Functionalist and Conflict theories Essay

Sociology is the study of society and the behaviour patterns of a particular group or culture. In contemporary Australian society, a good understanding of this is needed in order to make better social changes to meet social needs. When it comes to trying to explain and understand society, there are two main points of view that a person can take. These are the functionalist view, which is largely based on works by Talcott Parsons, and the conflict view, sometimes referred to as Marxism, as Karl Marx made a significant contribution towards this theory. Although in most ways these views directly oppose each other, ultimately, they are both trying to do the same thing, that is, explain why society is like it is today. Functionalists see society in a relatively optimistic way. They see groups as interdependent, working together for the good of the whole society. They claim that organisations and groups are largely benevolent, and that they are there for useful purposes. A person who takes the functionalist perspective sees society as generally operating smoothly, and perceives that very little change is needed, as groups being interrelated means that change in one area will have an effect on the whole society. The functionalist view, while useful in explaining structures and functions of various groups in society, tends to gloss over the negative aspects of society, over-explaining them so that happenings which could have a large negative impact on society seem trivial and unimportant. Where consensus is not happening, it is the conflict view that has the better explanation. Read more: Functionalist Perspective on Social Media The conflict theory perceives society as stratified, that is, having significant divisions. It puts forward a more challenging, questioning view on society. People who support this view claim that in every institution there are some people with more power, opportunities and status than others. This view is about inequalities, disagreement, and the use of power to advantage some while disadvantaging others. The conflict theory is the direct opposite of functionalism in that it focuses on the negative aspects of society, and even when something is functioning relatively well, conflict theorists tend to analyse it until they do find something wrong, making a mountain out of a metaphoric molehill. So while the functionalist theory and the conflict theory are two extremes of sociological thinking, it is not necessary to take the view of either one or the other. Very rarely are situations clearly black and white. Most often, if not always, there are many shades of grey in between. Therefore it is important to take on the perspective of both theories, and figure out which aspect of a particular situation applies to which theory. A good example of just how much the two opposing views differ is to apply them both to the universal institution, the family. Functionalists see the family as a vital institution that is needed to carry out several important functions. These functions are:  ¨Regulating sexual behaviour and reproduction  ¨Socialising children  ¨Protecting children and the elderly  ¨Providing emotional support and affection for its members  ¨Serving as an important consumption unit for society’s products (Earle and Fopp, 1999) These functions generally still work well in the cases of socialisation and reproduction, care of the children and the elderly, and as an economic unit, earning and consuming. However in today’s society, where there is an increasing amount of domestic abuse as well as working single parents or two working parents, members of a family aren’t always able to provide emotional support and affection for other members. Also in today’s modern society there are a great amount of people having sex before marriage, and an alarmingly large amount of teenage pregnancy. Therefore families are not carrying out the function of regulating sexual behaviour and reproduction as much as they were twenty or thirty years ago. Functionalists often use biological comparisons, claiming that a family is like an organism, with each member having a particular role. These roles are considered natural, and must be carried out for the good of the whole family. These roles involve men going out into the workforce and taking economic leadership while the women stay at home looking after her children and husband and doing all the housework. The functionalist theory claims the nuclear family as the ‘norm’. The nuclear family consists of two parents, one of each gender, and their children living together in one household. Although this structure is still fairly typical of today’s society, it was much more prevalent in the 1950’s. Today there are many variations of the family, and only about half of families are nuclear. With divorce and single parent families steadily on the rise, and women wanting the same rights as men, functionalists are having to come up with ways to explain these occurrences. For example, with divorce, a functionalist would argue that divorce is a good thing because it means that when people marry the second time round they will have more experience