Discuss the Significance of Ebenezer Howard as a Pioneer essays

Discuss the Significance of Ebenezer Howard as a Pioneer essays Discuss the Significance of Ebenezer Howard as a Pioneer of British Town and Country Planning. To start answering the question of the significance of Howard as a pioneer of town and country planning, the first, and most obvious question that has to be asked is whether he himself had the idea first. And on first inspection this does not seem to be the case. Theodor Fritsch, a German man that lived from 18521933 claimed authorship of the idea in 1896 in his book Die Stadt der Zukunft. (Schuber, D. 2004 pp3) Fritschs book was published in 1896, Howards idea of the Garden city was first published in 1898 in his book To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. (Schuber, D. 2004 pp3). This clearly shows that Howards book was infact predated by Fritschs book by two years. And most importantly, at that time, Howard could have gained access to the book, modified the ideas slightly, and simply taken them for his own. The thoughts behind the two ideas could not have been more different however. Howard had planned his garden cities as a kind of emancipation of the working class, through state run public services, funded by the rents of the people living there, instead of the rents simply going to the landlords. For Ebenezer Howard the problem of inner city squalor and overcrowding was not caused by the inability of the people to help them selves but the urbanizing process itself (Andrew, C. et al 1979 pp27) In theory the money would be spent on public services, the lives of the average workers that lived in the garden city would dramatically improve upon the slums of inner city life, while the workers left in the inner city would benefit from the decreased living costs brought on by a market place suddenly finding itself lacking in tenants, as the rules of supply and demand go. However, in practice, probably because the rule of not being able to hold the lease of a plot of land ...

12 Angry Men Analysis 2

In the first part of the film when the stage of forming, as it is claimed by the Tuckman’s Team Model, occurs, we notice the main characteristics of this group(David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). The group consists of 12 male middle aged white men probably coming from the middle class. Even from this first impression, admiring the effort of the film to achieve diversity, signs of prejudice appear. Specifically, the fact that all of them are men and moreover white men represents main biases of that period. Additionally, as it is mentioned to Sheldon’s Theory about the biases, the somatotype of each person declares in a certain way its character and this can be noticed by the selection of the characters and their match with the roles (Big guy is the tough one, smaller and thinner is the most innocuous, the handsome is the sensible and sensitive one etc. ) (David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). Despite the fact that the movie is trying to accuse such biases (which will be underlined later) certain ways of projection of that period could not be avoided. This is one of the reasons why in the remake of the film in 1997 black actors participated as well and later there even women were introduced in the team for certain theatrical versions. (Eirini Flouri Yiannis Fitsakis 2007). The existence of a â€Å"one-off† situation like this in the movie leaves space for less inhibition for conflicts. Moreover, specific factors like the size, the external-internal environment and the definition of the process play a crucial role in the structure of the group. Obviously, the size of this group is 12, but the question is: why so many? The reason is that by having a greater number of juries the system of justice achieves higher levels of democracy with less possibilities of getting unfair decisions combining the memory, the knowledge and the experience of each member and eliminates any prejudiced behaviors. On the other hand as Social Impact Theory mentions the more members there are, the less responsibility they feel (Latane and Nida, 1980). In the external environment we could enclose the time of the procedure, which is unlimited at first but with a deadline coming up afterwards, and the conditions of the place of action, which is characterized by the humidity and the high summer temperatures, the broken air-conditioning, the unavailability of space. Such details could become the cause of stress, aggressiveness and as it was shown desire for fast result (just finish the procedure). In the internal environment issues like experience of previous similar situations, cultures, personalities, knowledge, mood, health, personal schedule and specialization could affect the result. Ending, a matter of significant importance is the definition of the procedure. In this case, we observe that after the release of the 2 alternatives there are 12 juries left. The juries have to decide if the boy is guilty or not guilty but there must be a full agreement (12 to 0) in each case; A democratic method which proves the importance of the situation. Alternatively, if they cannot reach an agreement they can decide a hung jury and then another trial will take place with different juries this time. The role of the foreman is usually for the most experienced person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets accepted by all. In the movie, juror1 supports this role setting the basic norms of the procedure. It is worth mentioning that nowadays, in the selection of the juries there is a specific procedure that is called â€Å"Voir Dire† procedure that clarifies the capability of the juries (Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt 1982). Undoubtedly, the conviction of the biases of any kind is one of the main objects of this film. Primarily, in the first scheme, the judge seems really ninterested about the outcome and he seems to be sure about the result. The Halo Effect is â€Å"a judgment based on a single striking characteristic† and is being remarked in many cases during the film (Edward Thorndike, 1920). Moving to the