victims. They raise objections to the empirical claims made about women, when those claims are based on meagre evidence, with a good sprinkling of prejudice.  [12]   Naffine has suggested that the principle shortcoming of feminist empiricism is its tendency to leave the rest of the discipline in place, unanalysed and unchallenged.  [13]  The underlying assumption is that criminology is somehow competent and impartial when it is not dealing with women and so the gendered nature of criminal law and the criminal justice system remains unexamined. The empirical methods and the epistemological assumptions of traditional criminology are generally allowed to stand, as are its understandings of men. Feminist empiricism, therefore, fails to ask about the significance of institutions which have been organised around men.  [14]   Another feminist criminology which was constructed from the critique of classical theory was standpoint feminism. Standpoint feminism contended that criminologys continuing preoccupation with the viewpoint of men was a function of power. For standpoint feminists, the solution to criminologys ignorance of womens experiences was to turn to women themselves and seek their own accounts of the criminal experience. As Carol Smart has observed: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the epistemological basis of this form of feminist knowledge is experienceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦feminist experience is achieved through a struggle against oppression; it is, therefore, argued to be more complete and less distorted than the perspective of the ruling group of men. A feminist standpoint then is not just the experience of women, but of women reflexively engaged in struggle. In this process it is argued that a more accurate or fuller version of reality is achieved. This stance does not divide knowledge from values and politics but sees knowledge arising from engagement.  [15]   Thus the adoption of the standpoint of women is fundamentally a moral and political act of commitment to understanding the world from the perspective of the socially subjugated. It assumes that the identity of the subject matters; the epistemological site of the woman from below provides better insights into her condition. Thus, standpoint theorists attempt to close the gap between the knower and the known.  [16]   Pat Carlen has made use of standpoint theory in her research seeking to invest the female offender with the sort of rationality and purpose which had previously only been found in the male offender.  [17]  Carlen took an unusual step by literally making the criminal women who formed the subject of her study the authors of their own stories.  [18]  One of Carlens stated purposes was to make us realise that the criminality of women is serious and intentional.  [19]  Other standpoint theorists have suggested that the viewpoint of women provides a more secure grasp of certain aspects of reality, particularly the realities of disadvantages and political oppression than the standpoint of men. Standpoint theory can also be used effectively to highlight the injuries done to women as victims of crime. Standpoint feminism is by its nature democratic, its subversive potential does not depend on the academic credentials of the author.  [20]   Despite the contribution of standpoint theory to feminist criminology critics of this methodology have not failed to highlight its manifest inadequacies. These inadequacies include a lack of constituency and the tendency of standpoint feminism to universalise the category woman. These are the questions which standpoint feminism has no clear answer to. The notion of a womans standpoint, the suggestion that women as a category possess a particular and superior view of the world, is necessarily to select just one of the many viewing points from which women look on the world, and then to impose that one view on all.  [21]  These criticisms and others have been highlighted most eloquently by black and Third World feminists. Marcia Rice has taken issue with mainstream feminist criminology accusing it of being blind to its own essentialising tendencies. Given the history and theoretical objectives of feminist criminology, one might have assumed that the monolithic, unidimensional perspectives employed by traditional theorists would have been abandoned for a more dynamic approach.  [22]   However, Rice contends, almost without exception, feminist criminological research from 1960 to the present has focused on white female offenders. Sexist images of women have been challenged, but racist stereotypes have largely been ignored.  [23]  While there has been some acknowledgement that black women are not dealt with in the same way as white women, no research has been carried out which compares the sentences of black and white women.  [24]  This is an important point as a failure to consider the potentially different experiences of black women may invalidate the research findings. Race may be as important as gender, if not more so.  [25]   Rice has also criticised the perceived assumption in much feminist criminological writing that all women are equally disadvantaged. For example ODwyer, Wilson and Carlen write: Women in prison suffer all the same deprivation, indignities and degradations as male prisoners. Additionally they suffer other problems that are specific to them as imprisoned women.  [26]  Rice contends that this statement is inadequate as it stands. It fails to acknowledge the added problems of the isolation of and discrimination against black women. Bryan et al, for example, point to the fact that a higher percentage of black than white women in prison are on prescribed psychotropic drugs.  [27]  This requires explanation. Furthermore, many black women serving long sentences are not indigenous but are from West Africa and are serving sentences for drug offences. These groups of female prisoners in Britain are often awaiting deportation and have special needs; for example, contact is usually severed with their families and there are problems of communication.  [28]   Thus, asserts Rice, feminist criminologists have developed a theoretical approach which emphasises the significance of patriarchal oppression and sexist ideological practices. The main problem with this is that, in assuming a universal dimension of mens power, this approach has ignored the fact that race significantly affects black womens experiences in the home, in the labour market, and of the criminal justice system.  [29]   Criminologists have responded in many ways to the concerns of standpoint theorists. The responses focused on in this essay are those which pursue the intellectual problems generated by standpoint theory, and so consider more carefully how categories of identity are constituted and how power relates to knowledge. An examination of female criminality and unofficial deviance suggests that we need to move away from studying infractions and look at conformity instead, because the most striking thing about female criminal behaviour on the basis of all the evidence is how notably conformist to social mores women are.  [30]   Increasingly feminist criminologists have turned to postmodern (and poststructuralist) explanations of the way power and knowledge intersect to interrogate normalisation techniques and womens social and legal conformity. Many of these theories and methodologies have been based on the work of influential French philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault has argued that disciplinary power acts on the individual body in order to render it more powerful, productive, useful and docile. Foucaults genealogies seek to give an account of how our ways of thinking and doing dominate and control us.  [31]  In modern society disciplinary power has spread through the production of certain forms of knowledge, such as the positivistic human sciences, and through the emergence of disciplinary techniques of surveillance, and examination which facilitates the process of obtaining knowledge about individuals. Disciplinary practices create the divisions healthy/ill, sane/mad which by virtue of their autho ritative statuses can be used as effective means of normalisation.  [32]  Disciplinary power secures its hold by created desires, attaching individuals and their behaviour to specific identities, and establishing norms against which individuals and their behaviours and bodies are judged and against which they police themselves.  [33]  Prevailing notions of identity and subjectivity are maintained and created not through violence or active coercion but by individual self-surveillance. Thus, There is no need for arms, physical violence, material constraints. Just a gaze. An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end up by interiorising to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual this exercising their surveillance over, and against himself  [34]   Forms of knowledge such as criminology, psychiatry and philanthropy are directly related to the exercise of power, while power itself creates new objects of knowledge and accumulates new bodies of information. Foucaults interpretation of disciplinary power has allowed feminist criminologists to exact a resounding critique on feminisms which have utilised structural accounts of patriarchal power. It has also prompted these criminologists to interrogate the diverse relationships that women occupy in relation to the social field consisting of multiple sites of power and resistance. Feminists have used Foucaults analytics of power to show how the various strategies of oppression around the female body from ideological representations of femininity to concrete procedures of confinement and bodily control are central to the maintenance of hierarchical social relations.  [35]  A pertinent example of feminist criminological research which has uncovered the use of panoptic techniques on women has been done by Pat Carlen who interviewed 15 Scottish sheriffs on their handling of women who were charged and imprisoned for criminal offences.  [36]  Carlen observed the considerable degree of embarrassment in the sheriffs feelings when a woman appeared in court as accused. They seemed to feel uneasy first because they knew that the women were being dealt with in a highly inappropriate penal tariff system to which they could not respond and second because of the womens role as mothers. The conflict was resolved by the sheriffs differentiating between good and bad m others. The sheriffs then redefine the prison to which the women are sent with all the appropriate paraphernalia of security and restraint, as a comfortable place, suitable for a spot of kindly paternal discipline (emphasis added).  [37]  Thus disciplinary power works to examine, diagnose and reform criminal women whilst the sheriff fulfills the role of normalising judge. Colin Sumner has provided an insightful exposition of Foucauldian normalisation in his work on gender and the censure of deviance.  [38]  Normalising power works through the norm, which is a mixture of legality and nature, prescription and constitution,  [39]  to produce a physics of a relational and multiple power, which has its maximum intensity not in the person of the King, but in the bodies that can be individualised by these relations.  [40]  It does not replace law, rather law is subsumed: the law operates more and more as a norm, the judicial institution is increasingly incorporated into a continuum or apparatuses whose functions are for the most part regulatory.  [41]  Discipline supports law, by its system of micro power and neutralises counter-power or resistance with the principle of mildness-production-profit rather than the levy of violence. Normalisation involves, then, a combination and generalisation of panoptic techniques subsuming other forms of pow er.  [42]  Examples of the practical implications for women who transgress the norms of sex-role expectations can be found in research which details the excessive harshness of the courts when dealing with women offenders.  [43]  Women defendants seem strange and less comprehensible than men: they offend both against societys behavioural rules about property, drinking, or violence and also against the more fundamental norms which govern sex-role behaviour. The differentiation between the sexes is scaled to protect girls from themselves, but it allows boys to be boys.  [44]   Thus through techniques of normalisation, a complex composition of hegemonic, and therefore social, censures emerged and, eventually, became the foundation of positivist and administrative forms of criminology.  [45]  Normalisation is presented as a strategy which produces a disciplined individual who is normally so unaware of the place of individualisation in the general strategies of domination that s/he operates within the illusion of a rationalistic voluntarism, while performing the economic, political, sexual and ideological roles required by sustained capital accumulation and bourgeois hegemony.  [46]   Despite its appeal to and appropriation by many feminists, Sumner has criticised Foucaults concept of normalisation for glossing over the role of the censure of women and femininity in the hegemonic ideologies constituting the political and economic role of the state.  [47]  Indeed, Sumner contends, the formation of the modern subject is a profoundly gendered process, as indeed is the formation of the modern state. Modern social censures and forms of social regulation are fundamentally gendered.  [48]  As Catherine MacKinnon has said: The state is male in a feminist senseà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦The liberal state coercively and authoritively constitutes the social order in the interests of men as a gender, through its legitimising norms, relation to society, and substantive policies.  [49]   Sumner criticises the lack of analysis of mens domination, patriarchy and hegemonic masculinist ideologies in Foucaults understanding of the concepts of right, justice, contract and agency.  [50]  The state form itself is profoundly masculine in that its fundamental organising concepts, institutions, procedures and strategies are historically imbued with, and are themselves descriptive of, an ideological notion of masculinity that is hegemonic; and that this hegemonic masculinity which contributes to the very form of state power, is not so much an effect of mens economic power as an overdetermined historical condensation of the economic, political and ideological power of ruling-class men.  [51]  Thus, it must be observed that the normalisation process concomitant with capitalist development contains with it the censure of the feminine and of deviant masculinities. This censure is part of the dominant ideological knowledge that the powerful try to invest in the practices and thus the bodies of subjects.  [52]   This notion of hegemonic masculinity which Sumner highlights in his critique of Foucault is a growing area of criminological research which draws on feminist theory and postmodern critique and it seeks to interrogate the gender question behind the criminality of men. The study of masculinities in a criminological context was inaugurated by Australian criminologist Bob Connell.  [53]   one very important new topic is already on the agenda: masculinityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦..If emphasis on gender is a key aspect of feminist work, then the further study of masculinity must be vital. Without it there will be no progress.  [54]   Criminologists seeking to realign the gender question within criminology have sought an understanding of the crimes of men through reference to a rather different conceptualisation of masculinity; not just that the crimes of individual men might be explained through reference to their masculinity, but rather the idea that society itself is presently experiencing what has been termed a crisis of masculinity, a crisis made manifest in both the changing nature and extent of mens criminality.  [55]  Criminology for so long the target of feminist critique as the apotheosis of a masculinist discipline in terms of its epistemological assumptions, methodology and institutional practices, might at last appear to be addressing its very own sex question by seeking to engage with the sexed specificity of its object of study the fact that crime is, overwhelming, an activity engaged in by men.  [56]  The target of feminist critiques of the discipline which have emerged during the past 20 years has been with the nature of this recognition, the way in which the sex-specificity of crime has been conceptualised. How is it possible to recognise the diversity of mens lives whilst also recognising the existence of a culturally exalted form of masculinity? For Bob Connell the answer lies in the concept of hegemonic masculinity, which is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well as in relation to women.  [57]  Central to hegemonic masculinity is the idea that a variety of masculinities can be ordered hierarchically. Gender relations, Connell argues, are constituted through three interrelated structures: labour, power and cathexis. What orderliness exists between them is not that of a system but, rather, a unity or historical composition. What is produced is a gender order, a historically constructed pattern of power relation between men and women and definitions of femininity and masculinity.  [58]  The politics of masculinity cannot be confined to the level of the personal. They are also embedded in the gender regime, part of the organisational sexualit y of institutions and society generally.  [59]  The construction of hegemonic masculinity as a unifying and all-encompassing ideology of the masculine envisages an image of mens beliefs and interests which is then seen as somehow intruding into the sacred realm of theoretical or institutional practices.  [60]   Criminology largely remains bifurcated around a man/woman axis in which general universal theories of crime causation have been taken to apply to men whilst the crimes of women are assessed from, or in relation to, the male norm.  [61]  Women have been seen as an aberration to this norm, to be as other, somehow less than fully male. However, crucially, one result of this simultaneous focus on a) the individual offender and b) the constitution of men as the norm has been that the sex-class of men have themselves been separated out into two groups: the offending criminal man and the non-offending man. It has been feminist work, especially in the area of mens violences, which has challenged the subsequent pathologising of the crimes of men that results from such a division, by seeking to explore instead what men may share, as opposed to the attributes of the individual criminal man.  [62]  Within mainstream criminology men considered to be deviant or pathological have been contr asted with the normal and the law-abiding. Whilst some criminologists may have sought to blur this distinction, it is a bifurcation between different types or categories of men which nonetheless remains the norm of criminological discourse. It has been in seeking to understand this issue of what men may share that, in the work of the second phase criminologists writing from feminist and pro-feminist perspectives, the concept of masculinity has been seen to have had a particular, and rather different, heuristic purchase.  [63]   Despite the potential of the theory of a hegemonic masculinity to be an explanatory variable of crimes by men, there are conceptual limits to its appeal. Collier asserts that the concept of hegemonic masculinity is of limited use in seeking to engage with such a complex male subject.  [64]  What we are dealing with is really a description or a list of masculine traits, each conjuring up powerful images about men and crime. In theory, each of the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity could apply equally to women as to men. Not all crime is to be explained by reference to hegemonic masculinity.  [65]  The concept of hegemonic masculinity has been used both as a primary and underlying cause of particular social effects and, simultaneously, as something which is seen as resulting from or which is accomplished through, recourse to crime.  [66]  Not only does this reflect a failure to resolve fully the tendency towards universalism, it can also be read as tautol ogical.  [67]  Thus, it is alleged, what is actually being discussed in accounts of hegemonic masculinity and crime is, in effect, a range of popular ideologies of what constitute ideal or actual characteristics of being a man. Hegemonic masculinity does not afford a handle on the conflicts generated between material and ideological networks of power. Nor, importantly, does it address the complexity and multi-layered nature of the social subject.  [68]   Thus it would appear that despite the breakthroughs promised by research into masculinities they have been seen to face some of the same problems associated with early feminism: totalising discourse and essentialist claims. An adequate theory of masculinity which does not resort to totalising discourse and essentialist claims would be a welcome addition to criminological discussions of gender. Feminist criminologists have long sought to highlight the manifest inadequacies of classical criminologys ignorance and distortion of women and crime. Smart has contended that the biological determinist position propounded by Lombroso and Ferrero has promulgated a misconception of the innate character and nature of women.  [69]  Attempts to rectify this distortion were made through the use of feminist empiricism and standpoint feminism which endeavoured to garner womens perspectives by turning to women themselves and seeking their own accounts of the criminal experience. However, these theories could not escape accusations of universalism and lack of constituency leveled by black feminists and postmodernists alike. Michel Foucaults theory of disciplinary power has been used by feminist criminologists to explain both the social conformity of women and the constitution of deviant womens identities in a social field consisting of multiple sites of power and knowledge. Feminist crimi nologists have used Foucaults analytics of power to show how the various strategies of oppression around the female body from ideological representations of femininity in classical criminology to concrete procedures of confinement and bodily control are central to the maintenance of hierarchical social relations. A relatively new development in criminological theory which concerns the issues of gender has been the idea of hegemonic masculinity. Connell has characterised hegemonic masculinity as a gender regime of sorts which is part of the organisational sexuality of institutions and society generally.  [70]  Hegemonic masculinity captures the ideology of masculinity pervading theoretical and established practices. The critique of hegemonic masculinity has focused on its tautological implications, and the contention that it is merely descriptive of masculine traits and cannot be used to engage with a complex male subject. Despite these criticisms, discourse on masculinity is a step forward for feminists who have long lobbied for adequate analysis of the role of gender in the criminological discipline.