and it will be more likely to last. However, this theory is considered outdated. In today’s society with a rising economy more and more women are going out into the workforce. But this extra role does not mean giving up their other role as carer. Women end up taking on two roles – that of the carer and the housewife, as well as that of a worker. This is becoming undesirable for women, making them reluctant to marry. The functionalist theory fails to take into consideration the simple fact that things change. And where the functionalist theory doesn’t quite apply, the conflict theory has the better explanation. The conflict view sees traditional roles in families as limiting women’s lives to caring for their husband and children. They claim that this arrangement is not biological at all, but socially constructed, that is, created by people. These roles have been around and accepted for so long that they seem natural, but the conflict view argues that in actual fact people have been trained over many years into thinking this way. The conflict theory emphasises disagreement and struggle as a part of any human group. Conflict theorists say that in any group there will be status issues, something will be unfair, and the power will be divided – some will give orders, others will obey. This applies to the family in that it is often, if not always, the parents giving orders to their children/teenagers, who are supposed to obey. Also, even in today’s changing society, men still often have more power than their wives. In modern Australian society, there are demographic changes in family form, and family households are considerably smaller. The changes in family arrangement and in family values have important consequences for the family as an institution. Fewer women are having large families and the marriage rate has declined, largely because of changes in attitudes to marriage and living arrangements. There is an increasing amount of not only de facto relationships, but also in the social acceptance of these relationships. The divorce rate has also increased, which then in turn influences the number of blended as well as single parent families. The conflict theory addresses these issues, and asks the important question ‘what needs to be changed in order for the family unit to survive?’ On the other hand, the functionalist theory tries to explain why these things are happening and how they benefit society. Both the functionalist and conflict theories raise some very valid and important points. Functionalism sometimes has a tendency to focus on the past, while the conflict theory places a bigger emphasis on the present. However, both theories are needed if the family is to survive in the future.

Great Gatsby and Elizabeth Barrett Browining Essay

The Great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald and Sonnets from the Portuguese by Elizabeth Barrett Browning are influenced by their varying context in their portrayal of love in their respective texts. Both authors explore the concept of love using various language features such as metaphors the use of irony. The Great Gatsby explores how the desire for the American Dream has taken prevalence over romantic love during post world war 1. This is contrasted with Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnets from the Portuguese where we are able to visualise her passion towards her lover through linguistic construct and also through the construction of an intimate sonnet. The Great Gatsby is set in what is commonly known as â€Å"The Roaring Twenties† or â€Å"The Jazz Age.† Given the 20s was about opulence, the nihilist attitude is reflected in romantic needs. Fitzgerald dismisses the idea of idealised love and refers to America’s love with the American Dream. Post World War 1 was a period of hedonism that reflected people’s determination to forget the sufferings and loss of the war. It was also a time of moral confusion. There was a mood of superficial optimism as people tried to hide their disillusionment. Fitzgerald explores the difficulty of individuals maintaining moral integrity in a material society that values wealth above all others. It was a time where there was great importance placed on what people had and not what people were. Fitzgerald’s use of Nick as the unreliable narrator is meant to represent cultural mores of the 20s. He represents the voice, failings and cynicism of the time and acts as a filter through which ideas and characters are reflected and mediated. We gain a pessimistic and fragmented insight into the tragic love story of the novel. The fragmentation and complex structure of the novel builds up Gatsby as the paragon of the Jazz Age and epitome of the American Dream. Ultimately, someone who represents the 20s cannot gain true love in the face of Tom’s wealth and riches. At the end of the play, Nick comes to fear that he is living in a loveless and faithful w orld. The narrative structure shows that time is a representation of love. The exploration of love in The Great Gatsby is treated with great ambiguity as Gatsby who is to be admired for his hope and vision, is sadly tragic and is unworthy in a society in which he loves. Fitzgerald