main part of the film and the central procedure we can emphasize on the juror3 and juror10 who are the main rep resentatives of such prejudiced behaviors. Both of them were trying to fill the gaps of their knowledge using selective attention in certain facts and their personal experience (â€Å"Principle of closure† by Max Wertheimer 1880-1943). Everyone has his stereotypes and if we imagine stereotypes as pictures in our head, jurors 3 and 10 have the image of a dangerous criminal for the defendant, raised to act in certain ways (Lippmann, 1922). More specifically, juror3 expresses, from his first lines in the film, his perception against the young boy (â€Å"I ‘d slap those kids before†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). But as the movie goes on, he expresses again and again his personal beliefs connecting them with his personal disappointment from his own son (â€Å" it’s these kids they are these day†, â€Å"I used to call my father Sir†). Even more he presents his cultural stereotype against the elderly (â€Å"How could he be positive about anything? †) Eventually, juror3 stands alone with his perceptions, believing in the boy’s guiltiness and through a psychological outburst admits that all his statements were based on biases. Similarly, juror10 uses his own belief to create his racial prejudice against the defendant (â€Å"I‘ve expected that†, â€Å"You know what we are dealing with†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) as well as his past experiences (â€Å"I’ve lived with them†¦ they are born liars†). Adding to this, juror10 weights the value of the young boy less than the cost of a trial. Finally, his â€Å"explosion† made the apocalypse of his real personality and the group’s mechanism accused his behavior through a visual isolation and oral prohibition. The existence of biases in each group can create an unpleasant internal environment for each member and be the reason of conflicts. The productivity or the effectiveness of the group is in danger if such behaviors are being tolerated. Apart from the complexity which is created there is also a matter of fairness of the group’s function. As the movie flows, the influence of the group to each individual separately is obvious but a vice versa phenomenon is noticed as well. In this part, the different roles of the jurors and their influence on each other through the communication style of all-channel are being presented, as well as with some strategies followed by the leader-juror8. One thing that is common for most of the jurors is that they have common BATNA(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and this is the hung jury. However, this is not the case for jury8 claims that his only purpose is the delivery of the justice (Fisher and Uri, 1981). Starting with juror1 we can notice signs of leadership in the early beginning but he ends up being more like a manager, organizing the procedure. Excluding the moment he reaches his breaking point and suggests if anyone would like to take his place, juror1is the one who sets up the norms, accepts propositions, guides the conversation and the voting procedure, avoids conflicts and respects privileges keeping a democratic way of thinking. Being the foreman can be characterized as the â€Å"co-ordinator† (Beldin’s Team Role Theory 1996, 2007). Many of the jurors (2, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) seem to have low self-esteem not only because of their character but also because of the number of the team that forces them to get lost in the crowd or just finish the procedure and leave (â€Å"I just think he is guilty†, â€Å"Can I pass? †, etc) This is obvious from the first vote where only 5 of the 11 votes come directly and the rest are raised slowly just to avoid being pointed out. They are becoming followers(2, 5, 6 and 11) or entertainers (7) or just dreamers (12). Of course most of them are open to hear more and accept different opinions (2, 5, and 7). The rest just do not care so much about the result and these â€Å"free riders†, as Frohlich and Oppenheimer called them in 1970, are the proof that social loafing (or Ringelmann Effect) is a common phenomenon in big teams. The role of juror9 has a vital meaning for the outcome because he takes part in all the breaking points of the process. Firstly, he is the first supporter of juror8, secondly it is him who explains the old witness’s psychology (â€Å"Attention†) and lastly he is the fire starter for the fall of the woman’s testimony. The main opponents to the boy’s exoneration are jurors 3, 4 and 10. As was mentioned previously jurors 3 and 10 are mostly based on biases and stereotypes for children from slums. They are all concentrated on general facts and obvious details. The extensive use of loud voice is frequently the main argument of jurors 3 and 10, which could never strengthen their position. Alternatively, juror4 is using his logic and cleverness to support his facts and admits his fault proving his maturity, once he is convinced. Focusing on juror8 we can claim that he owns the position of the leader as his bargaining power is unique. Max Weber (1947) claimed that â€Å"bargaining power is the ability someone has to achieve his goals no matter of the resistance he faces†. Juror8 follows a series of strategies in order to be flexible and adapt to the needs of each occasion. In the beginning, as it is shown from Jo-Hari’s Window, everyone has a bigger unknown-black side, so juror8 wants to get information as an input. Eventually, he adopts the strategy of a listener in order to get knowledge from the others without revealing himself. Afterwards, in the first vote he stays neutral mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a different angle avoiding any conflict. The brainstorming procedure just began. In order to wake up their consciousness he uses specific words like â€Å"maybe†, â€Å"supposing†, â€Å"possible† and â€Å"assume†. In the main part he listens carefully and argues with all the elements one by one. There is also an extensive use of rhetorical questions and irony just to make his point clear. The first action scheme is when he places the similar knife on the