Poems by Seamus Heaney “Death of a Naturalist” and “The Barn” Essay

Both poems display very rich description from the start and continue this full description throughout the poem giving you a very clear image of the sights, sounds and smells described. The very first lines of each poem show this rich flavour and very much give you the idea that the poems are about nature. The poems are about forces of nature and they both build the effect of these forces using description. Death of a Naturalist uses the description to give the feeling that the author is control of nature that is why when it comes to the last verse it is so shocking to the author because he realises he is not in control anymore and cannot control the forces of nature. The Barn uses the description to give you the feeling you get when you are in the barn. It gives you the feeling that everything is still, dead and cold this gives it an eerie feeling and this feeling is expressed in the last verse not as still, dead or cold but very much alive. Both poems are reminiscing about childhood experiences with the true forces of nature. You can tell that they are childhood experiences because of the language used. In Death of a Naturalist the things that tell you that it is a child speaking through Seamus Heaney are the things that this child does. The child collects ‘jampotfuls’ of spawn and puts them on window-sills at home and shelves at school. Also the language used tells us that it is told through the words of a child. Words like daddy and mammy are examples of the child-like language used in Death of a Naturalist. In The Barn the things that tell you that it is a childhood experience is the description and the actions. The description of the floor ‘mouse-grey’ is typical of a simple childish description. The action that tells us that it is a childhood experience is the way the child lays on the floor face down, although an adult may have been scared in the barn I think that an adult may not have laid face down on the floor so therefore it must have been a child. Even though both these poems are childhood experiences there are more signs of this in Death of a Naturalist than in The Barn because anybody could have been scared of being in a barn alone but I think that every adult knows that when tadpoles are fully developed that they turn into horrible, ugly, slimy creatures- frogs. Both poems show how people feel in control. In Death of a Naturalist the  young boy felt in control of the spawn until the day when he saw the frogs and in The Barn he felt in control because the farm implements were not real the only thing that he wasn’t in control of was his mind which led him to believe that the farm implements were moving. I think of the two poems the more realistic is Death of a Naturalist because of the actions of the young boy and the way the frogs are described in the last verse. The thing that makes The Barn seem more surreal is the last sentence ‘the two-lugged sacks moved in like great blind rats’ because sacks do not move. The Barn seems to depict the tone of the whole poem right from the start. It has a vague threatening feel to it and this is theme is continued throughout the whole poem even at the end when the two sacks seemed threatening because they seemed to be moving. Death of a Naturalist however does not have a particular tone all the way through. At the beginning of this poem the description is of things that are revolting but because the child loved nature so much they are described as likeable aspects of nature and the things that are not revolting are just described as nature. The last verse does not continue this theme and things that are disgusting are described as exactly that and even exaggerated. Death of a Naturalist includes alliteration and onomatopoeia however in The Barn none of these are used. I think that they are used in Death of a Naturalist because it helps to describe items in the poem and the sounds that are made but I feel in The Barn they are not used because they are not needed; just description itself and some similes help to give the poem its flavour. The last verses of each poem are the child’s personal experience with the forces of nature and how they felt small compared to nature. In Death of a Naturalist the young boy feels small compared to these big, ugly war-like frogs. In The Barn the young boy feels small compared to all the objects in the barn and the animals upon the rafters. I think that The Barn has more of a pattern than Death of a Naturalist. In the Barn there are five verses and each of them are of similar length  however in Death of a Naturalist there are two verses of different lengths. Because of the pattern in The barn I think it is more like a poem and I think that Death of a Naturalist is more like a story because of the structure and sequence of events. I think both these poems are similar but within their similarities they have many subtle differences.