is alluding to the fact that in successful America at the time, many were preoccupied with their social standings and wealth. The American Dream took precedence over romantic relationships. He condemns  love to be distrustful and faithless. This is shown through the numerous relationships throughout the novel. The relationship between Daisy and Mr. Gatsby is a clear example. Before Gatsby went to war, Daisy promised to wait for him but instead, married the very wealthy Tom. It becomes clear that Gatsby loves and wants the idea of Daisy rather than the real version. In order to eligible for Daisy’s love, Gatsby recreates himself to become a successful and wealthy man; hence he shows Daisy all his possessions after their meeting at Nick’s house. When Daisy cries over Gatsby’s â€Å"beautiful shirts† it highlights, the materialistic views she possesses and the relationship between love and money at that time. Part of Gatsby’s yearning for Daisy is her link to an exclusive society that he desperately wants to join. Gatsby’s love for Daisy is clear when he takes the blame for the death of Myrtle. We are positioned to see his devotion to Daisy as being foolish. â€Å"I love you now, isn’t that enough?† Although Daisy is unsatisfied with her marriage and enjoys her relationship with Gatsby, she never intended to leave Tom. In the end, it is not enough as Gatsby is not accepted in society or accepted by Daisy. F.Scott Fitzgerald shows the shallowness of love through the relationship of Myrtle and Tom. Their relationship is a symbol of an exploitative relationship. Myrtle is not content with her marriage and vies for a higher position. Myrtle admires ‘breeding’ and the aristocratic society and sees nothing immoral about her position as Tom’s mistress. She feels more superior when walking around New York with Tom and looks down on people who cannot afford materialistic goods although she normally would not be able to afford these products either. Tom provides Myrtle with presents that she normally would not receive. Ironically, Myrtle condemns her husband, George Wilson, for not owning his wedding suit. However, Tom doesn’t want to sustain the relationship with her. It is purely for his sexual needs. Hence, Fitzgerald depicts love to be superficial and is determined by the amount of wealth and social standing of a person. F.Scott Fitzgerald critiques the American Dream. Gatsby is an apparent self-made man who went from almost nothing to extravagance and wealth. However, Gatsby, Myrtle and George are seeking a better life but only achieve humiliation and death. Myrtle dies in the pursuit of the American Dream. Ironically, she is killed by Daisy who represents the idealised woman of her time in terms of wealth and status. Elizabeth  Barrett Browning’s Sonnets from the Portuguese explores love from the perspective of a 19th century women in order to convey the passion she feels for her lover. Barrett Browning ref lects a society where idealised love is admired and where there is faith in the individual. Barrett Browning presents an optimistic view of love. She manipulates the Petrarchan sonnet form, which is traditionally written from a male perspective, by subverting the writing scheme. She subverts the form by writing as the subject and object of the poem. Elizabeth Barrett Browning writes of her personal experience of love and idealised love. She is challenging how the art form challenges woman and celebrates love as a liberating force. By exploring her emotions, she explores her own identity. Elizabeth Barrett Browning believes her love with Robert has elevated so much that they approach transcended beings, â€Å"Our two souls stand up erect and strong.† Barrett browning is suggesting that if they didn’t have a body they would still move towards each other in passion. She captures the intensity of their love and the depth of their love through the line â€Å"Until their lengthening wings break into fire† This reiterates their passion and connection of love. There is a stark contrast with F.Scott Fitzgerald’s bleak view towards idealised love to Barrett Browning’s optimistic representation of love. In each sonnet, Browning portrays the notion of love has empowered her and made her value herself as an individual, â€Å"I love thee with the love I seemed to lose† (sonnet 43) She reveals to us that before she met Robert, her life was characterised by fragmentation and loss. This reinforces how love has transformed her life. She attempts to measure her love for Robert through the line, â€Å"I love thee to the depth & breath & height.† The use of the half-rhyme unifies Sonnet 1 but fractures it at the same time. Half rhymes show the impact of the love she is feeling and the reassessment she is feeling. The half rhymes are created to show how the predictable known ways of seeing the world have led her to innovation. In conclusion, it can be seen that both authors deal with love in their respective texts. However, F.Scott Fitzgerald takes a pessimistic view towards idealised love and rather, comments on the love for the American Dream in his society. Elizabeth Barrett Browning takes a more optimistic view, suggesting that it is a liberating force.