table. The leader breaks the law in order to prove his point. He becomes more active for the first time and gets the whole team upset. Eventually, he creates the first doubts. At this specific time he calls for a new vote. Apparently, the timing is not random. Probably he recognizes some voices like his and decides that it is time to set up a coalition strategy. He needs just one vote which will strengthen amazingly his arguments and he gets it. The fact that he uses his emotional intelligence to point out his views, while he realizes that some other jurors are playing, proves once again his leading abilities. The next step is to create personal relations with some of the jurors. So, he finds the weakest of the group who are about to change side and ask for their opinions. It is not by accident that these jurors were mainly followers until this time. Having established these connections, he uses logic and science as well as the experience and the knowledge of the group in order to persuade the others. As soon as he realizes that one of his main opponents (juror3) loses his self-control, juror8 becomes aggressive and pushes him to the limits using the technique of the irony to apocalypse the existence of his personal prejudice against the defendant. After completing his task, he shows his sympathetic character and supports the worried opponent. Based on Moscovici (1976) and his 5 Aspects juror8 is loyal to his beliefs(Consistency), responsible for his acts(Autonomy), flexible whenever it is appropriate(Rigidity), risky in the first secret vote(Investment) and willing to bring justice(Fairness). The impact of this movie in our modern times is initially proved by the fact that after so many years it is still being taught in courses not only in Law schools but also in Business and Psychology schools. Definitions like brainstorming, social loafing, diversity, team-working, biases and preconceptions, attribution, personality, leader’s abilities, democratic voting and many others are part of any organization nowadays. This movie is the omen for the evolutionary development of a team structure, a team-worker’s behavior and a leader’s characteristics. References Atkinson G. 1990 â€Å"Negotiate the best deal† Director Books, Cambridge Barkan, Steven E. , Steven Cohn, 1994, ‘‘Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites’’ in â€Å"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency† pp. 202–209 Buchanan A. David Huczynski A. Andrej, 2010, â€Å"Organizational Behaviour†, seventh edition, Pearson Ed ucation Limited, Harlow Cialdini R. B. , 1993 â€Å"The psychology of persuasion†, Quill William Morrow, New York Ellsworth C. Phoebe, 1989, â€Å"Are Twelve Heads Better Than One? † in â€Å"Law and Contemporary Problems†, Duke University School of Law Fisher R. Ury W. 1981 â€Å"Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without gining in† Penguin, New York Flouri Eirini Fitsakis Yiannis, Oct 2007, â€Å"Minority Matters: 12 Angry Men as a Case study of a successful Negotiation against the odds† in â€Å"Negotitation Journal† pp. 449-461 Hackley Susan, 2007 â€Å"One Reasonable and Inquiring Man:12 Angry Men as a Negotiation-Teaching Tool† in â€Å"Negotiation Journal† pp. 463-468 Hall M. Eisenstein (Eds. ), 1980, â€Å"Voir Dire and jury selection†, Clark. B. M. , in â€Å"Criminal Defense Techniques†, New York: Mathew Bender Hay B. L. 2007 â€Å"Fiftieth anniversary 12 Angry Men† Kent-Law Review 82(3) Chi cago Heuer L. Penrodt St. , Sep. 1988, â€Å"Increasing Jurors’ Participation in Trials A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking† in â€Å"Law and Human Behaviour† Vol. 12 No. 3 Janis I. , 1972 â€Å"Victims of groupthink† MA: Houghton Mifflin, Oxford Kaplan M. , Jones Christopher S. , 2003 â€Å"The Effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information –Processing Strategies† in â€Å"Basic and Applied Social Psychology† pp. 1-13 Kew J. Stredwick J. , 2010, â€Å"Human Resource Management in a business context†, CIPD, London Martin R. , 1992 â€Å"Bargaining Power† Clarendon Press, Oxford Moscovici S. , 1976 â€Å"Social influence and social change† Academic, London Nietzelt T. Michael Dillehayt C. Ronald, 1982, â€Å"The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials†, in â€Å"Law and Human Behaviour† Vol. 6 No. 1 Rojot J. , 1991 â€Å"Negotiatation: From theory to practice† Macmillan, London Scheepers, Daan, et al, 2006, ‘‘Diversity in In-Group Bias: Structural Factors, Situational Features, and Social Functions,’’ in â€Å"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology† pp. 944–960 Weber M. , 1947 The theory of social and economic organization† Oxford University Press, New York 12 Angry Men Analysis 2 In the first part of the film when the stage of forming, as it is claimed by the Tuckman’s Team Model, occurs, we notice the main characteristics of this group(David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). The group consists of 12 male middle aged white men probably coming from the middle class. Even from this first impression, admiring the effort of the film to achieve diversity, signs of prejudice appear. Specifically, the fact that all of them are men and moreover white men represents main biases of that period. Additionally, as it is mentioned to Sheldon’s Theory about the biases, the somatotype of each person declares in a certain way its character and this can be noticed by the selection of the characters and their match with the roles (Big guy is the tough one, smaller and thinner is the most innocuous, the handsome is the sensible and sensitive one etc. ) (David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). Despite the fact that the movie is trying to accuse such biases (which will be underlined later) certain ways of projection of that period could not be avoided. This is one of the reasons why in the remake of the film in 1997 black actors participated as well and later there even women were introduced in the team for certain theatrical versions. (Eirini Flouri Yiannis Fitsakis 2007). The existence of a â€Å"one-off† situation like this in the movie leaves space for less inhibition for conflicts. Moreover, specific