Global political economy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Global political economy - Essay Example and definition that real free trade is both beneficial and possible. Question one According to Aristotle democracy is usually not the best form governance. This is also true for oligarchy and the monarchy rule. The rule in democracy is for and by the people who are named in the government type. Aristotle’s main litmus test for styles of governance can be defined as whether or not he viewed them as ultimately virtuous or non-virtuous. According to Aristotle (5) asserts that the decision-making process that takes place within a true democracy as ultimately non-virtuous. This is due to the fact that Aristotle previously defined virtue as a trait that is less common than non-virtue. Therefore, by very definition, rule by majority would be much more likely to display non-virtue than virtue. According to Aristotle, the reason that democracy is unable to present a high level of virtue among the citizenry of a given region/nation is due to the fact that democracy is ultimately based o n a flimsy and misunderstood representation of the word freedom. Aristotle (7) reported that, â€Å"democracies define freedom badly... Everyone lives as he wants and toward whatever end he happens to crave†. What this ultimately represents is its schizoid system in which a litany of human wants, needs, and desires are all represented under the umbrella term of democracy; therefore somewhat whitewashing the term to appear to represent the desires and needs of a broad number of people. However, due to the fact that these individuals must be grouped by their handlers in order to speak to a specific range of needs, democracy rarely represents the needs of the people, masses, or the society at large. According to Aristotle a democracy is the rule of the majority and rule of the poor. When making a decision on the non-virtous and the virtous. Aristotle views that the rule of the majority in practise it is non-virtous because it is too hard to find the majority who can be virtous. The rule of the majority and the poor under a democracy does not aid the city state to attain its telos. As consequence, Aristotle is of the belief that a democracy is not a good form of rule because both the rule of the poor and majority does not attain the telos of the city state. Another reason why the democracy is not a virtous form of government is actually rooted in a concept of equality in a democracy. To Aristotle, a good government is one which is rules aristocratically; meaning that it based on merit (Aristotle 5). In Aristotle’s defination, a democratic is the one has the most people have a participation in the ruling. Thereby, there is at least an approximation of participation of on an equal basis because all the persons have equal participation rights. For Aristotle, the second determinant of whether or not democracy is a normal form of government that should be practiced around the world, he relies upon the definition and understanding of the concept

Medival Armor Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Medival Armor - Research Paper Example The term â€Å"medieval† refers to the time from the 11th century AD until the end of the 15th century, known as the â€Å"Middle Ages,† as it is the â€Å"middle† period in time, separating the antiquity from modernity. This paper will investigate the different types of armor used in warfare during the Middle Ages, from small pieces of low-strength armor to the fully-enclosed suits of armor worn by the wealthiest of soldiers. In order to understand the types of armor used during the Middle Ages and the purpose behind each, it is necessary to understand some of the background behind the Middle Ages. Characterized by economic dislocation, plague, war, social upheaval and increased violence, the Middle Ages are sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages (McKay, Hill, Buckler 379). The middle ages began after the fall of the classical Roman Empire, and with that fall, the political organization of Europe was relinquished in favor of a much more fragmented style of gover nance – feudalism (Weapon 56). This system was based upon the division of the peoples into smaller land factions under the leadership of a noble. The noble would provide his subjects with a parcel of land in exchange for military service or protection. The people were responsible for providing their own arms and armor, and could be called upon to serve at any point in time. Domestic work, such as farming and household duties were left to the woman of the home (Stephenson 2). During the time period, war was often fought for religious causes and attacks from mounted nomad tribes (Weapon 56). After the invention of the riding stirrup in the 8th century, soldiers no longer arrived at the battle on horse and fought on foot, but rather they fought on horseback, since the stirrup provided much better stability when using a spear or sword (Weapon 57). Large battles known as â€Å"pitched battles† were fought usually in open spaces, between enormous masses of infantry and caval ry. The opposing infantries attempted to break the ranks of their enemy, and once this feat was accomplished, the mounted cavalry would enter the battle, slaying as many infantrymen as possible, while further disrupting the enemy ranks (â€Å"Medieval Warfare†). In addition to pitched battles, forces often utilized siege warfare to breach the fortifications of the enemy. In order to understand the armor used during the middle ages, it is necessary to understand what types of weapons were used against the armor. There were three main categories of weapons used: bladed weapons, staff weapons, and the bow and its variations. The weapon of choice for most soldiers was the sword – a heavy cutting weapon used to hack through anything in its path (Weapon 62). In addition to the typical long and flat sword, there were sharply-pointed thrusting swords with blades that became progressively longer as armor developed accordingly (Weapon 62). The next major weapon of choice was the staff weapon – basically, a combination of either the spear or lance with an axe, hammer or mace. The result of this combination was a weapon that could be used like a lance during a charge or like an axe during close hand to hand combat (DeVries 29). In addition to bladed and staff weapons, bows and its variations were fairly common during combat. Longbows were capable of firing an arrow up to 360 yards (Weapon 78). Even more capable than the longbow was the crossbow, a weapon with a horizontal bow attached to a stock. The bow was held in place with a latch, and would fire at the pull of a trigger, at

Win Some Lose Some Essay Example for Free