American Indians Essay

The people now known as Indians or Native Americans were the first people to live in the Americas. They had been living there for thousands of years before any Europeans arrived. The Vikings explored the east coast of North America around A. D. 1000 and had some contact with Indians (Watson & Howell 1980). But lasting contact between Indians and Europeans began with Christopher Columbus’s voyages to the Americas. In 1492, Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean from Spain. He was seeking a short sea route to the Indies, which then included India, China, the East Indies, and Japan. Europeans did not then know that North and South America existed. When Columbus landed in what is now known as the West Indies, he did not realize he had come to a New World. He thought he had reached the Indies, and so he called the people he met Indians. Almost every Indian group had its own name. Many of these names reflected the pride of each group in itself and its way of life. For example, the Delaware Indians of eastern North America called themselves Lenape, which means genuine people. Today, many Indians refer to themselves as Native Americans. The first Indians came to the New World from Siberia, in Asia. Most scientists think they arrived at least 15,000 years ago. At that time huge ice sheets covered much of the northern half of the earth. The Bering Strait, which today is a narrow area of water that separates Asia and North America, was easily walked across by the Indians who were following the animals that they were hunting. Much later this ice sheet melted and the land bridge became covered with water. By then, Indian groups had already spread throughout the New World, all over North and South America. These Indian groups developed different cultures because of the different climates and landforms in the regions in which they settled. Body Anthropologists, scientists who study human culture, classify the hundreds of North and South American Indian tribes into groups of tribes that are alike. These groups are called culture areas. Some of the cultures of North America are the Arctic; the Northeast, or Eastern Woodlands; the Plains; and Southwest. The Indians spoke hundreds of different languages and had many different ways of life. Some groups lived in great cities and others in small villages. The Aztec and the Maya of Central America built large cities. Some of the Aztec cities had as many as 100,000 people. The Maya built special buildings in which they studied the moon, the stars, and the sun. They also developed a calendar and a system of writing. Many of the Indians of Eastern North America lived in villages. They hunted and farmed, growing such crops as beans, corns and squash (Bains, 1985). Most of the Indians were friendly at first and taught the newcomers many things. The European explorers followed Indian trails to sources of water and deposits of copper, gold, silver, turquoise, and other minerals. The Indians taught them to make snowshoes and sleds and to travel by canoe. Food was another of the Indians’ important gifts. The Indians grew many foods that the newcomers had never heard of, such as avocados, corn, peanuts, peppers, pineapples, potatoes, squash, and tomatoes. They also introduced the whites to tobacco. The Indians, in turn, learned much from the whites. The Europeans brought many goods that were new to the Indians. These goods included metal tools, guns, and liquor. The Europeans also brought cattle and horses, which were unknown to the Indians. The Europeans and the Indians had widely different ways of life. Some Europeans tried to understand the Indians’ ways and treated them fairly. But others cheated the Indians and took their land. When the Indians fought back, thousands of them were killed in battle. At first, they had only bows and arrows and spears, but the Europeans had guns. Even more Indians died from measles, smallpox, and other new diseases introduced by the whites. As the Europeans moved westward across North America, they became a greater threat to the Indian way of life. Finally, most of the remaining Indians were moved onto reservations. Most daily activities of an Indian family centered on providing the main necessities of life such as food, clothing, and shelter. Men and women usually had separate tasks. For example, both men and women were often involved in providing food. But they did so in different ways. In some areas, the women gathered wild plants for food, and the men hunted. In the Northeast and Southeast culture areas, the men hunted, and the women farmed the land. In parts of what are now Arizona and New Mexico and in Middle and South America, the men did the farming. The women gathered plants. In all areas, women were generally responsible for preparing the food. Many Indians married at an early age, the girls between 13 and 15 and the boys between 15 and 20. In some Indian tribes, the parents or other relatives chose the marriage partners for the young people. In other tribes, especially those of North America, a young man could select his own mate. He had to convince the girl and her parents that he would make a suitable husband. In many cases, he offered them valuable gifts to win their approval. Throughout most of