factors like the size, the external-internal environment and the definition of the process play a crucial role in the structure of the group. Obviously, the size of this group is 12, but the question is: why so many? The reason is that by having a greater number of juries the system of justice achieves higher levels of democracy with less possibilities of getting unfair decisions combining the memory, the knowledge and the experience of each member and eliminates any prejudiced behaviors. On the other hand as Social Impact Theory mentions the more members there are, the less responsibility they feel (Latane and Nida, 1980). In the external environment we could enclose the time of the procedure, which is unlimited at first but with a deadline coming up afterwards, and the conditions of the place of action, which is characterized by the humidity and the high summer temperatures, the broken air-conditioning, the unavailability of space. Such details could become the cause of stress, aggressiveness and as it was shown desire for fast result (just finish the procedure). In the internal environment issues like experience of previous similar situations, cultures, personalities, knowledge, mood, health, personal schedule and specialization could affect the result. Ending, a matter of significant importance is the definition of the procedure. In this case, we observe that after the release of the 2 alternatives there are 12 juries left. The juries have to decide if the boy is guilty or not guilty but there must be a full agreement (12 to 0) in each case; A democratic method which proves the importance of the situation. Alternatively, if they cannot reach an agreement they can decide a hung jury and then another trial will take place with different juries this time. The role of the foreman is usually for the most experienced person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets accepted by all. In the movie, juror1 supports this role setting the basic norms of the procedure. It is worth mentioning that nowadays, in the selection of the juries there is a specific procedure that is called â€Å"Voir Dire† procedure that clarifies the capability of the juries (Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt 1982). Undoubtedly, the conviction of the biases of any kind is one of the main objects of this film. Primarily, in the first scheme, the judge seems really ninterested about the outcome and he seems to be sure about the result. The Halo Effect is â€Å"a judgment based on a single striking characteristic† and is being remarked in many cases during the film (Edward Thorndike, 1920). Moving to the main part of the film and the central procedure we can emphasize on the juror3 and juror10 who are the main rep resentatives of such prejudiced behaviors. Both of them were trying to fill the gaps of their knowledge using selective attention in certain facts and their personal experience (â€Å"Principle of closure† by Max Wertheimer 1880-1943). Everyone has his stereotypes and if we imagine stereotypes as pictures in our head, jurors 3 and 10 have the image of a dangerous criminal for the defendant, raised to act in certain ways (Lippmann, 1922). More specifically, juror3 expresses, from his first lines in the film, his perception against the young boy (â€Å"I ‘d slap those kids before†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). But as the movie goes on, he expresses again and again his personal beliefs connecting them with his personal disappointment from his own son (â€Å" it’s these kids they are these day†, â€Å"I used to call my father Sir†). Even more he presents his cultural stereotype against the elderly (â€Å"How could he be positive about anything? †) Eventually, juror3 stands alone with his perceptions, believing in the boy’s guiltiness and through a psychological outburst admits that all his statements were based on biases. Similarly, juror10 uses his own belief to create his racial prejudice against the defendant (â€Å"I‘ve expected that†, â€Å"You know what we are dealing with†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ) as well as his past experiences (â€Å"I’ve lived with them†¦ they are born liars†). Adding to this, juror10 weights the value of the young boy less than the cost of a trial. Finally, his â€Å"explosion† made the apocalypse of his real personality and the group’s mechanism accused his behavior through a visual isolation and oral prohibition. The existence of biases in each group can create an unpleasant internal environment for each member and be the reason of conflicts. The productivity or the effectiveness of the group is in danger if such behaviors are being tolerated. Apart from the complexity which is created there is also a matter of fairness of the group’s function. As the movie flows, the influence of the group to each individual separately is obvious but a vice versa phenomenon is noticed as well. In this part, the different roles of the jurors and their influence on each other through the communication style of all-channel are being presented, as well as with some strategies followed by the leader-juror8. One thing that is common for most of the jurors is that they have common BATNA(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and this is the hung jury. However, this is not the case for jury8 claims that his only purpose is the delivery of the justice (Fisher and Uri, 1981). Starting with juror1 we can notice signs of leadership in the early beginning but he ends up being more like a manager, organizing the procedure. Excluding the moment he reaches his breaking point and suggests if anyone would like to take his place, juror1is the one who sets up the norms, accepts propositions, guides the conversation and the voting procedure, avoids conflicts and respects privileges keeping a democratic way of thinking. Being the foreman can be characterized as the â€Å"co-ordinator† (Beldin’s Team Role Theory 1996, 2007). Many of the jurors (2, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) seem to have low self-esteem not only because of their character but also because of the number of the team that forces them to get lost in