Economics - DQ 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Economics - DQ 2 - Essay Example However, the point where marginal cost and marginal revenue intersects represents output which is less than maximum capacity. Thus, there lies inefficiency in production as these firms control the level of supply in order to regulate the prices. This is true in the real world. For example, monopolist firms in developing countries especially those in the provision of public utilities like water and utility set prices too high while controlling quantity. They do not operate in their full efficiency in order to bid up the prices of their goods and services. Thus, most countries where utilities are monopolized are where the highest electricity costs are found. Monopolists take advantage of the situation by using their capacity of influencing price level. Globalization is characterized by the entry of foreign firms in the domestic market and vice versa. This is also a process by which business organizations operate anywhere in order to take advantage of profit opportunities. Globalization is seen as the way of increasing the number of competitors in the market through the entry of new players and the survival of the most efficient ones. Yes, globalization intensifies the market competition in a given country. It is irrefutable that multinationals or huge business organizations operating on three or more markets have gained significant economies of scale and are the most efficient ones. The entry of these players in the domestic market often threatens the local players who are less efficient. Thus, competition heats up as these smaller players cope with the ability of large foreign firms to operate more efficiently and profitably. In so doing, it also tries to safeguard its shares by equipping itself with competencies. Local manufacturers often go beyond their limit. The entry of foreign players pressures them to improve their processes, strengthen their brand image, produce higher quality products, and even double

Statement Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Statement - Essay Example This truly is where my heart resides. The Health Care Administration specialization was interesting, but I could see that it was not taking me where I wanted to go professionally. I looked into the specialization for Human Services and feel that this is a better fit for me professionally and personally. The Health Care Administration program required many hours of group preparation and group work. This was not possible for me because I work full time and have other important family responsibilities. I know that I will need to make sacrifices to further my education, but I felt that what I would need to sacrifice in order to obtain a Masters in Health Care Administration was too much. I especially felt this way once I realized I was moving away from my real interest, which is social work. I do not anticipate any academic concerns that were experienced in the Health Care Administration specialization. I have been assured that there is less group work in the Human Services specialization and that it is more conducive to working a full time job and having family obligations. I will also be a more motivated, thoughtful student because the coursework is more applicable to my current employment and interests. The main reason I am so excited about the Human Services Masters degree is I believe it will make me better at my current position. I already possess the values, knowledge and skills necessary to be a good social worker. I feel that increased education will make me even more effective. The most immediate outcome of earning the degree is I will be better at my job. Other reasons I want to get this degree are it will open the possibility of career advancement. I am pleased with the job I currently have. But I recognize that in the future, I would like to take on more responsibility and manage other employees and more difficult cases. So in some ways, I feel that I want to earn this degree because it will help my current situation

Impact of the Civil War on the South of America

Impact of the Civil War on the South of America What was new about the New South? The following will discuss what, if anything was new about the New South that emerged in the United States after 1877. Prior to the American Civil War the old South had predominantly been an agrarian economy in which blacks were slaves who had worked on the cotton plantations, factories, or had been domestic servants. Cotton had been the major commodity of the economy, which had mainly been exported to Britain. The American Civil War had been fought over the issue of slavery and whether the Southern States had the right to cede from the United States to preserve the institution of slavery (Hobsbawm, 1975 p.184). The Civil War brought social and economic changes to the South. Its cotton exports had been drastically reduced, its agricultural and industrial output declined sharply, whilst much of its infrastructure was destroyed. During the civil war President Lincoln had proclaimed the emancipation of all slaves, whilst blacks had fought with distinction on the Union side. The devastat ion brought to the South by the civil war meant that a period of reconstruction was needed afterwards. Leading white Southerners such as Henry Grady called for a New South. The blacks that were freed, as a result of the Confederate States losing the civil war, also anticipated a New South. The blacks in the Southern States expected their lives to be better following the Union’s victory and the era of reconstruction. In many respects strong arguments can be made that their lives got worse rather than better. Du Bois for one contended that blacks â€Å"had fought slavery to save democracy and then lost democracy in a new and vaster slavery† (Du Bois, 1935 Chapter 1). The result of the American Civil War in theory was that the four and a half million blacks in the United States were all free and equal with the white population. However, the end of the Reconstruction made those equal rights a mockery in the New South (Brogan, 1999, p.348). That the New South was not a new place for the better for its black population was due to the way in which the American Civil War ended. Lincoln’s assassination was the South’s revenge for losing the War. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson was less capable of ensuring that the South changed in ways that benefited its black population. From his presidency onwards, the North did very little to ensure Southern blacks had any meaningful rights (Brogan, 1999, p.348). Southern blacks were only able to exercise their political rights whilst the Union forces remained in the South, those rights ceased to exist in reality once the South was left to run itself. The suppression of Southern blacks was arguably worse once they had been formally freed than when they had been slaves. Racial discrimination, the fear of violence and poverty meant that the New South was no better than the Old South had been (Hobsbawm, 1975, p.143). Neither the South in general or its repressed bla ck population in particular, gained as much from the United States rapid industrialisation from the 1870s onwards as the North did (Hobsbawm, 1987, p.35). In the New South there was a strong desire amongst the defeated Confederate States to make its black population subject to its strict political and economic controls for as long as possible. The abolition of slavery had not seen the end of the cotton plantations. However, jobs and better pay were given to the whites rather than blacks. Blacks were given the lowest paid jobs and they could be punished for not taking them. For many blacks the newness of the New South was the increased harshness of the discrimination they were subjected to. Whilst the whites in the New South had been unable to defeat the Union during the American Civil War, they were in a position to make life very unpleasant for the black population of the New South. Much discrimination was given legality through the ‘Black Codes’ of the Southern legislatures that severely restricted the rights of former slaves. Slavery had, in many respects, been restored in a less obvious form (Brogan, 1999, p.352). Thos e blacks that tried to exercise their legal rights found legal and political obstacles placed in front of them, which effectively deprived them of all those rights. They also faced violence and intimidation on a regular basis (Bradbury Temperley, 1998, p.153). The Southern states were able to prevent the Constitutional Amendments that abolished slavery and gave freed slaves their rights having a positive impact as they were responsible for their enforcement, rather than the national government (Murphy et al, 2001, p.315). States such as Louisiana had no intention of giving blacks any rights on the grounds it was unconstitutional to do so (Du Bois, 1935, p.454). A series of measures which were known as Jim Crow laws were used by the Southern States to segregate and repress their black populations. Although they claimed the segregated services were of equal quality, this was a sham to excuse neglecting their black communities (Cobb, 1992). Overall Jim Crow Laws delayed the economic d evelopment of the New South, whilst they institutionalised racial discrimination and segregation. The cost of providing segregated services lowered the quality of education, housing, and transport in the New South. Segregation had even been endorsed by the Supreme Court as long as services were of equal quality, which few bothered to check. Such discrimination was contrary to the way Henry Grady believed the New South should have developed. Grady argued that the best way to industrialise the New South was to treat blacks as equal partners rather than inferiors. Therefore social justice and equality were just as important as capital and machinery in building the New South (Mauk Oakland, 1995 p. 108). Grady believed that the New South would be the perfect democracy as long blacks were treated equally. The civil war had been an opportunity for the South to stop its outdated reliance on slavery and cotton (Harris, 1890 p. 15). Segregation, as well as being morally questionable, kept th e South relatively poor and backward in relation to the rest of the country (Hobsbawm, 1975 p.184). Poverty was a new feature of the New South. Poverty paradoxically enough had not been an issue for blacks in the South when they had been slaves. Although, they had no freedom, slaves were provided with basic levels of accommodation and food, on the logical basis that unhealthy slaves did not work as well as healthy ones. Southern slave owners had generally treated their slaves well enough for their numbers to increase at the same rate as the white population (Bradbury Temperley, 1998 p. 153). Defenders of slavery had maintained that it kept the Southern states economically competitive, kept the black population at subsistence, whilst ensuring that all white men could find paid work (Brogan, 1999, p.371). Poverty, as freed slaves found to their cost, was as restrictive of their freedom as actual shackles had been. Freed slaves had to compete with whites to gain jobs. Poverty was closely linked with racial discrimination, in that whites were given better jobs and better working condi tions, even when there were better-qualified blacks to do the jobs. Discrimination in the provision of education, housing and medical care also contributed to keep the blacks repressed and in poverty (Cobb, 1992). Blacks were disenfranchised by their poverty, whereas loopholes were used to ensure that poor whites kept the vote (Hobsbawm, 1987, p.24). Another new feature of the New South was the increased levels of urbanisation. Cities such as New Orleans and Birmingham increased in size during the reconstruction era. The urbanisation of the New South was result of the industrial expansion encouraged by the Southern states and the migration of people trying to escape rural poverty. Migrating to the cities did not reduce racial discrimination and it barely increased opportunities for black people. Birmingham was the only city to achieve industrialisation on a major scale in the New South. The South was economically held back by its deliberately uneducated blacks and its under educated whites (Brogan, 1999, p.372). Southern blacks had also migrated to northern cities such as New York to increase their opportunities and to escape racial discrimination. The North was still prone to such discrimination even if it did give greater opportunity and blacks faced