the New World, marriage was a family affair and not a religious ceremony. The boy’s family usually gave presents to the bride’s family. Many newly married couples lived with the girl’s family and the husband worked for her family until the birth of a child. Then the couple might establish their own home. But they generally did not move to a new home in a new area. Many other newly married couples joined an existing family group or lived close to one. Some of the couples moved in with other relatives of the woman or with the relatives of the man. This extended family shared with the daily work of the household, including the raising of children. Many Indian groups allowed men to have more than one wife. But this practice was common only among rich or powerful men. After a man died, his wife would often live with his brother as husband and wife even if the brother was already married. Similarly, if a woman died, her family would probably be expected to give her husband another unmarried daughter to replace her. Most Indian families were small because many children died at birth or as babies. Indian children were praised when they behaved well and shamed when they misbehaved. Only the Aztec and Inca tribes had regular schools. Boys and girls of other tribes learned to perform men’s and women’s jobs by helping their parents and older brothers and sisters. After most boys reached their early teens, they went through a test of strength or bravery called an initiation ceremony. Many went without food for a long period or lived alone in the wilderness. In some tribes, a boy was expected to have a vision of the spirit that would become his lifelong guardian. Some groups also had initiation ceremonies for girls. A teenager who successfully completed an initiation ceremony was considered an adult and ready to be married. Food that Indians ate depended on where they lived. Indian tribes that lived on the plains of the United States, where buffalo and other game were plentiful, ate mainly meat. Meat was also the principal food of those Indians who inhabited the woodlands and tundra (frigid treeless plain) of Alaska and Canada. The Pueblo of the Southwest and other farming groups lived chiefly on beans, corn, and squash. Potatoes were an important crop among the Inca. MacNeish (1992) stated that Indians in the tropical areas of South America made bread from the roots of bitter cassava, a small shrub. Tribes that lived near water caught fish and gathered shellfish. Most Indian groups ate berries, nuts, roots, seeds, and wild plants. They also gathered salt and collected maple sap wherever they could. Indians made a kind of tea from such plants as sassafras and wintergreen. Many Indians drank a mild beer that was known as chicha. They made this beer from corn, cassava, peanuts, or potatoes. Indians who ate mostly meat cooked it by roasting, broiling, or boiling. Farming Indians and others who ate chiefly vegetables developed various methods of boiling or baking. They often made pit ovens by lining holes in the ground with hot stones. Indians preserved meat by smoking it or by drying it in the sun. North American Indians mixed dried meat with grease and berries to make a food called pemmican. Most Indians ate with their fingers, but some used spoons made from animal bones, shells, or wood. Indians built many kinds of homes because they lived in different climates and had different building materials available to them (Brandt & Guzzi, 1985). Those who moved about a great deal had simple shelters they could carry easily, or they built temporary shelters. Indians who stayed in one place built larger, more permanent homes. Some groups built large houses where many families lived together. Others had simple dwellings that housed only a few people. In some cases, shelter changed with the season. Some Indians in Canada built snow houses during the winter. But in the summer, they lived in tents made of animal hides. In the United States, these Indians are sometimes called Eskimos. In other areas, the Indians covered their tepees with animal skins or with tree bark. Indians at the southern tip of South America also used skins to cover shelters called windbreaks, which were open on one side. Some tribes of the Northwest made cloth of bark and reeds, and the Pueblo wove cotton cloth. The Aztec, Inca, Maya, and some Caribbean tribes wove beautiful cotton and woolen cloth. Indians in the hot South American areas often wore no clothing at all. In many tribes, a man wore only a breechcloth, a narrow band of cloth that passed between the legs and looped over the front and rear of a belt. Women wore simple aprons or skirts. Indians in colder climates wore leggings, shirts, and robes. Some wore sandals or moccasins to protect their feet. Travel by water was the most common means of transportation. Many Indians used bark canoes, which were light and easy to carry. Some large dugout canoes carried as many as 60 people. The Plains tribes used dogs and, later, horses to pull a load-carrying frame called a travois. Andean Indians used alpacas and llamas as beasts of burden. But these animals could not carry heavy loads, so the people themselves carried most of their goods. People often supported a heavy load on their back with a pack strap