Win Some Lose Some Essay Casinos are more and more common in small communities. With this being said small communities are changing into a gambling economy. There are both negative as well as positive impacts of casino gambling on the economy. In some cases the positive aspects outweigh the negative. Casinos are good sources of economic development, creating jobs and providing resources needed to build a better economy. A casino is a good choice as to help with economic development. This is a great way to attract people who bring in revenue. Take the Northern Quest Resort Casino as an example; it is located in Airway Heights which is a small city. A once small town is now popular with the excitement of a casino. Before the casino there was just an airport, and an Air force base. Now that there is a casino there are a lot more stores, housing, and people. The growth of the economy is slowly increasing with Wal Mart, Village Center Cinemas, Spokane County Raceway, and of course the casino. When the casino was created many new jobs and opportunities were made for local people. There were many jobs before the actual casino was open which was construction and after it was built there were numerous jobs inside of the casino. The construction jobs declined once the casino was complete but there were still jobs inside of the building. The Kalispel’s HR department preferred to hire Indians only. The Kalispel Tribe and Northern Quest Resort Casino created approximately 1,600 jobs and about $1.1 million each month in local or locally affiliated goods and services. (Northern) However, the downside of a casino is that the community turns into a gambling economy and there can be negative consequences. State governments continue to have concerns surrounding organized crime’s attraction to Indian gaming. (Native) Residence in the area gets addicted to gambling, to the thought of winning big. Gamblers have the belief that if they keep playing then they will win. Addiction makes people do irresponsible things. Debt is major problem when it comes to gambling. People will go as far as theft, embezzlement, or even suicide. These actions make for a broken family. Counseling is the best way to go for a gambler’s addiction. In the end it all comes down to the people in the community and their own choices they make. Choosing whether to gamble or not is entirely up to them. They have the right to do whatever they please and do whatever is best for them. It also presents problems in neighboring communities. In the result of the casino local industries had lost business due to the competition. For example The Davenport hotel had lost numerous guests to the Northern Quest Casino after they added the hotel. (Kamstra) Local businesses are losing revenue due to the casino but in a way the casino is actually bringing in more people than before. The revenue has grown rapidly and the combined revenues of all gaming enterprises in the United States are reported to be on the order of $75 billion per year. (Henson) The casino has a tremendous profit and where is the money going? The Northern Quest Casino is owned by the Kalispel tribe of Indians, money then goes back to the tribe. A wellness center was built not too long ago with the funds. If Kalispel tribal members wish to go to college then the tuition is fully paid for through the tribe. The Kalispel tribe also provides financial support to regional nonprofit organizations; they have donated over $5 million so far. The Kalispel Charitable Fund focuses on education, health care, arts culture, social services and environment conservation in the Spokane and Pend Oreille counties. The Northern Quest Resort Casino partners with the Harvest food bank to help fight hunger in Eastern Washington and North Idaho. The revenue from the casino also goes into the local community, schools, police, and produces tax revenue to keep the casino there. The casino mainly brings money into the government, charities, and workers. (Charitable) Luckily the Northern Quest Casino is not far from the Spokane International Airport, this means that many traveling people can stop by during a layover and try their luck. Along with all of the gamblers there are people who would want to see the scenes or come for events taken place at the casino. The Northern Quest Casino has a hotel, a club, sporting events. They put on concerts and pow wows as well. Events like these bring in many crazed fans and many Native Americans. During European colonization Native Americans’ lives were changed. Native Americans lost their land, caught diseases, and were forced to do many things. They were forced to assimilate and were forced to convert to Christianity. They basically lost everything, including their freedom. In a way people owe it to Native Americans to let them evolve as a sovereign nation and improve their economies. For once Native Americans are at their best. Gaming is giving Native Americans their tribal economic independence. Native American tribes have come a long way with becoming a sovereign nation compared to the past, they get to set their own gambling regulations and have their own casinos. As of mid-2006, 224 of the 561 federally recognized tribes operated gaming operated gaming enterprises. (Henson) The Spokane tribe of Indians located in Wellpinit is one tribe that is trying to get their economy going. They currently have two casinos, three gas stations, camping grounds, an amphitheater, and a marina where boat houses can be rented out. One casino is located on the reservation and the other is located in Chewelah. Their goal is to have a successful casino in Airway height just like the Northern Quest casino sometime soon. The Spokane Indians put on many events throughout the year such as Jam Fest, Native American Heritage Day, Poker Run, art auctions, many pow wows, and they put on concerts every weekend during the summer at the amphitheater. The growth in the number of Indian nations having gaming enterprises is increasing. This industry keeps evolving as tribes with services expand. Casinos have definitely brought in many rewards and benefits to the tribes and surrounding areas. Works Cited Charitable Fund. Kalispel Tribe. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. . Davis, Mary B. Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Pub., 1994. Print. Henson, Eric C. The State of the Native Nations: Conditions under U.S. Policies of Self-determination : The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians ‘ website gives a great example of the good of having a casino which is they give to a charity. Kamstra, Brooke. Personal interview. 17 Feb. 2012. I felt it was suitable to put that the casino has been a competition ever since it added a hotel. The personal interview was from an employee at The Davenport hotel. Northern Quest Resort Casino. Kalispel Tribe. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. .