lower threats of violence. The Southern states had been motivated to enact the ‘Black Codes’ to restrict migration to both Southern and Northern cities (Brogan, 1999, p.363). Unemployment was a more obvious problem in the New South than it had been in the old South. Unemployment and low paid employment in a country with no public welfare provision was a serious problem, especially for blacks that were discriminated against and could not afford the basic necessities of life (Hobsbawm, 1987, p.103). Employers and plantation owners in the New South as a whole tended to keep the relationship between poor blacks and poor whites as unfriendly as possible. Factory and plantation owners feared that that if black and white workers had a good relationship they would form effective trade union movements and threaten the profits of the owners (Lewis, 1994). Discrimination in favour of white workers alienated blacks from them, whilst owners and employers kept control of their workers by threatening to use black workers as strike breakers. Such tactics were effective at preventing the emergence of trade unions but did nothing to improve race relations in the New South (Brogan, 1999, p. 371). The creation of Birmingham, Alabama was a symbol of all that was new in the New South. The place had not existed before 1871, and calling it Birmingham after one of the most industrialised cities in Britain was a statement of intent. Birmingham, Alabama was to be the industrial heart of the New South (Vann Woodward, 1951). Henry Grady himself cited Birmingham as the best example of his plans for a New South, yet historians have argued as to whether the development of Birmingham was similar to the industrial development envisaged by the plantation owners prior to the civil war (Lewis, 1994). Post civil war reconstruction gave the Southern States the opportunity as well as the need to reconstruct their economy. Falling prices for raw cotton meant that plantation owners switched their attention to manufacturing finished cotton products in new cotton mills. Attempts were also made to diversify the Southern economy away from cotton by developing coal, steal, and iron production. During th e reconstruction period the Federal government had tried to enhance the economic prospects of the South by having the railroads rebuilt and extended to improve the transport links with the rest of the United States. Southern plantation owners, investors from the rest of the United States, as well as foreign investors funded industrial development. One feature of the New South did not change from the old South; it was still economically weaker than the North (Spiller et al, 2005 p. 80). The economic changes of the New South only benefited a few plantation and factory owners, some of who became much wealthier than they had been before the civil war (Hobsbawm, 1987 p. 24). A new feature of the New South was the high level of violence directed against the black population by white racists. In the immediate post-civil war period the formation of the Ku Klux Klan demonstrated the popularity for white supremacist ideas in the Southern states. The Ku Klux Klan added murderous intentions to their racist outlooks. The emergence of the Ku Klux Klan led to many thousands of lynchings and murders throughout the New South. Blacks found it very difficult to protect them-selves from racially motivated violence on such a large scale. They received no meaningful levels of protection from the police, the courts or the state authorities, which often sympathised with white supremacist views and were therefore unwilling to take action against the Ku Klux Klan or individual racists. Racism and prejudices were built into the ‘Black Codes’ that made a mockery of the post civil war Constitutional Amendments. The Federal courts and governments were unwilling to i ntervene in the affairs of the New South, as far as the Federal governments was concerned the Constitutional Amendments were fully operative in the South. Nobody in Washington DC seemed to be bothered to act upon the plentiful evidence of racial murders and discrimination in the New South. Between 1887 and 1917 official United States government figures showed that 2,734 blacks were murdered in racially motivated crimes, the vast majority in the New South. Before that period the death toll had been even higher, and only the presence of the Union army before 1877 had prevented further bloodshed (Murphy et al, 2001 p. 320). In some respects there were few new aspects in the New South. The combined effects of the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws meant that the New South restricted the freedoms of freed slaves to such an extent that slavery might as well have been retained. Economic, social, and political restrictions meant that insignificant numbers of blacks could vote in elections, own their land or gain education in the Southern States (Cobb, 1992). Low wages, unemployment, high rents, and direct discrimination were as effective as the Black Codes at keeping black people poor and powerless (Du Bois, 1935 p. 454). It is no wonder that many blacks believed that after reconstruction the New South made their lives worse than before. For them the only difference the old and new South was that they were underpaid for working on other peoples’ land and in other peoples’ factories rather than being paid at all. Only a small number of freed blacks had been able to make successes of their lives befor e the Jim Crow laws began to restrict opportunities. Only 4,000 freed slaves managed to purchase land in the New South, and most of them could not buy enough land to run successful farms (Murphy et al, 2001 p. 316). The New South was not a content place; the whites still fumed at their defeat in the civil war and re-imposed a quasi slavery upon the nominally free blacks (Hobsbawm, 1975 p. 143). Therefore, there were new aspects to the New South, although those aspects were not all positive or progressive in their nature. The Southern States were changed socially and economically as a result of the American Civil War. The economic consequences of the civil war were apparently severe. Agricultural and industrial outputs had been reduced, whilst the infrastructure of the Southern States had been badly damaged in the war. The