called a tumpline. Indians of the Arctic and the Northwest Coast and some other areas hunted or fished for most of their food. They also hunted some birds only for the feathers, and they prized the fur of beavers and certain other animals. Indians in the West got most of their food by gathering wild seeds, nuts, and roots. Even in the Southwest and other farming areas, hunting, gathering, and fishing were important. The most important game animals of North and South America included deer; rabbits and other small game: ducks, geese, herons, seals, sea lions, whales, turtles, and snakes. Bear, buffalo, caribou, elk, and moose lived only in North America. Animals that were hunted mainly in South America included the guanaco, jaguar, peccary, rhea, and tapir. Indians hunted with the same kinds of weapons they used in war. Many bows and arrows, spears, and clubs had special features for hunting. For example, some Indians used unsharpened arrows to shoot birds in trees. These arrows stunned the birds so that they fell to the ground. The Hopi stunned small game with a kind of boomerang. The Indians caught fish with harpoons, hooks and lines, spears, and traps and nets. Tribes of the Northwest Coast also used long poles called herring rakes. These poles had jagged points and could catch a number of herring at one time. In tropical South America, Indians stood on river sand bars and shot fish with bows and arrows. Both North and South American Indians used drugs to catch fish. In one method, Indians chopped up certain plants and threw them in the water. These plants stunned the fish. Then the Indians could easily scoop them out of the water. Indians of the Northeast and the Tropical Forest used slash-and-burn farming methods. They cut down a number of trees and burned them. Then they planted their crops among the trunks. The ashes from the burned trees served as fertilizer. Indians in Mexico and the Southern United States raised turkeys. Wars occurred from time to time among the tribes of the Americas. But not all tribes took part in warfare. Many tribes opposed fighting, and others were so small that they did not have enough warriors to fight a war. Many of the Indian leaders who tried to defend their tribes and land against the white people became famous warriors. They included King Philip, a Wampanoag; Pontiac, an Ottawa; Tecumseh, a Shawnee; Osceola, a Seminole; Crazy Horse, of the Sioux; and Geronimo, an Apache. The bow and arrow was probably the most common Indian weapon throughout North and South America. Some South American tribes put poison on their arrowheads. Many Indians fought with spears and war clubs (Steele & Galdone 1992). The Indians of eastern North America developed a special type of club known as the tomahawk. A weapon of the Aztec consisted of pieces of obsidian (volcanic glass) stuck into a wooden club. South American Indians used blowguns and slings. Warfare gave Indians a chance to achieve high rank in their tribes. On the Plains, it was considered braver to touch a live enemy and get away than to kill the enemy. This act was known as counting coup â€Å"koo†. Warriors on the Plains carried a coup stick into battle and attempted to touch an enemy with it. Those warriors who counted coup wore eagle feathers as signs of their courage.

Book Analysis on Undercover

As the days grow shorter, Elisa worries that the increasingly urgent letters she sends her father wont bring him home. Like the undercover agent she feels she has become, Elisa retreats to a pond in the woods, where her talent for ice-skating gives her the confidence to come out from under cover and take centre stage. But when Lila becomes jealous of Theos friendship with Elisa, her revenge nearly destroys Elisas ice-skating dreams and her plan to reunite her family. A. Book 1. Author Beth Kephart was nominated for the National Book Award for her book A SLANT OF SUN. In 2000, she received a National Endowment for the Arts grant, and she also won Pew Fellowships in Arts grant in 2005. At the age of nine, Beth Kephart began to skate on a pond in Boston, where she taught herself the every moves Elisa teaches herself in this story. Beth won her first competitive freestyle competition at a Wilmington, Delaware, rink. Today she ballroom dances and is an avid gardener. She lives in Pennsylvania with her family. 2. Title The main character in the story fits the title under cover, the fact that the main character hides her skill of skiing to her friends and family. B. Characters Protagonist: Elisa Cantor- she is a father’s daughter and doesn’t really relate well with her mother and sister. Antagonist: Lisa- Theo’s girlfriend; known for her beauty and popularity. Supporting Characters: Tina Cantor- Elisa and Jilly’s Mother. Jilly- Elisa’s Sister, she is a very fashionable teenager like her mother. Mr. Cantor- Elisa’s Father, he understands Elisa. Theo- Elisa’s classmate in Honors English, a special friend and one of the boys who ask love notes from Elisa. Margie- Elisa’s past best friend in eighth grade and classmate in Honors English. Dr. Charmin- an Honors English teacher and believed and supports Elisa’s talent in writing. Mr. Marcoroon- a strict Math teacher. Mrs. Garland- a friend of Tina. Stuart little- a client of Mr. Cantor in San