Bourdieus Theory of Capital, Habitus and Field

Bourdieus Theory of Capital, Habitus and Field How Useful are Bourdieu’s Concept of Field, Habitus, and Capital for Understanding Contemporary Social Theory? Introduction Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) developed his theory of cultural capital, with Jean-Claude Passeron, as part of an attempt to explain differences in educational achievement according to social origin (Robbins, 2005: 22-24): to show ‘that social exclusion is a continuous process’ (Ibid. p 23). In his theory, the cultural and social forms of capital are based on, without being determined by, the amount of economic capital possessed and thus hide or mask the way in which social hierarchies are reproduced. The three forms of capital combine, and are embodied, to produce an individuals habitus, or set of predispositions, whilst the field refers to the arena in which a specific habitus is realised or deployed. For Bourdieu, then, the concepts of capital, field and habitus were ultimately embedded in relations of power (Burkett, 2004: 236) and were part of a complex theory that sought to explain the way that social inequality is reproduced. Many have debated the usefulness of Bourd ieu’s theory to contemporary research (see, for example, Fine in Burkett, 2004; Tooley and Darby in Nash, 1999), while others have debated the degree to which he drew on the founding fathers of sociology, with some concluding that his theory of practice is ‘strongly Weberian’ (Keyes, 2002: 233), or that his concepts draw on the work of Durkheim (Camic, 2000). Here I attempt to asses the degree to which he drew on Marx, Weber and Durkheim when constructing the key concepts of capital, field and habitus, and the usefulness or otherwise of them to contemporary research. In the first section, I outline Bourdieu’s concept of Capital, demonstrating its role within his overall theory before showing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Marx. Next I examine the debate surrounding the use of the concept within contemporary political science, notably in the work of Robert Putnam (1995). In the second section, I examine Bourdieu’s concept of Habitus, demonstrating its role within his overall theory of cultural capital, before showing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Durkheim and Weber. Next, I examine the usefulness of the term by examining the debate surrounding its use in educational research in the work of Diane Reay (1995). In the final section, I outline Bourdieu’s concept of the field, discussing its role within his overall theory before finally examining its usefulness to those undertaking feminist examinations of the way that power is experienced as differentiated, especially within the reprodu ction of patriarchy (McNay, 1999). In the conclusion, I attempt to assess the overall usefulness of Bourdieu’s key concepts to the social sciences, arguing that he raided the concepts of the founding father but without having any ideological commitment to them; that his usage reflected his focus on them as tools of practical research. That, however, it is this practical focus that may have contributed to the difficulty experienced by those who now seek clarification as to their meaning. The Forms of Capital In this section I outline Bourdieu’s concept of Capital, demonstrating its role within his overall theory before showing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Marx. Finally, I examine the debate surrounding contemporary use of the concept within political science, notably in the work of Robert Putnam (1995). For Bourdieu capital can be divided into different forms: social capital, cultural capital and economic capital. By social capital he refers to the network of ‘useful relationships that can secure material or symbolic profits’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 249): the amount of social capital that an individual can draw upon is thus the sum of the number of people in their network and the amount of capital so possessed. Bourdieu further divides cultural capital into three forms: ‘embodied’, ‘objectified’ and ‘institutionalised’: embodied capital is imbued during socialisation, and is ultimately tied to the social location of the individual (Nash, 1999: 185). Embodied capital represents ‘external wealth converted into an integral part of the person’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 244-5). Objectified capital refers to goods or artefacts – including paintings and sculptures which ‘are defined only in the relationship with cultural capital in its embodied form’ (Bourdieu, 1986:246): in other words, the goods themselves and the ability to consume them. Institutionalised capital refers to those academic qualifications which enable an individual to directly convert between cultural and economic capital: ‘a certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture’ (Bourdieu, 1986:248). Thus, the different forms of capital are based upon, but not determined by, economic capital. We can see that Bourdieu’s use of ‘capital’ is very different from that employed by Marx. Whereas K arl Marx (1818-1883) had paid little attention to the cultural sphere, believing it to be little more than ‘false consciousness’, Bourdieu sought to use the language of Marx and economic theory (Robbins, 2005: 20) to develop a ‘marxisant’ (Moi, 2000: 322) theory of culture. Like Marx, for Bourdieu capital has the capacity to reproduce ‘in identical or expanded form’ (Bourdieu, 1986:241), becoming part of the structure of society that enables and constrains individual’s lives (Bourdieu, 1986: 242). However, Bourdieu’s use of the term may therefore be viewed as being closer to power (Bourdieu, 1986: 243) than as it was used by Marx. In Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000)[1] Robert Putnam utilised the concept of social capital, transferring it from sociology into the realm of political science. Putnam argued that increasing individualism had led to the decline of community ties, political participation and therefore ‘good governance’ (Russell, 2005: 557). Putnam defined social capital as ‘features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995: 67). However, Putnams’ definition is very different from Bourdieu’s; whereas for Bourdieu social capital was held by the individual (Walters, 2002: 387), for Putnam it is a collective capacity (Ibid. p. 379). Further, within Bourdieu’s conception it would be difficult to see how there could be a reduction in social capital. William Walters (2002) argues that Putnam’s use of the concept differs from Bourdieu’s in that whereas Bourdieu argued that social capital is transferable with economic capital but not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986: 243) Putnam’s use is more liberal; he assumes ‘a self-maximising individual for whom associative activity can, under certain circumstances, be an investment’ (Walters, 2002: 379). Ben Fine argues, convincingly, that academia has been