war had disrupted the export of raw cotton which, had been the basis of the old South’s economy. Plantation owners had claimed that their plantations would be unprofitable with the abolition of slavery, a claim that proved unfounded due to the low wages they paid to white and black workers alike. The freed slaves found that life in the New South was in fact harsher in some respects than slavery. This was due to the increased racism and discrimination that was a new feature or perhaps at least a more obvious feature of the New South. The idea of the New South was promoted by the likes of Grady, as well as the new industrial centres such as Birmingham, Alabama and Atlanta. Overall in the period after 1877 industrial output in the Southern States did increase with the development of cotton mills, coal, steel, and iron production, although it still lagged behind the rest of the United States. Industrial development did not improve the lives of most people in the New South, just factory and plantation owners and the profits of outside investors. The legacy of the civil war was a long and bitter one, with the Southern whites repressing the blacks to compensate for defeat and demonstrate their alleged supremacy. Bibliography Bradbury M Temperley H, (1998) Introduction to American Studies 3rd edition, Longman, London Brogan H, (1999) The Penguin History of the USA, Penguin, London Cobb J C, (1992) The Most Southern Place on Earth: The Mississippi Delta The Origins of Regional Identity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, and New York Du Bois W E B, (1935) Black Reconstruction in America, London Harris J C, (1890) Henry W. Grady: His Life, Writings, and Speeches, Cassell Publishing Co, New York Hobsbawm E, (1975) The Age of Capital 1848-1875, Weidenfeld Nicholson, London Hobsbawm E, (1987) The Age of Empire 1875-1914, Weidenfeld Nicholson, London Lewis (1994) the emergence of Birmingham as a case study of continuity between the antebellum planter class and industrialization in the new south agricultural history (spring 1994) p. 62-79 Lewis (2003) Mauk, D Oakland, J (1995) American Civilization Routledge, London Murphy D, Cooper K Waldron M, (2001). United States1776-1992 Collins, London New south plantation kingdom -the new south writings and speeches of Henry Grady, (1971) The beehive press savannah, Georgia Spiller J, Clancy T, Young S, and Mosley S (2005) The United States 1763 – 2001, Routledge, London

Habeas Corpus and the Use of Military Tribunals Essay -- American Hist

Habeas Corpus and the Use of Military Tribunals In America Under the Threat of Terrorism Introduction It was on this date one hundred forty two years ago (April 25, 1861), that President Abraham Lincoln sent a letter to Lt. General Winfield Scott authorizing the suspension of â€Å"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus† . Lincoln had been president for less than two months and was facing, what was up to that time and arguably may still be the greatest threat to the survival of the United States since the Founding Fathers launched this â€Å"Great Experiment†. Only eleven days earlier Major Robert Anderson, the commander of the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, had to surrender the fort to the Confederate Army. Lincoln was reluctant to issue such an order but had done so as he faced the very real possibility that the Maryland legislature would convene and â€Å"[t]ake action to arm the people of that state against the people of the United States† . Thus began the first of several occasions in our nation’s history where a president when faced with a â€Å"clear and present danger† to our national security has had to balance fulfilling his oath to â€Å"[p]reserve, protect and defend the Constitution†¦Ã¢â‚¬  with the â€Å"privilege† to have any detainment reviewed by a judge or magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Problem Statement How far may law enforcement officials go in compromising civil liberties to enhance national security? What does the Constitution say with respect to the suspension of the civil liberties in times of national emergency? How has the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the constitution with respect to the suspension of habeas corpus? Few citizens would disagree that national security is a legitimate function of government. First and foremost, our national government is responsible for the protection of life, then liberty. The most ardent champions of the Bill of Rights concede that it would be foolish to treat civil liberties as inviolable when the lives of innocent thousands are at stake. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting in a free speech case, gave these words of warning regarding civil liberties: â€Å"[T]he choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will c... ...lue – Freedom. Or it can be an indictment of our fear if we abrogate the liberties so much cherished and so dearly paid for. Bibliography Rehnquist, William H. All the Laws But One, New York: Alfred P. Knopf, 1998 Black’s Law Dictionary. Abridged Seventh Ed., p. 569, West Group, St. Paul, MN (2000) Garret, Buck "The Unconstitutionality of Time Limits Placed on The Great Writ," Prisoner of War in America - http://www.nov.org/garret.May97.htm Rembar, Charles. The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System, pp.141 -156, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1981) Kleinfeld, Joshua. "The Union Lincoln Made", p. 24, History Today, Vol. 47, Nov 1997. Authorities and Cases Cited U.S. Constitution, Article 1,  § 9 Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Ex Parte Quiran, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) Ashcroft, John. Statement to the Press re: The Capture of Jose Padilla, July 10, 2002 Padilla v. Bush, et al., 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Padilla v. Rumsfeld. 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, No. 02 Civ. 4445, 2003 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2003) Padilla v. Rumsfeld. 233 F. Supp. 2d 564, No. 02 Civ. 4445, 2003 U.S. Dist. (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9, 2003)

Family And Kinship In India