Why the Illinois v. Wardlow Case Still Matters Today

Why the Illinois v. Wardlow Case Still Matters Today Illinois v. Wardlow is not a Supreme Court case that most Americans know well enough to cite by name, but the ruling has made a serious impact on policing. It gave authorities in high-crime neighborhoods the green light to stop people for behaving suspiciously. The high court’s decision has not only been linked to a rising number of stop-and-frisks but to high-profile police killings as well. It has also been held responsible for creating more inequities in the criminal justice system. Does the 2000 Supreme Court decision deserve the blame? With this review of Illinois v. Wardlow, get the facts about  the case and its consequences today. Fast Facts: Illinois v. Wardlow Case Argued: November 2, 1999Decision Issued:  January 12, 2000Petitioner: State of IllinoisRespondent: Sam WardlowKey Questions: Does a suspect’s sudden and unprovoked flight from identifiable police officers patrolling a known high-crime area justify the officers stopping that person, or does it violate the Fourth Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Rehnquist, OConnor, Kennedy, Scalia, and ThomasDissenting: Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and BreyerRuling: The officer was justified in suspecting that the accused was involved in criminal activity and, therefore, in investigating further. There was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Should Police Have Stopped Sam Wardlow? On Sept. 9, 1995, two Chicago police officers were driving through a Westside neighborhood known for drug trafficking when they spotted William â€Å"Sam† Wardlow. He stood beside a building with  a bag in hand. But when Wardlow noticed the police driving through, he broke into a sprint. After a brief chase, the officers cornered Wardlow and frisked him. During the search, they found a loaded .38-caliber handgun. They then arrested Wardlow, who argued in court that the gun shouldn’t have been entered into evidence because the police lacked a reason to stop him. An Illinois trial court disagreed, convicting him of â€Å"unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.† The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision, asserting that the arresting officer didn’t have cause to stop and frisk Wardlow. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled along similar lines, arguing that Wardlow’s stop violated the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for Wardlow, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reached a different conclusion. It found: â€Å"It was not merely respondent’s presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking that aroused the officers’ suspicion but his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police. Our cases have also recognized that nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. ...Headlong flight- wherever it occurs- is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.† According to the court, the arresting officer hadn’t misstepped by detaining Wardlow because officers must make commonsense judgments to decide if someone is behaving suspiciously. The court said that its interpretation of the law did not contradict other rulings giving people the right to ignore police  officers and go about their business when approached by them. But Wardlow, the court said, had done the opposite of going about his business by running away. Not everyone in the legal community agrees with this take. Criticism of Wardlow U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote the dissent in Illinois v. Wardlow. He broke down the possible reasons people might run when encountering police officers. â€Å"Among some citizens, particularly minorities and those residing in high crime areas, there is also the possibility that the fleeing person is entirely innocent, but, with or without justification, believes that contact with the police can itself be dangerous, apart from any criminal activity associated with the officer’s sudden presence.† African Americans, in particular, have discussed their distrust and fear of law enforcement for years. Some would even go so far to say that they have developed PTSD-like symptoms because of their experiences with police. For these individuals, running from the authorities is likely instinct rather than a signal that they’ve committed a crime. Additionally, former police chief and government official Chuck Drago pointed out to Business Insider how Illinois v. Wardlow affects the public differently based on income level. â€Å"If the police are driving down a middle-class neighborhood, and the officer sees someone turn and run into their house, that’s not enough to follow them,† he said. â€Å"If he’s in a high-crime area though, there may be enough for reasonable suspicion. It’s the area he’s in, and those areas tend to be to impoverished and African American and Hispanic.† Poor black and Latino neighborhoods already have a greater police presence than white suburban areas. Authorizing police to detain anyone who runs from them in these areas increases the odds that residents will be racially profiled and arrested. Those familiar with Freddie Gray, the Baltimore man who died in police custody in 2015 after a â€Å"rough ride,† argue that Wardlow played a role in his death. Officers apprehended Gray only after he â€Å"fled unprovoked upon noticing police presence.† They found a switchblade on him and arrested him. However,  if the authorities had been prohibited from pursuing Gray simply because he fled from them in a high-crime neighborhood, he may very well still be alive today, his advocates argue. News of his death sparked protests across the country and unrest in Baltimore. The year after Gray’s death, the Supreme Court decided 5-3 in Utah v. Strieff to let police use the evidence they’ve collected during unlawful stops in some circumstances. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her dismay at the decision, arguing that the high court has already given the authorities ample opportunity to stop members of the public for little to no reason. She cited Wardlow and several other cases in her dissent. â€Å"Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants- so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact.â€Å"That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing and how you behaved (Illinois v. Wardlow). The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction- even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.† Sotomayor went on to argue that these questionable stops by police can easily escalate to officers looking through a person’s belongings, frisking the individual for weapons and performing an intimate bodily search. She argued unlawful police stops make the justice system unfair, endanger lives and corrode civil liberties. While young black men like Freddie Gray have been stopped by police lawfully under Wardlow, their detainment and subsequent arrests cost them their lives. The Effects of Wardlow A 2015 report by the American Civil Liberties Union found that in the city of Chicago, where Wardlow was stopped for fleeing, police disproportionately stop and frisk young men of color. African Americans constituted 72 percent of people stopped. Also, police stops overwhelmingly took place in majority-minority neighborhoods. Even in areas where blacks make up a small percentage of residents, such as Near North, where they make up only 9 percent of the population, African Americans comprised 60 percent of people stopped. These stops don’t make communities safer, the ACLU argued. They deepen the divides between the police and the communities they’re supposed to serve.