gripped by a ‘social capital fetish’ (in Burkett, 2004: 234): that the concept has been so stretched as to render it meaningless (Burkett, 2004: 238). However, the weakening of Bourdieu’s concept of capital has occurred since his death, and so reflects on contemporary theorists and not on the usefulness or otherwise of the concept itself. Habit: Habitus The forms of capital as outlined above combine to produce a persons habitus, or set of predispositions: in this section I first provide a brief summary of the use of habit/ habitus in sociological thought, before next outlining Bourdieu’s use of the term. I examine the concepts role within his schema and demonstrate how his conception draws, but differs from, the work of Durkheim and Weber. Finally, I examine the debate surrounding the use of the concept in educational research, notably by Diane Reay (1995, in Nash, 1999). Charles Camic (200) describes how the term habit was extensively used by the Ancient Greeks, and medieval scholars and theologians. During the 18th century it continued to be used by Enlightenment thinkers as diverse as Helvà ©tius, Acquinus, Rousseau and Kant (Camic, 2000: 329; Nash, 1999: 180-182) to describe a range of behaviour from those ‘virtually automatic’ actions to ‘more involved patterns of conduct’ (Camic, 2000: 327). W ithin the work of Durkheim the term assumed a central importance, concerned as he was with the development of the collective conscience, or secular moral code (Camic, 2000: 334). For Durkheim human action could be divided into two poles, with ‘reflection on the one side, and that of habit on the other side, with the latter pole being the stronger’ (Durkheim in Camic, 2000: 333). For Durkheim primary education was therefore benign, for here the child can be imbued with ‘the habitual basis of social morality’ (Camic, 2000: 33). Yet despite this assertion of the central role of habit in the social world, Durkheim assigned the study of it to psychology, and not sociology (Camic, 2000: 337). However, for Bourdieu social inequality, or differential access to the forms of capital, becomes part of the very bodies and predispositions of the individual via the habitus (McNay, 1999: 99). Marx argued that ‘men make their own history, but [†¦] they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past’ (Marx, 1852, quoted in Coates, 1990: 265): for Bourdieu, the individual is constrained by the amount and quality of cultural, economic and social capital that they possess: it is ‘discrimination embodied as dispositions’ (Nash, 1999: 177), it is thus a sociological concern. Further, whereas Durkheim’s conscience collective sought to explain the way in which meaning is given to emotional experiences (Shilling, 1997: 204) and so focuses on the collective, for Bourdieu the habitus is a possession of the individual (Nash, 1999: 182). For Weber, ‘custom’ designated that range of behaviour that is the ‘unreflective, set disposition to engage in actions that have been long practiced’ (Camic, 2000: 337): being both conformity with and the generator of social norms (Camic, 2000: 338). This is similar to Bourdieu’s ‘sociology of practice’: following Weber, Bourdieu believes that the purpose of the social sciences is to explain action, yet where Weber was more interested in the ‘larger social and cultural conditions under which general societal patterns of habitual action wax and wane’ (Camic, 2000: 341), Bourdieu remains tied to the individual, actual, practical affects of power and history (Bourdieu in Nash, 1999: 179). For Weber, habit falls at the border of meaningful action, and therefore outside of sociology (Camic, 2000: 345), for Bourdieu it is precisely the doxic nature of habit that renders it socially important. Diane Reay (1995) used habitus as a method when conducting fieldwork in the classroom (in Nash, 1999). For Weber, an ideal type is ‘a construct developed to make sense out of a chaos of facts’ (Keyes, 2002: 240). Likewise, for Bourdieu habitus helps us to make sense of ‘that part of practices which remains obscure in the eyes of their own producers’ (Bourdieu in Keyes, 2002: 240): it is a conceptual tool, something to ‘think with’ (Nash, 1999: 185). Roy Nash (1999) charts the difficulties that arise, when such a conceptual tool is utilised in practical research, but concludes that it is ‘worthwhile, just because to do so forces one to think’ (Nash, 1999: 185): the habitus ‘offers explanations’ (Nash, 1999: 185), by examining whether the habitus can explain social differences in education we have gained a deeper understanding of these inequalities. The concept of habit had previously been a ‘staple’ of weste rn social thought, from medieval times to the thought of Weber and Durkheim, but fell outside of sociology and into psychology due to the scramble to assert disciplinary boundaries (Camic, 2000: 355); Bourdieu sought to revive the concept as part of his search for concepts which would aid our understanding of the limits to individual action: it is ‘a conceptual tool for comprehending that the capacity to project forwards which people really posses is understandable as a function of their prior social condition rather than in terms of abstract mathematical models’ (Robbins, 2005: 26). In other words, habitus allows Bourdieu to mediate between agency and structure without relying on the atomised, rational individual of liberalism, instead situating the actor within extant power relations. The Field In the final section I outline Bourdieu’s concept of the field, discussing its role within his overall theory before finally examining its usefulness to those undertaking feminist examinations of the reproduction of patriarchy (McNay, 1999). The ‘field’ refers to the arena, or social context, in which a specific habitus may be realised; knowledge regarding the use of particular machinery may be of little use in the world of show jumping, but of uppermost importance to those involved in car manufacture. Likewise, maintaining a network of engineers would be of little use to those outside this specific field: society in total constitutes a field, and is ‘structured according to relations of domination’ (Peillon, 1998: 215), but also society is comprised by a range of distinct fields: Fields will vary according to how much autonomy they acquire from the entirety of the social field. An autonomous field is characterised by a high level of specificity: it possesses its own history; a particular configuration of agents operate within it and struggle for a distinctive stake; it induces its own habitus and upholds a distinctive set of beliefs. Such an autonomous field is highly differentiated and marked by sharp boundaries, beyond which the field ceases to have any impact on practice (Peillon, 1998: 215). Bourdieu recognised that academia is such a field and therefore is embedded in and reflects social relations. For Bourdieu, then, the field refers to the different arenas or social spaces in which capital is deployed or the habitus acts: ‘the embodied potentialities of the habitus are only ever realized in the context of a specific field’ (McNay, 1999: 109), further, each field is distinct and therefore operates according to its own logic (McNay, 1999: 114): knowledge of sociological theory would be of little use to our aforementioned show jumper. As it is deployed, therefore, habitus is both determined and generative as it is able to constitute the field from which it emerges (McNay, 1999:100); it is the ‘feel for the game’ that also reproduces the game (Bourdieu, 1990: 52) as each individual is positioned within the field by their possession of specific types of capital and their strategies so contribute to its reproduction. When comparing Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of the field with that of Foucault’s work on the body, Lois McNay (1999) finds that Bourdieu’s is the more developed as he is better able to theorize the differentiated nature of the constraints which act to limit the individuals ability to create their own identity (McNay, 1999: 95). For McNay, Bourdieu’s concept of the field is useful within feminist theory when considering the differences within women’s experiences of gender, as well as those differences between men and women (McNay, 1999: 114): ‘as a relational concept the field yields an understanding of society as a differentiated and open structure and provides a framework in which to conceptualise the uneven and non-systematic ways in which subordination and autonomy are realized’ (McNay, 1999: 115, my emphasis). For example, in relation to the production of knowledge this might explain the early marginalization of much feminist resear ch and the way it was the thought of a particular group of women – white, heterosexual, middle class women – that came to dominate second wave feminism, as opposed to the feminisms of other groups: in short, Bourdieu’s concept of the field enables us to consider the way that power is not a monolithic concept but is experienced differentially. Conclusion In conclusion, when assessing the overall usefulness of Bourdieu’s key concepts to contemporary research and theory it is important not to forget the intention of Bourdieu himself: Bourdieu intended capital, habitus and the field to be tools used to aid such empirical research (Peillon, 1998: 241) and not as constituent parts of a ‘grand theory’: he had no interest in ‘speculative philosophy’ (Robbins, 2005: 15). Bourdieus’ theory has been criticized as being essentialist and deterministic, however others have embraced its potential to explain the way in which such social inequality is reproduced (such as Reay, 1995 in Nash, 1999). Derek Robbins argues that Bourdieu had ‘no sympathy for the mystery of Durkheim’s conscience collective’ but was enough a product of the ‘Durkheimian legacy’ to wish to encourage a future society based on the positive unity of equality (Robbins, 2005: 19). For Robbins then, Bourdieu: regarded the discourses of the sciences as contrived language games which are alienated from natural culture. This did not cause him to be reductive or sceptical but it did cause him to deploy these discourses, varying them imaginatively, so as to isolate essences which are contingently changeable socially, geographically and historically (Robbins, 2005: 20). In other words, the language of the sciences were the tools that Bourdieu used in his practical attempt to construct a fairer world. However, it is this practical focus of his concepts that may have contributed to the difficulty experienced by those who now seek clarification as to their meaning, as he had varied their meaning to aid understanding of the particular instance under scrutiny. Having drawn on the work of the founding fathers of sociology – Marx, Durkheim, Weber – he felt no ideological commitment to these concepts, but instead felt free to move between discourses to better understand (Robbins, 2005: 20). Thus the concept of habit and/ or habitus that had been a ‘staple’ concept in western social thought, (Camic, 2000: 355) which Bourdieu sought to revive as part of his search for concepts which would aid our understanding of the limits to individual action. Keyes argues that Bourdieu’s use of habitus is as a Weberian ‘ideal typeâ⠂¬â„¢ (2002: 239), I argue that his use of capital and the field are as similar ‘ideal types’. His concept of capital may have been weakened, as Ben Fine argues, by academia’s subsequent stretching (Burkett, 2004: 238), however this weakening occurred after his death, and so should not reflect negatively on the usefulness of the concept. Indeed, it is this flexibility that renders it an appropriate tool. Finally, his notion of the field is useful when considering the differentiated affects of power: Bourdieu remains good to ‘think with’ (Nash, 1999: 185). Bibliography Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The forms of Capital’, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Richardson, J (Ed.), London: Greenwood Press, pp241-258. Burkett, Paul (2001) ‘Book Review: Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium’ by Ben Fine, London: Routledge, Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-246. Camic, Charles (2000) ‘The Matter of Habit’, Pierre Bourdieu: Volume One, Robbins, Derek (Ed.), London: Sage, pp. 323-366. Coates, D (1990) ‘Traditions of Social Thought’, Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity, Anderson, J Ricci, M (Eds.), Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Keyes, Charles F. (2002) ‘Weber and Anthropology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31, pp. 233-255. McNay, Lois (1999) ‘Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95-117. Moi, Toril (2000[1991]) ‘Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist Theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture’, Pierre Bourdieu: Volume IV, Robbins, Derek (Ed.), London: Sage, pp. 314-341. Nash, Roy (1999) ‘Bourdieu, Habitus, and Educational Research: Is it all Worth the Candle?’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 175-187. Peillon, Michel (1998) ‘Bourdieu’s Field and the Sociology of Welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 213-229. Putnam, Robert (1995) ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, An Interview with Robert Putnam’ in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78. Robbins, Derek (2005) ‘The Origins, Early Development and Status of Bourdieus Concept of ‘Cultural Capital’’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 13-30. Russell, Andrew (2005) ‘Political Parties as Vehicles of Political Engagement’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 555-569. Shilling, Chris (1997) ‘Emotions, Embodiment and the Sensation of Society’, The Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 195-219. Walters, William (2002) ‘Social Capital and Political Sociology: Re-imagining Politics?’ Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 377-397. Footnotes [1] New York, N.Y.: Simon Schuster.