the crowd or just finish the procedure and leave (â€Å"I just think he is guilty†, â€Å"Can I pass? †, etc) This is obvious from the first vote where only 5 of the 11 votes come directly and the rest are raised slowly just to avoid being pointed out. They are becoming followers(2, 5, 6 and 11) or entertainers (7) or just dreamers (12). Of course most of them are open to hear more and accept different opinions (2, 5, and 7). The rest just do not care so much about the result and these â€Å"free riders†, as Frohlich and Oppenheimer called them in 1970, are the proof that social loafing (or Ringelmann Effect) is a common phenomenon in big teams. The role of juror9 has a vital meaning for the outcome because he takes part in all the breaking points of the process. Firstly, he is the first supporter of juror8, secondly it is him who explains the old witness’s psychology (â€Å"Attention†) and lastly he is the fire starter for the fall of the woman’s testimony. The main opponents to the boy’s exoneration are jurors 3, 4 and 10. As was mentioned previously jurors 3 and 10 are mostly based on biases and stereotypes for children from slums. They are all concentrated on general facts and obvious details. The extensive use of loud voice is frequently the main argument of jurors 3 and 10, which could never strengthen their position. Alternatively, juror4 is using his logic and cleverness to support his facts and admits his fault proving his maturity, once he is convinced. Focusing on juror8 we can claim that he owns the position of the leader as his bargaining power is unique. Max Weber (1947) claimed that â€Å"bargaining power is the ability someone has to achieve his goals no matter of the resistance he faces†. Juror8 follows a series of strategies in order to be flexible and adapt to the needs of each occasion. In the beginning, as it is shown from Jo-Hari’s Window, everyone has a bigger unknown-black side, so juror8 wants to get information as an input. Eventually, he adopts the strategy of a listener in order to get knowledge from the others without revealing himself. Afterwards, in the first vote he stays neutral mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a different angle avoiding any conflict. The brainstorming procedure just began. In order to wake up their consciousness he uses specific words like â€Å"maybe†, â€Å"supposing†, â€Å"possible† and â€Å"assume†. In the main part he listens carefully and argues with all the elements one by one. There is also an extensive use of rhetorical questions and irony just to make his point clear. The first action scheme is when he places the similar knife on the table. The leader breaks the law in order to prove his point. He becomes more active for the first time and gets the whole team upset. Eventually, he creates the first doubts. At this specific time he calls for a new vote. Apparently, the timing is not random. Probably he recognizes some voices like his and decides that it is time to set up a coalition strategy. He needs just one vote which will strengthen amazingly his arguments and he gets it. The fact that he uses his emotional intelligence to point out his views, while he realizes that some other jurors are playing, proves once again his leading abilities. The next step is to create personal relations with some of the jurors. So, he finds the weakest of the group who are about to change side and ask for their opinions. It is not by accident that these jurors were mainly followers until this time. Having established these connections, he uses logic and science as well as the experience and the knowledge of the group in order to persuade the others. As soon as he realizes that one of his main opponents (juror3) loses his self-control, juror8 becomes aggressive and pushes him to the limits using the technique of the irony to apocalypse the existence of his personal prejudice against the defendant. After completing his task, he shows his sympathetic character and supports the worried opponent. Based on Moscovici (1976) and his 5 Aspects juror8 is loyal to his beliefs(Consistency), responsible for his acts(Autonomy), flexible whenever it is appropriate(Rigidity), risky in the first secret vote(Investment) and willing to bring justice(Fairness). The impact of this movie in our modern times is initially proved by the fact that after so many years it is still being taught in courses not only in Law schools but also in Business and Psychology schools. Definitions like brainstorming, social loafing, diversity, team-working, biases and preconceptions, attribution, personality, leader’s abilities, democratic voting and many others are part of any organization nowadays. This movie is the omen for the evolutionary development of a team structure, a team-worker’s behavior and a leader’s characteristics. References Atkinson G. 1990 â€Å"Negotiate the best deal† Director Books, Cambridge Barkan, Steven E. , Steven Cohn, 1994, ‘‘Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites’’ in â€Å"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency† pp. 202–209 Buchanan A. David Huczynski A. Andrej, 2010, â€Å"Organizational Behaviour†, seventh edition, Pearson Ed ucation Limited, Harlow Cialdini R. B. , 1993 â€Å"The psychology of persuasion†, Quill William Morrow, New York Ellsworth C. Phoebe, 1989, â€Å"Are Twelve Heads Better Than One? † in â€Å"Law and Contemporary Problems†, Duke University School of Law Fisher R. Ury W. 1981 â€Å"Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without gining in† Penguin, New York Flouri Eirini Fitsakis Yiannis, Oct 2007, â€Å"Minority Matters: 12 Angry Men as a Case study of a successful Negotiation against the odds† in â€Å"Negotitation Journal† pp. 449-461 Hackley Susan, 2007 â€Å"One Reasonable and Inquiring Man:12 Angry Men as a Negotiation-Teaching Tool† in â€Å"Negotiation Journal† pp. 463-468 Hall M. Eisenstein (Eds. ), 1980, â€Å"Voir Dire and jury selection†, Clark. B. M. , in â€Å"Criminal Defense Techniques†, New York: Mathew Bender Hay B. L. 2007 â€Å"Fiftieth anniversary 12 Angry Men† Kent-Law Review 82(3) Chi cago Heuer L. Penrodt St. , Sep. 1988, â€Å"Increasing Jurors’ Participation in Trials