Francisco. Sarah- an Honour English student. II. Plot A. Exposition 1. Setting The story takes place in a pond in the woods where she always find herself at ease and thinking she could be herself there alone while skating. B. Complication When her father has to go away for work it makes their life complicated. To make it even more complicated, Elisa starts to fall on a boy who she is providing with poetry to woo another girl. C. Climax Lila tore the dress of Elisa before the start of the skating competition. D. Denouement Elisa never let herself be defeated by wearing the torn dress made by the antagonist, Lila, while skating gracefully. E. Resolution Yes it’s a happy ending because finally her family was once again reunited and everyone accepted the real her. III. Analysis 1. Did you admire the author for writing this book? Why? Yes. A teenager who reads this book would really understand the feelings and thinking’s of the main character of the story. Many teenagers can relate of how it feels to be a loner or to be bullied. 2. Tell something about the cover, did it spark your interest? Does it fit the story? It did spark my interest because it makes me wonder what story it will give me. Yes it does fit in the story because the covers do tell the story. 3. Who is your most favourite character? Why? My favourite character in the story is Elisa Cantor. For being brave enough to uncover her great skill to everybody even when she herself has no confidence that everyone would accept her and gain their respect. 4. Who is your least favourite character? Why? My least favourite character in the story is Lisa, because of her jealousy of Theo’s friendship with Elisa; her revenge nearly destroys Elisa’s ice-skating dreams and her plan to reunite her family. . What is your favourite part of the story? Why? My favourite part of the story is when Elisa got sick during the last days of Christmas season, which was the time that her sister and mother took care of her and after her sickness they finally become close to each other. 6. What is your least favourite part of the story? Why? My lea st favourite part of the story is when Lisa and her friends destroyed Elisa’s dress that was made by her mother and sister for the ice-skating competition. 7. Discuss your favourite quote from the story. â€Å"You do not have to be good. You do not have to walk on your knees for a hundred miles through the desert, repenting. You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves. Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine. Meanwhile the world goes on. Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain Are moving across the landscape, Over the prairies and the deep trees, the mountains and the rivers. Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air, Are heading home again. Whoever you are, no matter how lonely, The world offers itself to your imagination, Calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting Over and over announcing your place in the family of things. † It tells about a person who doesn’t have to be perfect just to meet their expectations. Being yourself is a lot more happy and easy than pretending or trying to be someone you are not. 8. What is your realization about life after reading the novel? After reading the story I realize in life that you shouldn’t hide yourself from others, don’t be scared of letting them know your true self and don’t give up on something that you haven’t tried yet.

Seeking Fulfillment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Seeking Fulfillment - Essay Example This well is still in place to this day. Here, next to the forefather’s well met two people Christ and the Samaritan woman. These two figures embodied two different worlds - Jewish and Samaritan who mutually hated each other, although they had common roots. Pagans captured this territory around the 7th century BCE and intermarried with the indigenous inhabitants – Jews; thus forming a nation of Samaritans. From Scripture, they recognized only the Torah of Moses - the Torah. Along with God, Yahweh, they also recognize the pagan idols. The Jews saw them as half pagans and quarreled with them nearly incessantly. As a result of the ill-will harbored between these two people groups the Jews even denied them to participate in the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Accordingly, Samaritans built a separate temple on Mount Gerizim which served to only further and intensity the feud that had already lasted for around 600 years. In 107 BCE Maccabeus rebels destroyed the temp le; something the Samaritans Jews could not forgive. They spat toward each other from afar and considered touching each other with their own eyes as worse than touching any other impurity. â€Å"The Jews and the Samaritans were bitter enemies, and as far as possible avoided all dealing with each other. To trade with the Samaritans in case of necessity was indeed counted lawful by the rabbis; but all social intercourse with them was condemned. A Jew would not borrow from a Samaritan, nor receive a kindness, not even a morsel of bread or a cup of water. The disciples, in buying food, were acting in harmony with the custom of their nation. But beyond this they did not go. To ask a favor of the Samaritans, or in any