Pursuing a Career in Neuroscience Essay -- Personal Statement

Of all specialties of the Biomedical Sciences, I find Neuroscience very intriguing out of sheer fascination for the epitome of evolution – the brain. The brain directly or indirectly controls almost all functions necessary for survival, which compels me to investigate its complexity and functioning. Unexplored frontiers in Neuroscience - from the neuron to cognition, coupled with an urge to discover what makes us truly living compel me to pursue a career in Neuroscience. When I graduated from college in India, there was a scarcity of institutions offering graduate level courses in Neuroscience, and limitation of facilities and content in teaching, syllabus and research in this field. Hence, in order to obtain graduate level training, and since degrees obtained from American universities are internationally renowned for their academic excellence; I decided to apply to universities in the United States. While researching potential universities, what set Florida State University (FSU) apart was that besides academics, almost equal emphasis was placed on community service, leadership, and social or religious involvement. I really appreciated that students were recognized not merely for academic potential, but also for exemplary character demonstrated in selfless service rendered to the community, hospital or elders in retirement homes. The holistic approach that FSU had to offer during a student's college life, and quality of education in terms of coursework, research, seminars, conference, and specialty guest lecture series in Basic Neurosciences that graduate students were privileged to receive inspired me to apply to this university. My first visit to the United States was in Fall-2007 upon obtaining a scholarship ... ... rigorous academic schedule balancing a full load of course work, teaching, research, co-curricular, extra-curricular and social activities while consistently maintaining a high GPA. During the entire course of my graduate studies, I was awarded a scholarship that covered tuition and stipend. In addition, my academic excellence reached its zenith when I was inducted into the Golden Key International Honor Society in October 2008 which provided additional opportunities for personal and professional development. Unlike many international students keen in settling in the United States, I chose to return to my home country and apply the rich experience and training that I received to serve my own people. Hence, upon graduating with a Master’s degree in Biomedical Sciences, I relocated to India, sought and gained admission into the topmost school for Neuroscience.

ViVa! Vienna! Essay -- Event Planning

Small children shriek at the excitement of experiencing toddler rides at ViVa! Vienna!. Teenagers scream as they cling to their seats on the scary rides. Adults scrutinize the intricate crafts on sale at vendor booths along an historic street. People of all ages enjoy the food court, a veritable United Nations of tastes. Parents appreciate the fact that there is no cost to attend ViVa! Vienna! Music fans soak up the sounds of a wide variety of free music to suit everyone’s taste. These statements, you are probably thinking, describe events at different festivals, different locations, and different parks where you would have to pay big bucks just to get in. For all these statements describe one event: ViVa! Vienna!, a three-day festival of food, crafts, music, carnival rides and community spirit, held annually along historic Church Street in Vienna, from Lawyers Road to Mill St., with the old Vienna Train Station and Caboose serving as the anchor. Now in its 27th year, ViVa! Vienna! will return on Memorial Day Weekend, Saturday, May 29 through Monday, May 31, 2010. Carnival rides, along with the carnival food traditions of popcorn, kettle corn, and funnel cakes, will round out the fare. On Sunday and Monday of Memorial Day Weekend, Church Street will be closed to traffic from Lawyers Road to Mill Street to allow booths for artisans, retail vendors, political parties and candidates, professional groups, and community organizations. Local vendors will offer a variety of foods, including pizza, barbecue, hot dogs and hamburgers, Italian sausage, as well as food traditions from countries around the world. â€Å"ViVa! Vienna! is produced and sponsored by the Vienna Rotary Club in concert with title co-sponso... ...c material, such as that found in computers and monitors, from landfills reduces environmental contamination,† said Eichert. â€Å"Helping the environment is the right thing to do and Navy Federal is pleased to offer this service to the community.† ‘Service above Self’ is the Rotary motto and ViVa! Vienna! provides the vehicle to serve the community with this celebration and then to help charitable organizations serve specific groups. The ViVa! Vienna www.vivaviennava.org provides information it also provides information and lists of sources for those who have additional questions. Become a ViVa! Vienna! Facebook Fan at http://www.facebook.com/vivavienna â€Å"Not only is this a fun weekend for all family members, it is a worthy cause,† said Jim Marshall. â€Å"Come out and see for yourself. I’m betting you will have a good time – no matter what your age.† # # # ViVa! Vienna! Essay -- Event Planning Small children shriek at the excitement of experiencing toddler rides at ViVa! Vienna!. Teenagers scream as they cling to their seats on the scary rides. Adults scrutinize the intricate crafts on sale at vendor booths along an historic street. People of all ages enjoy the food court, a veritable United Nations of tastes. Parents appreciate the fact that there is no cost to attend ViVa! Vienna! Music fans soak up the sounds of a wide variety of free music to suit everyone’s taste. These statements, you are probably thinking, describe events at different festivals, different locations, and different parks where you would have to pay big bucks just to get in. For all these statements describe one event: ViVa! Vienna!, a three-day festival of food, crafts, music, carnival rides and community spirit, held annually along historic Church Street in Vienna, from Lawyers Road to Mill St., with the old Vienna Train Station and Caboose serving as the anchor. Now in its 27th year, ViVa! Vienna! will return on Memorial Day Weekend, Saturday, May 29 through Monday, May 31, 2010. Carnival rides, along with the carnival food traditions of popcorn, kettle corn, and funnel cakes, will round out the fare. On Sunday and Monday of Memorial Day Weekend, Church Street will be closed to traffic from Lawyers Road to Mill Street to allow booths for artisans, retail vendors, political parties and candidates, professional groups, and community organizations. Local vendors will offer a variety of foods, including pizza, barbecue, hot dogs and hamburgers, Italian sausage, as well as food traditions from countries around the world. â€Å"ViVa! Vienna! is produced and sponsored by the Vienna Rotary Club in concert with title co-sponso... ...c material, such as that found in computers and monitors, from landfills reduces environmental contamination,† said Eichert. â€Å"Helping the environment is the right thing to do and Navy Federal is pleased to offer this service to the community.† ‘Service above Self’ is the Rotary motto and ViVa! Vienna! provides the vehicle to serve the community with this celebration and then to help charitable organizations serve specific groups. The ViVa! Vienna www.vivaviennava.org provides information it also provides information and lists of sources for those who have additional questions. Become a ViVa! Vienna! Facebook Fan at http://www.facebook.com/vivavienna â€Å"Not only is this a fun weekend for all family members, it is a worthy cause,† said Jim Marshall. â€Å"Come out and see for yourself. I’m betting you will have a good time – no matter what your age.† # # #