A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking† in â€Å"Law and Human Behaviour† Vol. 12 No. 3 Janis I. , 1972 â€Å"Victims of groupthink† MA: Houghton Mifflin, Oxford Kaplan M. , Jones Christopher S. , 2003 â€Å"The Effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information –Processing Strategies† in â€Å"Basic and Applied Social Psychology† pp. 1-13 Kew J. Stredwick J. , 2010, â€Å"Human Resource Management in a business context†, CIPD, London Martin R. , 1992 â€Å"Bargaining Power† Clarendon Press, Oxford Moscovici S. , 1976 â€Å"Social influence and social change† Academic, London Nietzelt T. Michael Dillehayt C. Ronald, 1982, â€Å"The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials†, in â€Å"Law and Human Behaviour† Vol. 6 No. 1 Rojot J. , 1991 â€Å"Negotiatation: From theory to practice† Macmillan, London Scheepers, Daan, et al, 2006, ‘‘Diversity in In-Group Bias: Structural Factors, Situational Features, and Social Functions,’’ in â€Å"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology† pp. 944–960 Weber M. , 1947 The theory of social and economic organization† Oxford University Press, New York

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

Strategic Alliances - Essay Example In this respect, the DoT has sought to be involved as part of the multi-agency taskforce committee meant to monitor the project, as one of the important stakeholders to the project. This outsourcing caution resonates well with the outsourcing strategies provided under chapter 6, which requires that outsourcing can only make sense, where the outsourced services reduce the company’s risk exposure (Chapter 6, n.p.). Therefore, the caution issued by DoT to Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DIETY) of India, serves to meet this requirement as provided under the chapter. This is because, if the DIETY outsources manpower for the development of the NCCC, the private manpower will be aware of the possible security breaches that can be applied to bypass the security systems established by the project. This would be detrimental to the functionality and success of the project, considering that this project is meant to be applied for screening the entire web traffic on the internet within India, and then generate a security alert for the government recommending action, on the event that any cyber security threat is discovered (Aulakh, n.p.). According to the minister for information in India, the threat of Cyber security in India has been on the rise, with 24,216 Indian sites being defaced in 2013, compared to 17,306 sites that were defaced in 2011 (Aulakh, n.p.). In this respect, it is important that the government takes the necessary measure to curb the threat of cyber security attacks in the country, and that can only be achieved, if a foolproof system of scanning the threats is established. Nevertheless, the involvement of private manpower will be a higher risk to the project, than when the government enlists the services of its own manpower (Aulakh, n.p.). According to outsourcing strategies provided under chapter 6, outsourcing of

The US supreme court Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The US supreme court - Essay Example For the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge to be confirmed by the Senate, a simple majority is required. Judges of the Supreme Court can be impeached and removed from office if they are found to be involved in misdemeanour or criminal activities (Abraham, 1992). The existence of the US Supreme Court is a necessity because of the roles it plays in several aspects of the legal framework of the country, such as its support for the civil rights movement, which received legal sanctity with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a ground-breaking legislation in the country because it did away with most forms of discrimination against women and Blacks and with racial segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally eliminated discrimination in voter registration as well as racial discrimination in educational institutions and at the work place. However, during the initial years, the constitutional validity of the Civil Rights Act was disputed in the context of its applicab ility to the private sector. In many of the important civil rights hearings, the US Supreme Court had held that Congress was not legally empowered to prevent discriminatory practices in the private sector. ... This ruling marked the beginning of the effectiveness of the separate but equal concept in the US. In 1971, the US Supreme Court held in the case titled Griggs v. Duke Power Co that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not permit discrimination at the work place and also that employers cannot adopt practices that are discriminatory towards women and minorities. In case titled University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme Court held that the 11th Amendment did not permit state employees to file applications in federal courts to seek financial compensation for discriminatory practices used by employers in violation of the Americans with Disabilites Act. This decision revealed that the Supreme Court has not been favourable in regard to civil rights issues. It held that even if the state’s actions are indicative of being hard hearted, they may not necessarily violate provisions of the Constitution (The Leadership Conference, 2012). The US Supreme Court is a democratically legitimate institution because it acts under the given provisions and its judges are elected in keeping with the due process of law. However, the appointment of Supreme Court judges during the President Roosevelt’s time came under cloud because between 1933 and 1937, the Supreme Court had declared six of Roosevelt's eight major New Deal programs unconstitutional. Roosevelt wanted to prevent the Supreme Court from rejecting his future New Deal proposals and he reacted by introducing a scheme whereby new judges would be appointed to the Supreme Court and who would be supportive of his plans (Crawford, 2008). Roosevelt introduced a plan that gave him authority to appoint a new judge for