India offers astounding variety in virtually every aspect of social life. Diversities of ethnic, linguistic, regional, economic, religious, class, and caste groups crosscut Indian society, which is also permeated with immense urban-rural differences and gender distinctions. Differences between north India and south India are particularly significant, especially in systems of kinship and marriage. Indian society is multifaceted to an extent perhaps unknown in any other of the world’s great civilizations—it is more like an area as varied as Europe than any other single nation-state.Adding further variety to contemporary Indian culture are rapidly occurring changes affecting various regions and socioeconomic groups in disparate ways. Yet, amid the complexities of Indian life, widely accepted cultural themes enhance social harmony and order. Many Indian societies were organized around principles of kinship. Kinship ties based on bloodlines or marriage formed the basis of th e political, economic, and religious system. Succession to political office and religious positions, ownership and inheritance of property, and even whom one could or could not marry were determined on the basis of membership in a kin group.Social bonds with relatives must be reinforced at family events or at rites crucial to the religious community. Indian Society Hierarchy India is a hierarchical society. Whether in north India or south India, Hindu or Muslim, urban or village, virtually all things, people, and social groups are ranked according to various essential qualities. Although India is a political democracy, notions of complete equality are seldom evident in daily life. Societal hierarchy is evident in caste groups, amongst individuals, and in family and kinship groups.Castes are primarily associated with Hinduism, but caste-like groups also exist among Muslims, Indian, Christians, and other religious communities. Within most villages or towns, everyone knows the relative rankings of each locally represented caste, and behavior is constantly shaped by this knowledge. Individuals are also ranked according to their wealth and power. For example, some powerful people, or â€Å"big men,† sit confidently on chairs, while â€Å"little men† come before them to make requests, either standing or squatting not presuming to sit beside a man of high status as an equal.Hierarchy plays an important role within families and kinship groupings also, where men outrank women of similar age, and senior relatives outrank junior relatives. Formal respect is accorded family members—for example, in northern India, a daughter-in-law shows deference to her husband, to all senior in-laws, and to all daughters of the household. Siblings, too, recognize age differences, with younger siblings addressing older siblings by respectful terms rather than by name. Social Interdependence One of the great themes pervading Indian life is social interdependence.People are born into groups–families, clans, sub castes, castes, and religious communities–and live with a constant sense of being part of and inseparable from these groups. A corollary is the notion that everything a person does properly involves interaction with other people. A person's greatest dread, perhaps, is the possibility of being left alone, without social support, to face the necessary challenges of life. This sense of interdependence is extended into the theological realm: the very shape of a person's life is seen as being greatly influenced by divine beings with whom an ongoing relationship must be maintained.Psychologically, family members typically experience intense emotional interdependence. Economic activities, too, are deeply imbedded in a social nexus. Through a multitude of kinship ties, each person is linked with kin in villages and towns near and far. Almost everywhere a person goes; he can find a relative from whom he can expect moral and practical s upport. In every activity, social ties can help a person and the absence of them can bring failure. Seldom do people carry out even the simplest tasks on their own. When a small child eats, his mother puts the food into his mouth with her own hand.When a girl brings water home from the well in pots on her head, someone helps her unload the pots. A student hopes that an influential relative or friend can facilitate his college admission. A young person anticipates that parents will arrange his or her marriage. Finally, a person facing death expects that relatives will conduct the proper funeral rites ensuring his own smooth passage to the next stage of existence and reaffirming social ties among mourners. This sense of interdependence extends into the theological realm.From birth onward, a child learns that his â€Å"fate† has been â€Å"written† by divine forces and that his life is shaped by powerful deities with whom an ongoing relationship must be maintained. Social interaction is regarded as being of the highest priority, and social bonds are expected to be long lasting. Even economic activities that might in Western culture involve impersonal interactions are in India deeply imbedded in a social nexus. All social interaction involves constant attention to hierarchy, respect, honor, the feelings of others, rights and obligations, hospitality, and gifts of food, clothing, and other desirable items.Finely tuned rules of etiquette help facilitate each individual's many social relationships. . Indian Family structure . Indian family structure is believed to be the unit that teaches the values and worth of an honest living that have been carried down across generations. Since the puranic ages, Indian family structure was that of a joint family indicating every person of the same clan living together. However, this idea of elaborate living had been disintintegrated in smaller family units. The essential themes of Indian cultural life are learned wi thin the bosom of a family.The joint family is highly valued, ideally  consisting of several generations residing, working, eating, and worshiping together. Such families include men related through the male line, along with their wives, children, and unmarried daughters. A wife usually lives with her husband’s relatives, although she retains important bonds with her natal family. Even in rapidly modernizing India, the traditional joint household remains for most Indians the primary social force, in both ideal and practice. Large families