Explaining the Mysteries in the Story “Lucky” by Viet Dinh Essay

Viet Dinh’s short story is about the change in relationship between a man and his Aunt and Uncle. Jae, the main character in the story used to like his Uncle Sung and Aunt Kwi better than his own parents but suddenly had a change of heart because of an incident he experienced. Jae had been working in his Uncle Sung’s store when it was robbed one day. The robber put a gun against Jae’s temple and demanded for cash. Although the robber had acquired the contents of the cash register, he also demanded Uncle Sung’s wallet, threatening to put a hole in Jae’s head. While Jae had been terrified with his current situation, fearing for his life, Uncle Sung acted as if his nephew were not in a life-threatening situation, refusing to surrender his wallet. In the end, Uncle Sung bribed Jae $20 for his silence. Despite of his Uncle Sung’s request for him to keep silent, Jae told his Aunt Kwi what really happened during the incident hoping to get the sympathy of his Aunt. To Jae’s dismay, Aunt Kwi also requested for his silence. Jae was only 12 years old during the incident. While Jae’s change of heart in his relationship with his Aunt and Uncle is understandable, there are some mysteries in the story. First, why would Uncle Sung and Aunt Kwi not want Jae to tell others what really happened during the robbery? What would Uncle Sung accomplish or get by not telling the truth or by reinventing the story? Certainly, Uncle Sung has nothing to do with the whole incident and he was a victim as much as Jae was. Second, why were Uncle Sung and Aunt Kwi still mad at Jae 16 years after the robbery incident when it did not really did them any harm whether Jae told the real story or not? As a matter of fact, they were the ones who should be sorry for what they did to their nephew. Third, Jae’s feelings towards his Aunt and Uncle were not really resolved. The answers to these questions were not very clear from the story but I will attempt to find the logic behind such actions by the characters. The answer to the first mystery may be found in Uncle Sung’s sense of adventure. At the beginning of the story, Jae, who was also the narrator, related how Uncle Sung died. Uncle Sung, with all his profit from his businesses, was able to buy different cars, all of them built for speed. Uncle Sung died while driving one of these sports cars, where he apparently lost control, probably racing on a freeway. Jae held that he always felt danger around Uncle Sung. Uncle Sung’s sense of adventure was apparent during the robbery by keeping his cool despite the presence of life-threatening danger that he bragged about it in a get-together after the robbery. He even rebuked Jae for acting cowardly during the whole incident while leaving out the important part that Jea had been held captive. The first mystery could also be solved by Uncle Sung’s greediness with money. It was apparent during the robbery incident that money was more important for Uncle Sung than the lives of his workers, especially of Jae who was held captive by the robber, imposing a real threat to his life. Although, the robber was demanding for his wallet, Uncle Sung acted as if he did not care about Jae’s life hanging in the balance. He told the robber that he did not have his wallet at the moment although he had it in his pocket all along. Although Jae ended up keeping his life, Uncle Sung refused to give the robber his wallet in exchange for Jae’s life. That Uncle Sung held his money more important than anything else is shown also by his attitude regarding money. By bribing Jae, he hoped to buy Jae’s silence, and by giving a large sum of money during Jae’s wedding, he hoped to appease Jae. Uncle Sung regarded money so much as to think he could buy people with it, as through the manifestation of their silence or approval. Note that this attitude of Uncle Sung works in tandem with his being adventurous to solve the first mystery. By asking Jae to be silent, Uncle Sung hoped the approval of those who heard his version of the incident, that he would gain their admiration by keeping his cool despite the terrifying incident. To fully accomplish this, however, it was important for him to leave out the part that he put Jae’s life on the line, which also saved him hard-earned money in his wallet. Having found the answer to the first mystery, the solution to the second becomes apparent. Uncle Sung and Aunt Kwi were still mad at Jae because they held honor an important aspect, even though this honor was not rightfully earned. Knowing the real story of what happened during the robbery and his apparent refusal to keep silent, Jae represented a threat to Uncle Sung’s honor. Although it was really not clear whether or not Jae told the story to others, he at least told it to his parents, as could be shown with their understanding why Jae would not want to see or be associated with his Uncle Sung. In fact, the whole incident was the reason why a strain in the extended family’s relationship developed. Uncle Sung and Aunt Kwi were still mad at Jae because, after all that they had done for their nephew, he still refused to keep silent threatening the reputation his uncle worked hard to achieve. They held that Jae’s refusal to keep