Marxist and Neoclassical Economics

Marx's economic theories mainly deal with the comparison and contrast between Marxism and Capitalism. Karl Marx had many theories that dealt with many different aspects of society. This concept deals with the exploitation of workers and the components involved in production. The first part of Marx's value of labour theory deals with commodities. Commodities are defined as an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another (Miliband, 1977, 243). These commodities have different values and according to Marx every commodity has two values: exchange value and use value. The use value of a commodity refers to the fact that is has some sort of use; it serves some purpose or meets some want. Every commodity must have a use or it has no value and is not a commodity. Exchange value refers to the ratio at which a commodity can be exchanged with another. In certain quantities all commodities can be exchanged for other commodities (Miliband, 1977, 254). Even the most worthless commodity, when taken in big enough quantities, can be exchanged for the most valuable of commodities. For example, a large quantity of corn or apples can be exchanged for a diamond. The next part of Marx's theory deal with the values of the labour. Marx argued that what commodities all have in common is the fact that they are all products of human labour. It is human labour that has created them and it is the amount of human labour that goes into them that determines value. Karl Marx's labour theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely a result of the labour expended to produce it. According to this theory, the more labour or labour time that goes into an object, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as â€Å"consumed labour time†, and stated that â€Å"all goods, considered economically, are only the product of labour and cost nothing except labour†(Parekh, 1982, 386). One crucial element of classical political economy that was eventually displaced in the neoclassical revolution of the nineteenth century was the idea that labour was a primary or even exclusive determinant of value. Now, readings of Marx that posit him either as the last of the great classicals or as the leading left-wing critic of classical political economy often share the claim that Marx extracted from the classicals the view that labour is the sole source of value. Marx is applauded for his consistent formulation of a labour theory of value and, thus, for his adherence to the view that social relations of production determine the distribution of social labour and the value and exchange-value of commodities. That is, as for many other Marxists, the fact that individuals may desire beings and motivated in their economic behaviours by instinct, affection, emotion, and so forth is relegated to the status of secondary phenomena insofar as the determination of value, the social allocation of labour, and the distribution of income and wealth are involved. For many Marxists, the essential causes of economic activity are labour and production. Thus, the labouring body, rendered in some versions of this story as a truly trans-historical corporeal entity, is given pride of place in establishing the conditions for that which is uniquely human and thereby economic. This ‘productionist’ bias of Marxists has constituted the grounds by which Marxism has discursively ignored or excluded libido, excess, and true expenditure in the economic theory to which it has given rise. (Resnick, 2001, 56-60) Contemporary Marxian critics in the field of economics, then, often prefer to resurrect the nineteenth-century debates over the correct attribution of value to either ‘subjective’ desire or ‘objective’ labour. Their critique of neoclassical theory devolves on the claim that the bourgeois individualism, naturalism, and arcane abstraction consequent upon the use of axiomatic formulations in neoclassicism obscure the true (McCloskey, 2003, 12-14) conditions under which economic activities and institutions arise. Whereas production is viewed as ubiquitous across epochs and geographical boundaries, desire and utility maximization are seen as limited in historical importance to capitalist societies and, even there, they are more a consequence of a hegemonic false consciousness imposed by the self-promotion of the bourgeoisie (for example, to hide the ‘fact’ of exploitation or to explain away the waste and inefficiency of unplanned markets) than the objective conditions of life under capitalism. The modernism of much Marxism consists, at least partly, in its insistence in finding an ontological referent for the essential cause – labour – that emerges in Marxian economics as the source of value. The labouring body and the conditions of work, then, take precedence in everything from determining the nature of subjectivity (the individual who produces him/herself in the course of participating in social labour) and estimating the ‘good life’ (the elimination of alienation in work) to the primacy of certain struggles in the movements to transform and move beyond capitalism. Comparison and Contrast Karl Marx set the wheels of modern Communism and Socialism in motion with his writings in the late nineteenth century. In collaboration with his friend, Fredrich Englels, he produced the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848. Many failed countries' political and economic structures have been based on Marx's theories. That is why he is known as on of the most influential people of the history of the world. Marxism in its various forms has affected the world greatly throughout time. Both World Wars have involved communist countries to a great extent. Communism has gone wrong in many countries, with the state turning into an authoritarian one, with a few people at the top abusing their power for their own personal gain, at the expense of the other members of the public. (England, 1993, 37-53) Rather than codifying the classicals’ labouring body as a first principle, Marx can be said to have disrupted the order of the body established in classical political economy and in much Marxism. For us, Marx is not the inventor of a new anthropology (his work, we believe along with Althusser, represents