tend to be flexible and well suited to modern Indian life, especially for the more than two-thirds of Indians who are involved in agriculture.As in most primarily agricultural societies, cooperating kin help provide mutual economic security. The joint family is also common in cities, where kinship ties are often crucial to obtaining employment or financial assistance. Many prominent families, such as the Tatas, Birlas, and Sarabhais, retai n joint family arrangements as they cooperate in controlling major financial empires The ancient ideal of the joint family retains its power, but today actual living arrangements vary widely. Many Indians live in nuclear families—-a couple with their unmarried children—-but belong to strong networks of beneficial kinship ties.Often, clusters of relatives live as neighbors, responding readily to their kinship obligations. As they expand, joint families typically divide into smaller units, which gradually grow into new joint families, continuing a perpetual cycle. Today, some family members may move about to take advantage of job opportunities, typically sending money home to the larger family. FAMILY TRANSFORMATION An Analytical look on various studies: by different sociologist point of views The Study of family in India centers on the debate of joint family versus nuclear family.The first authentic study on family comes from the writings of Sir Henry Maine, who was law adviser to the colonial government of India. He developed intellectual interest in family studies. He indicated that joint family is characterized by: †¢ Common property holding. †¢ Absolute authority of ‘Karta’. He considered that joint family is corporate unit where people make contribution differently but share rewards on the basis of their needs. He said that joint family sustains in India because it is considered as moral institution with the members are obliged to perform rituals for common dead ancestorsGS Ghurye considered that ‘joint family is a product of Indian culture that glorified classical values. There is universal presence of joint family cutting across caste, religion which promoted unity among people in Indian society. PN Prabhu in his analysis of family and kinship in India considers that individual association with joint family is driven by moralist, therefore when morals is replaced by individualism (when tradition is replaced by m odernity) then joint family is transformed into nuclear family.Irawati Karve offered an exhaustive definition of joint family. She writes that joint family refers to a social group where people belonging to 3 – 4 generations organically related to each other, hold property in common, share common residence, eat food prepared in common kitchen, participate in common rituals and ceremonies and they have, obligations towards the head of the family known as ‘Karta’. She considers that joint family is a product of culture and therefore despite economic transformation joint family system persists in India.It sustains itself as it is driven by cultural ideology rather than driven by economic interest. During 1960s two group of sociologist took considerable interest in the field of family study. One group conforming to modern theory looked into complete integration of joint family system whereas the other group went for empirical studies to examine regional variations in family transformation under the various process of modernity. These two theories cannot be considered as qualitatively different because there position stand vary only on the question of the degree of changes in family.MN Srinivas, SC Dubay find out that there is a strong linkage between caste and joint family. Empirical study indicates that higher castes go for joint family system and lower castes go for nuclear family. Therefore joint family is driven by economic logic rather than cultural moralist. It is also noticed that joint family is not breaking down completely under the influence of urban living. Alan Rose in a study of Bangalore finds out that around 70% of families manifest either structural joint ness of functional joint ness or a mixture of both.MS Gore in his study of Agarwals of Delhi finds out that how mother – son relationship precedes over husband – wife relationship and family operates as a strong support base to its members in matters related to se lection of occupation, financial assistance and selection of mates. TN Madan indicates how residential separation has not given way to break down of joint family. In his theory of â€Å"money order economy† he indicates that family joint ness has always been enduring in case of India. Thus these scholars concluded by saying that family transformation in India is not a replica of family transformation in the West.Therefore social change in India is Indian in character and so Western theories and models cannot explain family transformation in Indian society Household dimensions of the Family Family transformation in India has puts a fundamental question that, whether in India joint household is disintegrating or joint family is disintegrating. He finds out that proportion of joint household is more today in comparison to past. He points out the reasons for the same i. e. due to rising population; construction of house has become costly, migration in search of employment etc. Bi gger joint households are now splitting into smaller households.People living in different households have strong emotional ties therefore joint household is disintegrating but not joint family and so family should be studied from household perspective and changes in household and family patterns must be investigated to examine actual nature of family transformation in India. Classical sociologists were greatly committed to family study either by considering family as cornerstone of human society or by looking into changing nature of society. With the advent of modernity it was perceived that household is a residential space but family is a social institution.However, with the rise of feminism both as an ideology and as social movement, women's approach towards marriage has gone through a series of transformation. AM Shah in his book â€Å"household dimension of the family in India† indicate that even in traditional context, household and family do not mean similar things. Ci