silent is a sign of not only his disrespect for them but also of his ingratitude towards what they did for him and his family. Again, it displayed Uncle Sung’s attitude towards money, that he expected Jae and his family not to cross him by helping Jae’s family on their business. Unfortunately, the third mystery could not really be solved from the solutions to the first two mysteries. Although Jae agreed to come to his uncle’s wake, it is uncertain whether or not he had already forgiven his uncle for putting him in danger and asking him to keep silent. Maybe he agreed to come, just as he was urged to agree to invite Uncle Sung in his wedding, because of his parents’ urging that Uncle Sung is still a family member. However, in his uncle’s wake, Jae told his Aunt Kwi that his uncle looked so peaceful. It is unclear whether this was a sign of him making peace with his uncle or not and it does not help knowing the reaction of his aunt. Aunt Kwi, after hearing what Jae has to say, pushed him away saying that he was ungrateful. There are two plausible solutions why Aunt Kwi may have acted the way she did. First, she still may hold a grudge against Jae for being defiant towards Uncle Sung. There is however a flaw in this solution. It was apparent that Aunt Kwi was preventing for the relationship between her husband and Jae from getting any worse through her action during Jae’s wedding, wherein she tried to put her husband at ease while Uncle Sung was criticizing Jae in front of other people. By preventing her husband from saying any further that may ruin Jae’s reputation, despite of the fact that she disapproved of what Jae had decided to go against their wishes, then it is possible that Aunt Kwi no longer hold any grudge against Jae. The second plausible solution why Aunt Kwi acted towards Jae the way she did during the wake was that she may have found no sincerity in Jae. Remember that Jae was only urged by his parents to come to the funeral and it is all too possible that Jae went only because of this and not because of his wanting to pay respect and tribute for his uncle. Looking into his eyes, Aunt Kwi may have concluded of this fact and so pushed Jae away while stating her dismay towards him and his being ungrateful, that after all the years and after his uncle has already passed away, Jae was still unforgiving. Saying this, the solution to the third mystery may be that Jae still has not forgiven Uncle Sung. This could also be established by the fact that Jae does not approve of his uncle’s adventurism, as is apparent by stating that he always knew Uncle Sung would die in the freeway and that he always felt danger around him. Works Cited Dinh, Viet. â€Å"Lucky. † Zeotrope All-Story vol. 8, no 2, 2008.

Agreed Ways Of Working Essay

Agreed ways of working is referring to staff following the policies and procedures, adhering to each individuals care plans accordingly, as well as any risk assessments in place as reading and following any code of conduct. An agreed way of working is performing to the standard that was agreed at the beginning of the employee’s contract to work effectively in helping to protect and care for vulnerable people. Following the policies and procedures or the agreed ways of working set out how your employer requires you to work. They incorporate various pieces of legislation as well as best practice. They are there to benefit and protect you and the service user’s you support and your employer. They enable you to provide a good quality service working within the legal framework and most importantly aim to keep you and your service user safe from danger and harm. The importance of a full and up to date agreed way of working starts right at the beginning before anyone is put into a social care environment. Having a job description and reading it fully, as well as understanding it means that you agree to follow the agreed way of working by not only performing to the policies and procedures standards. It’s important to keep up to date care plan’s, risk assessments and company policies and procedures which is important you read them and sign them to let your company know that you understand what are working towards. Without up to date information the safety and comfort of your client are put at risk, this is why it’s important to put into place agreed ways of working as if this was not in place it would be impossible to know what is expected for the individual and even harder to care for more vulnerable service users. It is a legal requirement as you have a duty to keep your service user safe by following policies and procedures and working within your job role. Importance of having an up to date agreed ways of working as there may be changes to some policies and procedures within the law. Your company may have to implement these changes to help protect the more vulnerable people we care for. It is important for care workers to follow your policies and procedures and guidelines as by doing this you will get a better understanding of what your company is expecting of your work and how we can support and provide appropriate care for all of your clients. By reading and understanding your job you will now your job description and your limits as this will help you do your job effectively.