a sharp rupture from the humanist anthropology that preceded – and, in the pretensions of the early neoclassicals, followed – him). Briefly stated, we view Marx’s contributions to be more along the lines of presenting the human body as a register of class and other economic and social processes, a place where the effects of capitalism are largely inscribed, rather than the site of the privileged origin (through labour) of subjectivity, agency, or socioeconomic relations. In other words, the body that Marx presents in his writings is over determined and has no centre or essential unity other than that which is the effect of the historical conditions of production, consumption, circulation, distribution, and so forth. In this sense, the body in Marx’s work is closer to some current neoclassical renditions, at least insofar as it is differentiated, dispersed, and brought to temporary unity by specific productions rather than by the presumption of its essentiality. (Cohen, 1978, 110-14) The problem, then, for some of the Marxian critics of neoclassical theory is that the story they prefer revives a view of the body and subjectivity that are fully part of the modernist project to promote an overarching and exhaustive notion of ‘man’. In this regard, the post-modern moments of Marxism are suppressed and the affinity that Marxists may have with other developments within which the humanism of the classicals is finally displaced is largely ignored. (Blaug, 1992, 319-22) To put this otherwise, the retention of the labouring body as prime cause of social and economic relations does little to undermine the humanist essentialism that, purportedly, many Marxists have been at pains to attack over the course of the last century. While recent neoclassicals and Marxists may make absurd bed mates, there is a sense in which Marxists can augment rather than blunt their attacks on bourgeois social order by acknowledging the fragmentation of the human body and the dismemberment of theoretical humanism that may have been accomplished by some neoclassicals. (Ollman, 1995, 201-10) A similar issue confronts post-Keynesian critics of neoclassical economics. Instead of using their trenchant questioning of the notions of certainty (and of probabilistic certainty), rationality, and much else that still abounds within neoclassical theory, together with their own exploration of the significance and effects of uncertainty, as the initial steps in decentring the body, post-Keynesian economists have largely resisted such a move. As we see it, the ‘radical uncertainty’ (de Marchi, 2001, 86-90) originally focused on by Keynes and now embraced by post-Keynesian economists has the potential of disrupting the modernist unity of the body, for example, by severing the necessary connection between, the presumed sequence of, some set of initial anticipations and the actions of economic agents as well as by ‘relativizing’ even the recognition of the degrees and forms of certain and uncertain knowledge on the part of those agents, making uncertainty into a variable and heterogeneous constituent and effect of bodily capabilities and orders. (Amariglio, 1994, 7-35) Conclusion Up to the end of the nineteenth century, the sensible presence of the monetary substance (gold, silver) which guaranteed more or less directly the value of the circulating sign, could lead us to forget that money was also a sign. The gold-standard system implied the circulation of gold by itself or the free convertibility of bank-notes into gold. And this, according to a creed which was almost unanimously shared by all economists and statesmen of the nineteenth century, regardless of their nationality, their religious beliefs, or philosophical opinions: ‘banknotes have value only because they represent gold’. Marx himself denied the possibility or the legitimacy of money which would be a mere sign. For him, the backing by commodity-money (produced by a certain amount of labour) is necessary. Nowadays, the direct representational possibility of monetary signs is suspended not only for circumstantial reasons, but completely suppressed, as we know, for reasons that became structural. Thus, we passed from a monetary regime where gold circulated in presencia to a regime where money was a sign representing gold; and finally to money which is a pure sign, without any reference to a gold-value, a regime of complete non-convertibility. The logical relationship between the non-convertibility of money and the dismissal of the labour theory of value by neoclassical economists and mainstream economics has been stressed. Post-Keynesians, however, tend to emphasize the extradiscursive ‘brute nature’ of uncertainty, reducing it to the limits on knowledge imposed by an unforeseeable future. Their view is that neoclassical economists (and, with them, others such as new Keynesian economists), by emphasizing certain (or, again, probabilistically certain) knowledge, have simply exaggerated the role and possibilities of rational calculation and diminished the ‘animal spirits’, ‘spontaneous optimism’, and other nonrational, corporeal determinants of economic behaviour. In this sense, post-Keynesian economists seek to reinscribe a more ‘balanced’ human body – one which, if not exactly derivative of the classicals, both recognizes the limitations of the body (for example, in terms of the ability to gather and process information) and recovers the kind of profusion of sentiments and emotions, conventions and habits, that were seen to be central to the activities and practices of economic agents prior to the marginalist revolution. It is this body which, for post-Keynesians, serves both to replace the ‘sterility’ of disembodied neoclassical decision-makers and to avoid the ‘nihilism’ occasioned by the post-modern decentring of the body. References Amariglio, J. and Ruccio, D. F. (1994) ‘Postmodernism, Marxism, and the Critique of Modern Economic Thought’, Rethinking Marxism 7 (Fall): 7-35. Blaug, M. (1992) The Methodology of Economics; Or How Economists Explain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 319-22. Cohen, G.A. Karl Marx's Theory of History. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1978. 110-14 de Marchi, N. (2001) ‘Introduction’ in N. de Marchi and M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories, Aldershot: Elgar. 86-90 England, Paula (1993) ‘The Separative Self: Androcentric Bias in Neoclassical Assumptions’, in Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson (eds) Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 37-53. McCloskey, D. N. (2003) ‘The Rhetoric of Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 21 (June) 12-14 Miliband, R. Marxism and Politics. Herron Publishing Inc., New York. 1977. 250-59 Ollman, B. Grolier's Encyclopedia, Karl Marx and Marxism. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc. 1995. 201-10 Parekh, B. Marx's Theory of Ideology. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1982. P.386 Resnick, Stephen A., and Wolff, Richard D. (2001) Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 56-60