ting the case of India he considers that family and household were absolutely different but family studies in India immensely focused attention on the transformation of joint family into nuclear family. Household refers to residential space where people living together may or may not constitute family.Looking at household pattern one could effectively study nature and form of transformation taking place in Indian society. In recent analysis of global migration and family pattern, it has been found out that in countries like Philippines and India a large chunk of women in search of employment go out to advanced countries of the world. Though most of them are married they don't stay with their family. As a result they constitute independent household. These households may constitute many friends living together or a person living with working partner to whom he/she is not married or a person living all alone.It is generally perceived in case of India that household is less durable an alternative to family system, which gives more importance to friendship than kinship. Household offer immense individual liberty, sexual freedom, limited or no liability towards the other members of the household. Thus it can be concluded that household is evolving into a replacement for family in many developing countries including India. Therefore sociology of kinship is shifting its focus from the study of marriage and family to the study of friendship and household.Sexual Division of Labour Feminist sociologists are of the opinion that whether it’s joint family or nuclear family, in no way family transformation is affecting to the status of women in India. Therefore reproduction, sexuality, division of labour are all determined by the values of patriarchy than by principles of equality. Talcott Parson indicates that industrialisation, urbanization, migration have contributed for occupational mobility, empowerment of women and gender gap within and outside family has suffi ciently been reduced.The modernist theory also indicates that in case of India relationship between husband and wife is now proceeding over parent-child relationship. Conjugal relationship is considered as more important than obligation towards kinship. Irrespective of gender every child inherits the property from parents, selection of mates is no longer family’s responsibility and childbirth is greatly a matter of economics and mutual agreement between spouse. Therefore modernity has broken down traditional form of marriage, hierarchical form of relationship.Traditionally, males have controlled key family resources, such as land or businesses, especially in high-status groups. Following traditional Hindu law, women did not inherit real estate and were thus beholden to their male kin who controlled land and buildings. Under Muslim customary law, women can—and do—inherit real estate, but their shares have typically been smaller than those of males. Modern legisla tion allows all Indian women to inherit real estate. Traditionally, for those families who could afford it, women have controlled some wealth in the form of precious jewelry.In the Indian household, lines of hierarchy and authority are clearly drawn, and ideals of conduct help maintain family harmony. [i] All family members are socialized to accept the authority of those above them in the hierarchy. The eldest male acts as family head, and his wife supervises her daughters-in-law, among whom the youngest has the least authority. Reciprocally, those in authority accept responsibility for meeting the needs of other family members. Systems of Kinship in India Kinship is considered as the heart and soul of Indian social life. DespiteIndia's exposure to technological and industrial modernity, descent plays a significant role in the life of people. GS Ghurye writes in detail about various descent groups living together in different regions of the country carrying different names and ident ities. These different lineage groups bringing together a multi-civilization thereby making India a land of pluralism. However, all these descent groups imbibe common rules of marriage, common food behavior, common cultural, religious ideology radiating from Hinduism and that made Indian society a land of diversity.Indologists look into the role of descent in defining marriage, family and kinship in India. The people belonging to similar descent group are located in a given region where they worship to their common ancestors, follow common way of life and when the size of descent group expands, they migrate to different areas but still carry their identity. Therefore caste is nothing but an expanded descent system that maintains its boundary, distinguishing itself from the other caste.Andre Beteille indicates association of man and kinship is so strong in India that voting behavior is driven by kinship rather than on the basis of merit. In all the political parties of India kinship is the primary source of political recruitment. Thus democratic polity in India is engaged in social and cultural reproduction. In case of India family/kinship offers ideological, economic, infrastructural support to individual to determine the nature of occupation.In conclusion it can be said that the role of descent and kinship not only determines the private sphere of an individual’s life like marriage, family, household, gender role, rituals but also has great influence over his public life like occupational selection, political participation and identity formation. Therefore the role of descent and kinship has changed very little under the influence of modernity in India and so while studying social transformation one cannot afford to ignore the same.Lineage system can be divided into two parts in India i.e. †¢ Unilineal systems: a system of determining descent groups in which one belongs to one's father's or mother's lineage. Both patrilineality and matrilineality are types of unilineal descent. †¢ Non-Unilineal systems: a system where there exists multiple forms of relationship. Classical anthropologists divide descent groups into two fundamental types such as: †¢ Patrilineal : inheriting or determining descent through the male line. †¢ Matrilineal : inheriting or determining descent through the female line. Types of kinship systemsKinship is a