The Non-Jewish Individual Essay -- Jewish History, Kafka

The Non-Jewish Individual Jewish history is a study of a people in exile. Since the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the experience of the Jewish individual in relation to non-Jewish society has often been that of an outsider looking in. In addition, the distinct Jewish culture, religion, and philosophy identifiably marked the Jews as a separate people. Although this demarcation exposed the Jews to many negative ideological trends, Isaac Deutscher’s â€Å"The Non-Jewish Jew† argues that this marginalization enabled the great thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries to revolutionize the European continent. As the title suggests, the non-Jewish Jews were individuals that abandoned Judaism. Deutscher argues that the historical exclusion imbued Jewish people with the innate perspective of the external critic. When the individuals liberated themselves from the ideological shackles of Judaism this now double marginalization provided the perspective of the extreme outsider. Once freed from both the restrictions of Jewish and Christian ideology they were then able to reinterpret society and develop the theories that would revolutionize the world. Deutscher asserts that the famous non-Jewish Jews such as Spinoza, Heine, Marx, and others were representatives of this perspective. In essence, their independence from society enabled them to criticize and fundamentally change the ideological landscape of Europe in ways that other thinkers bound by Christian or Jewish ideology could not. However, with an analysis of Deutscher’s argument through Franz Kafka’s â€Å"A Report to an Academy† it becomes clear that his â€Å"Non-Jewish Jews† were not only dependent upon society, but also more importantly they were not actually Jewish. Initially, Kakfa’s â€Å"... ...by the subjects of Deutscher’s â€Å"The Non-Jewish Jew† are reflected and exhibited in Deutscher’s work. His assertion that Jews have a special ability to critically analyze society because of their historical isolation supports the same race based ideology that the historical figures worked against. Additionally, the association of Marx, Heine, and the others to this racially decided independence from society fails to acknowledge their deep connection to their non-Jewish culture. Therefore, through an analysis of Deutscher’s work through the context of Kafka’s â€Å"A Report to an Academy† it becomes apparent that Deutscher undermines his argument by failing to appropriately state the relevance of the historical figures connection to society and most importantly, by allowing racial inflections to manipulate his perspective of his subject revolutionary individuals.

How do feminists view the division of labour

How do feminists view the division of labour within the family home? sy Chelb7 How do feminists view the division of labour within the family home? Feminism is a collection of movements and beliefs aimed at defining and defending women's rights within society and politics aiming for all round equality, A big issue that arises within women rights is inequality in the household. The division of labour in the home is how fairly the jobs are shared between the partners in the household.Sociologists named Young and Willmott carried out a study in 1937 in aethnal Green, London. They looked into the roles in families within the home and come to the conclusion that Over time most families have become The symmetrical family. This implies roles are being shared between the man and women Within the home. They called this the march Of progress. Feminists reject this ‘March Of progress' View as they say roles are not equal within the home. In a research there is evidence that men ‘hel p' at home but it is far from symmetry within the roles.Feminists say that men usually claim to be helping by doing the pleasurable jobs rather than the work, herefore research so far suggests feminists view the division of labour within the family home as unequal. Sociologist Ann Oakley disagrees with Young and Willmotts view. Rather than seeing a march of progress tonards symmetry since 19th century Ilke Young and Willmott do, Oakley describes how â€Å"the housewife role has become the dominant role tor married women†. She also argues that Men only ever ‘help' at home rather than work. Another sociologist supporting Oakley's idea Is Mary Boulton (1983b.During research Boulton found that fewer than of husbands had a major ole in childcare. She argues that Young and Willmott exaggerate men's contribution by look'ng at tasks that involve childcare rather than responsibilities. When reviewing the research so far it becomes apparent that women sociologists (particularly f eminists) support the idea that men rarely take on tasks within the home and that male sociologists support that this is in fact improving and we are on a march towards progress, Twisting this biased view are two sociologists named Hilary Silver (1987) and Juliet Schor (1993).They argued that because of ommercialised good and services the housewife role has almost disappeared, They say that items such as freezers. microwave ovens and ready meals reduce the amount of domestic labour to be done, However critics argue that for poorer women this iS not an Option. Feminists argue that even though commercialisation has been reduced the Other chores are still not shared equallyq The impact Of paid work iS a more recent debate in feminists. Logically if both man and women Of the house are in paid full time work feminists say that the housework should be shared equally between the couple.Feminists argue that this is not the case. women are being made to carry a dual burden. This outcome is d etermined in large part by traditional gender roles that have been accepted by society over time. on the other hand to the feminist view some sociologists argue that women working In full time paid jobs lead to a more equal division of labour. Jonathan Gershuny (1994) found 83% of housework and those who worked part time still done 82%. Wives who worked full time did 73% of housework. Gershuny explains this trend towards greater equality in terms of gradual