way seek to benefit them, did not enter into the thought of even Christ's... According to the report findings the meeting of Christ and the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well occurred at Samaritan territory near the town of Sychar. There was only one well, 32 meters deep, dug by Jacob, the father of the nation of Israel about fifteen hundred years before the birth of Christ. This well is still in place to this day. Here, next to the forefather’s well met two people Christ and the Samaritan woman. These two figures embodied two different worlds - Jewish and Samaritan who mutually hated each other, although they had common roots. Pagans captured this territory around the 7th century BCE and intermarried with the indigenous inhabitants – Jews; thus forming a nation of Samaritans. From Scripture, they recognized only the Torah of Moses - the Torah. Along with God, Yahweh, they also recognize the pagan idols. The Jews saw them as half pagans and quarreled with them nearly incessantly. This essay stresses that Samaritans built a separate temple on Mount Gerizim which served to only further and intensity the feud that had already lasted for around 600 years. In 107 BCE Maccabeus rebels destroyed the temple; something the Samaritans Jews could not forgive. They spat toward each other from afar and considered touching each other with their own eyes as worse than touching any other impurity. Therefore, by a careful examination of the historical background to the situation, it becomes clear why certain figures in the story behave in the way that they do.

Stagnancy Kills Life Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Stagnancy Kills Life - Essay Example I am a simple human being who is living a simple life in the state of Texas in a city called El Paso in country called the United States of America. I am not a philosopher or a psychologist or a millionaire to have a brilliant outlook towards life. Hence, what is stored in this time capsule is a genuine representation of the way the common people lived their life in the year 2010. It will give you an idea about how an ordinary life of mine was transformed into an extraordinary life because of the brilliant contributions in the field of music, literature, art, movies, cultural phenomenon etc. Looking at the past, I can see that there has been a tremendous change in the lifestyle of people with inventions of machineries and computers. However, one can definitely realize that even if the material and social aspects of life have changed, the emotional and the mental aspects of human beings have remained the same. That is, the emotions of love, affection, bonding, fear and comfort are the same as it was hundreds of years back. Also, the mental aspects like ambition, desires, power and basic needs have remained the same. This shows that even though the external means through which people try to fulfill their internal needs have changed from ages to ages, the basic human tendencies have remained same from ages. Hence, I am sure that the time capsule that I am going to leave to be opened after hundred years will help the people who open it to realize that no matter what changes a human being goes through on the material level, or how much ‘modern’ he becomes, his n eed for human touch will always remain the same.

Enron case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Enron case - Essay Example The companies’ acts usually serve to offer adequate regulatory approaches, that auditor and companied to adhere to. With this respect, it is a requirement of SEC that all public corporations should have outside auditors to undertake the auditing process. This implies that an outside auditor is supposed to offer opinions regarding the precision and reliability of the company’s accounting statements, taking into consideration the principle of objectivity, lack of biasness and avoiding the engagement in activities that are likely to result to lack of auditor independence (Haines 14). As a result, auditors are required to display utmost ethics and honesty in the code of duties, which requires auditors to display integrity, objectivity and independence. The regulatory oversight that resulted to the Enron fraud is a violation of the aspect of auditor independence as evident by Andersen having an office space in Enron’s headquarters that was permanent. This served to re veal lack of auditor independence (Hill & Cronk 10). In addition, there is a possibility that Andersen overlooked Enron Corporation’s compliance with the required accounting policies, procedures and practices. In addition, Enron Corporation had relied on the auditing services from Andersen, resulting to him familiarizing with the corporations accounting policies and practices. The Enron scandal served to reveal the significance of auditor independence; as a result, the fraud served to question the efficiency and the adequacy of the present audit independence regulatory frameworks. The auditing procedures prior to the Enron fraud were sufficient to ensure that there is high audit quality, but in some cases fails to identify misappropriations (Hodgetts & Luthans 33). There have been significant changes in accounting regulations after the collapse of the Enron Corporation with the main