relationship between any entity that share a genealogical origin (related to family, lineage, history), through either biological, cultural, or historical descent. The first sociologist to study kinship systems in India is Irawati Karve, she divided India into four different kinship zones such as: †¢ North Indian kinship systems. †¢ South Indian kinship systems. †¢ Central Indian kinship systems. †¢ Eastern Indian kinship systems. North Indian kinship systems This kinship system is present in Hindi speaking belt and also in areas where Aryan culture influence is subs tantive.It includes West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. In North India kinship systems, the rules of marriage is highly exhaustive because a large body of people are excluded from alliance relationship. One cannot receive women from his mother’s group or mother's mother group, father’s mother group and from within his own village. Hence exogamy is quite exhaustive and marriage involves not intra-family ties but inter-village ties. Residential system is very Virilocal (bride lives with husband's father’s group) type . In North Indian kinship father – son relationship precedes over husband – wife relationship.South Indian kinship systems This type of relationship system is largely present in all southern states and some of its influence is also largely noticed in pockets of Maharashtra and Orissa. In southern India kinship systems, no distinction is made between patrilineal or matrilineal. In case of South India cross cousins marriage take place and so ex ogamy is not exhaustive like in North India. The relationship between husband and wife is not subdued to father – son relationship as in case of North India. Hostility of relationship between the in laws driven by suspicion is also weak in South India.Central Indian kinship systems This system is practised in case of Gujarat, Maharashtra, MP which is a mixture of elements of North and South India. In case of Rajputs marriage is greatly determined on the basis of family status of girl. Rajputs are permitted to marry any girl on the basis of their choice rather than simply follow the rules of caste. Marathas are divided into 32 clans which are put into primary, secondary and tertiary divisions and so the rules of marriage are determined accordingly between various divisions.In case of â€Å"Kumbi† of Gujarat one is not supposed to marry women belonging to first-generation from father's side and three generations from mother's side. In case of Rajasthan on the auspicious day of Akshaya Tritiyamassive marriages take place involving people belonging to different age groups and their rules of marriage is sufficiently relaxed. Eastern India kinship systems It largely includes kinship patterns followed by different tribal groups like Munda of Orissa, Manipuri of Manipur, Nagas, Kukis and Khasi. These kinship systems don't follow specific patterns .A daughter carries the name of patrilineal grandmother and son carries the name of patrilineal grandfather, divorce is common among them In conclusion these regional variations in kinship largely speaks about differential residential patterns, entitlement on the basis of gender, social status of men, women and children bringing the point back home that Indian culture is largely pluralistic in character. Therefore unity in India should not be seen as destruction of the process of diversity but rather it should respect the process of diversity.CONCLUSIONGradual changes have been ushered in by religious, social, a nd cultural reforms. Industrialization, urbanization, and technological advances have been instrumental in changing family structures, values, and lifestyles. Ganeswar Misra (1995) emphasized that middle- and upper-class families in urban areas were undergoing a dramatic transformation because the younger generation is questioning power issues, traditional roles, hierarchical relationships, obligations, loyalty, and deference for kinsmen and elderly.With changing times, Indian family structure, functions, traditional division of labor, and authority patterns have altered, favoring more egalitarian relations between the husband and the wife and also a move toward more shared decision-making patterns between parents and children. Despite these changes, the fact remains that most individuals continue to value and give top priority to the family, and families continue to maintain strong kinship bonds and ties.

Poetry Analysis of Ask Me Essay

In the poem â€Å"Ask Me,† the poet, William Stafford, gives the reader a strong sense of imagery, it describes the river so vividly, so creatively. This poem is a very good poem, and is actually very mysterious and a little bit almost questionable about the theme of the poem. Basically what I get from the poem is, the speaker is not ashamed of who he or she is and you can ask them any questions about their past and they will gladly answer. It’s almost as if it is kind of testing the speaker, like will or she actually answer the question? And the answer is most definitely yes. As for the meaning, I am not too sure. I guess some poetry cannot always be explained so well but that’s okay because I still enjoy reading it and trying to figure out what it is about. But I can pretty much understand the gist of the poem. It is just the last line that gets me, â€Å"What the river says, that is what I say.† It’s haunting almost chilling to me to read that. Shivers seriously run down my spine when I read that. So, from the poem, I basically get the vibe it is saying, the speaker has had a long life full of, love, hurt, pin, heartbreak etc, but ask him anything about his past or anything and he isn’t ashamed of it. He will proudly answer to anything and take responsibility for what he has caused and what he’s been through. I personally have tried analyzing this poem for about a week now, and it has been so difficult for me to find the real meaning of this poem. And very difficult to try and understand the tone and mood. So, although I wasn’t able to find a whole bunch about the poem, I found it very interesting and enjoyed even looking up this poem further and reading about the author and what other people took from this poem. So overall, this poem is a very well written poem and the ideas are endless of what it could mean.