change in values and parental role models.He argues social values are gradually adapting to the fact more women are working full time. Similarly Oriel Sullivan's (2000) analysis of nationally representative data collected in 1975, 1987 and 1997 found a trend towards greater equality as men did more domestic labour. Particularly there was an increase in couples with an equal division with men doing more traditionally women's Jobs. Feminists view this division of labour as inaccurate. Equality and symmetry within housework would me an each partner is doing 50% of housework and chores.Whereas even sociologists who are gainst the feminist view towards domestic labour are showing in their results that well over 50% of housework is done by women. Sociologist Dunne (1999)done a study on 37 cohabiting lesbian couples with dependent children. Dunne found evidence of symmetry in their relationships. In lesbian relationships household tasks are not linked to a particular gender scripts. This allows lesbian couples to have more equal relationships. For example as one of the women said in Dunne's study â€Å"In heterosexual relationships there is always a subconscious belief that women are upposed to do the housework.This supports the radical feminist view that relationships between men and women are inevitably patriarchal and that women can only achieve equality in same sex relationships. Similarly, Jeffery Weeks (1999) argues that same sex relationships offer greater possibilities of equality because the division of l abour is open to negotiation and agreement and not based on a patriarchal tradition. To conclude evidence shows that a women being in paid work leads to more equality in the division of labour, though probably only if she is in full work.Many feminists argue that in reality the effect of this is limited and women still continue to shoulder a dual or triple burden. Feminists argue that the root of the problem is patriarchy. Patriarchy ensures that women earn less at work and therefore have less bargaining in the home. Patriarchal gender scripts shape societys expectations about the domestic roles within the house. In my opinion until the subconscious belief that women should do the domestic work has being changed by society's outlook feminists will always feel that patriarchy is the main reason for the inequality of labour within the home.

Max Weber on Culture, Authority, and the Iron Cage

With Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, W.E.B. DuBois, and Harriet Martineau, Max Weber is considered one of the founders of sociology. Living and working between 1864 and 1920, Weber is remembered as a prolific social theorist who focused on economics, culture, religion, politics, and the interplay among them. Three of his biggest contributions to sociology include the way he theorized the relationship between culture and economy, his theory of authority, and his concept of the iron cage of rationality. Weber on the Relationships Between Culture and Economy Webers most well-known and widely read work is The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This book is considered a landmark text of social theory and sociology generally because of how Weber convincingly illustrates the important connections between culture and economy. Positioned against Marxs historical materialist approach to theorizing the emergence and development of capitalism, Weber presented a theory in which the values of ascetic Protestantism fostered the acquisitive nature of the capitalist economic system. Webers discussion of the relationship between culture and economy was a ground-breaking theory at the time. It set up an important theoretical tradition in sociology of taking the cultural realm of values and ideology seriously as a social force that interacts with and influences other aspects of society like politics and the economy. What Makes Authority Possible Weber made a very important contribution to the way we understand how people and institutions come to have authority in society, how they keep it, and how it influences our lives. Weber articulated his theory of authority in the essay  Politics as a Vocation, which first took form in a lecture he delivered in Munich in 1919. Weber theorized that there are three forms of authority that allow people and institutions to attain legitimate rule over society: 1. traditional, or that rooted in the traditions and values of the past that follows the logic of this is the way things have always been; 2. charismatic, or that premised on individual positive and admirable characteristics like heroism, being relatable, and showing visionary leadership; and 3. legal-rational, or that which is rooted in the laws of the state and represented by those entrusted to protect them. This theory of Webers reflects his focus on the political, social, and cultural importance of the modern state as an apparatus that strongly influences what happens in society and in our lives. Weber on the Iron Cage Analyzing the effects the iron cage of bureaucracy has on individuals in society is one of Webers landmark contributions to social theory, which he articulated in  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber used the phrase, originally  stahlhartes Gehà ¤use  in German, to refer to the way the bureaucratic rationality of modern Western societies comes to fundamentally limit and direct social life and individual lives. Weber explained that modern bureaucracy was organized around rational principles like hierarchical roles, compartmentalized knowledge and roles, a perceived merit-based system of employment and advancement, and the legal-rationality authority of the rule of law. As this system of rule -- common to modern Western states -- is perceived as legitimate and thus unquestionable, it exerts what Weber perceived to be an  extreme and unjust influence on other aspects of society and individual lives: the iron cage limits freedom and possibility. This aspect of Webers theory would prove deeply influential to the further development of social theory  and was built upon at length by the critical theorists associated with the Frankfurt School.