Is the Family a Fabricated Thing

Is the Family a Fabricated Thing Introduction The family has traditionally occupied a central place in society with communities hailing it as the basic unit of society. Families provide the social core in all societies and the nuclear family is present in all societies in the world. The unifying function of the family has been credited with the development and advancement of societies since time immemorial.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Is the Family a Fabricated Thing? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More For this reason, the family unit is unanimously considered as the basic building block of a successful and functional society. This is the ideal institution within which children are created and brought up in a protected environment until they are able to take care of themselves. The family also serves as a tool for socialization since the shared moral and social values of the community are inculcated in the children withing the family setting. For these reasons, the family is assumed to be an innate experience with some authors suggesting that the family is a natural institution. However, this notion has been questioned by anthropologists whose studies have led them to question the â€Å"naturalness† of the family unit. The findings of these scholars have led them to conclude that the family is not a natural thing but rather a construction of the society. This paper will set out to discuss the ideas of some of the most outstanding anthropologists of the 20th century, Adam Kuper, David Schneider, and Claude Levi-Strauss, in order to show that the family is a fabricated thing. The Idea of the Family The family is regarded as the basic unit of society and at its most base level; it is made up of a man, woman, and their children. Kuper (1982) states that the family preceded the formation of the society and in these early stages, it comprised of a male figure who exercised jurisdiction over his wives and children. Each fami ly paid no regard to the other and acted in its own self-interest. The aggregation of families was the next step in social evolution and the ties of kinship became the basis of societies. The family provided the basis on which societies were ordered with expanded extended families serving as the social core.Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Reproduction is universally considered to be the basis of family relations since each person must have a biological father and mother. This simple parent-child relationship makes it possible to perform genealogical tracing since it is a biological fact that a man and a woman must be involved in procreation. Therefore, the concept of kinship was formulated based on this blood relation and relationships though marriage unions between previously unrelated parties. The naturalness of the family has been presupposed for many centuries due to the prevalence of this social grouping. However, the arguments made by anthropologists suggest that the family is a cultural construct. Family: A Fabricated Concept Adam Kuper’s Ideas Adam Kuper suggests that the family was formulated as an organization through which people could live in harmony and accomplish greater exploits. Before the concept of family, each individual acted at his own discretion and there was no order or system of laws in place. Kuper (1982) records that the original state of human society was characterized by promiscuity rather than family life and this status quo was detrimental to the raising of children. This primitive existence was unsustainable since violence and anarchy reigned. The family unit emerged as a more ordered system of procreation within which the child could exist in a more secure environment. As the family concept became more sophisticated, legal paternity became recognized and the child could grow in an environment where he/she h ad a mother and a father. The extended patriarchal family group provided the basis for jural order and continuity (Kuper 1982, p.73). The earliest form of government was therefore based on the family concept. The political ideas were grounded in the assumption that kinship in blood is the sole possible ground of community in political functions (Kuper 2008, p.723). The family was formulated as the best structure to foster social stability and encourage good governance. The prohibition of some relationships in some cultures while the same relationships are allowed in others is further proof that kinship is a culturally constructed concept. Human beings formulate the laws governing who should marry whom and therefore forms a family and they vary from society to society.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Is the Family a Fabricated Thing? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Kuper (2008) documents that in the nineteenth centu ry, there was no crime in incest, and there were no rules articulating which marriages were allowed or forbidden. Before the 1880s, incest was an acceptable practice in England and there were no laws against the practice. The social perception of incest only underwent a radical change when the danger of sexual relations between fathers and daughters, or brothers and sisters began to be publicized by the National Vigilance Association. Following this, incest came to be conceived of as an offence with a victim. Because of this change in public perception, the British Parliament passed a Law in 1907 that made incest a crime and criminalized sexual relationships between members of the immediate family. As such, the family is a fabricated institute that is prone to changes based on the public needs. Kuper (2003) argues that the family was necessary to ensure survival in the primitive societies where division of labour was necessary. In these pre-modern societies, the nuclear family compr ised of male and female enabled the parties to specialize in various activities for sustenance. The males typically acted as the hunters while the females were gatherers within a nuclear family setting. This economic function increased the value of the family and kinship was integral for survival Kuper (2003). It is conceivable that without the economic need of family, this institution would never have been created. Further reinforcing this supposition is the observation by anthropologists that with the rise of the individualist modern society, the economic functions of family have shrunk and each sex can manage to exist without the need of the other. Another indication that family is a fabricated concept is the difference in preference placed on a particular side of the family by different cultures. While some cultures emphasize on matrilineal descent (kin from the mothers lineage), others emphasize on patrilineal descent (kin through the fathers lineage).Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In addition to this, the location of residence differs with some cultures promoting marriage residence at the mothers family house while most promote residence at the fathers family house (Kuper 2003). If the family was a natural construct, there would be universal preferences and all cultures would follow the same conventions. The fact that different ideals are practiced by different cultures proves that family is a human construction. The rapid changes in society that were experienced in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that the family was not an integral component of the society. During this period, consensual unions became widespread and the traditional family unit was dismantled in some circles. Some people began to view the family as a major source of discontentment within the society and this greatly discredited the nuclear family as an unshakeable institution. The sentiments of the time are best articulated by Leach who asserts, far from being the basis for the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents (Kuper 2003, p.332). The nature of partner relationships has also experienced significant changes over the decades with a marked decline in the importance of the social origin of a partner being exhibited in all modern societies. In the past, great weight was placed on marriage with major kinship involvement in the process (Dykstra 2006). Today, marriage unions are primarily a matter of personal choice and preference with the families on both sides of the partners being involved only marginally. In addition to this, the frequency with which family unions are dissolved has risen tremendously. The increased rate of marriage dissolutions is blamed on the heightened emphasis on the emotional side of relationships, which leads to higher expectations and demands by both partners on each other (Dykstra 2006). In traditional marriage unions, emphasis was placed on the social and material benefits of the union. Claude Levi-Strauss’s Ideas Claude Levi-Strauss is credited with advancing the Structuralism theory in which he argued that the phenomena of the external world are apprehended as having distinct characteristics because of the way our senses communicate these perceptions (Voss 1977). Human beings are predisposed to categorize things into separate units or segments and assign these things named classes. Any material object of culture or belief system is in imitation of human apprehension of nature (Levi-Strauss 1970). Mans perception of nature as segmented is therefore responsible for his view of society as ordered. Advocates of the family as a natural unit might argue for the natural nature of the family structure since it exists universally. Both primitive and civilized societies have some concept of family, which is typically made up of females and at least one male figure either related to the female(s) by blood or by marriage. Levi-Strauss refutes this assertio n by highlighting that cultures are bound to have some similarities since they are all products of human minds (Voss 1977). For this reason, universal features such as the family unit can occur. Levi-Strauss suggests that the basis of marriage rules was to create bonds between otherwise unrelated people. He argues that the since pre-historic times, communities had the option of intermarrying among themselves or giving away their women to other communities (Johnson 2003). The communities that gave away their women cemented political alliances and thus reduced the risk of being annihilated by superior enemies. The incest taboo was formed out of the need to enforce exogamy and therefore increase the societys chances of survival. Voss (1977) best articulates this idea by stating that if survival of a society is dependent upon alliance, strong sanctions against incest must be interdicted (p.28). The family concept was formulated as an important unifying force through which the social coh esion was fostered and propagated. Levi-Strauss formulated the alliance theory in which he argued that sibling groups were linked through the exchange of sisters in marriage thus extending sibling solidarity to larger groupings (Kuper 1982). Levi-Strauss argued that all the pre-modern societies of the world were organized on the basis of cross-cousin marriage (Kuper 2008, p.726). He further stated that the family as a function of marriage was an institution that was formulated to create and maintain alliances. These alliances took place through the exchange between groups as people married for strategic reasons such as to strengthen political alliances (Levi-Strauss 1969). Kinship served the practical purpose of preventing war by setting up a diplomatic alliance between groups. The class structure that is based on family status is a cultural construction. Levi-Strauss considers the practice of totemism an expression of the differences among members of the society. Totemism, which is the naming of individuals or clans after particular plant or animal species, was a widespread practice since historical times (VonSturmer 1970). This practice emerged from the need of man to develop a system of social ordering by giving different class structures. Human beings are able to distinguish each other according to their mutual social status, which is normally articulated in the form of social classification. David Schneider’s Ideas Throughout the 19th century, Americans held the view that the family relationship was biologically given and of huge importance to the society. Many Europeans also shared this assumption and they presumed that kinship was a biological outcome. However, Schneider argues that if this were the case then the same set of ideas would have been developed by other peoples across the world. This is not the case and the family structure varied from continent to continent, and tribe to tribe. For this reason, David Schneider suggested that kinship was a function of civilization and not a feature of primitive society. According to this anthropologist, there is nothing natural about kinship and it is the production of the society. Social conventions alone may lead to a family relationship even if there is no biological relationship between or among parties. This view is corroborated by Johnson (2003) who reveals that a person is regarded as family based on some socially prescribed duties and privileges that the person fulfils in his/her relation to others. The manner in which people act towards each other is based on the concept of kinship, which is a construction of man. Schneider (1984) argues that there is no such thing as kinship and that kinship is in fact a creation of anthropologists and it has no concrete existence. Schneider (1984) suggests that family is a social construction that is useful for the allocation of rights and their transmission from one generation to the next. The family was formulated as an entity throu gh which continuity could be guaranteed. Patrilineage in many societies served as a landholding corporations with parents leaving property to their children. Dykstra (2006) notes that resources are passed down from one generation to the next, in the form of gifts or inheritances for example, or in the form of financial support (p.1). Schneider (1984) theorizes that biological kinship is culturally constructed and it was formulated to help establish paternity with a fair degree of likelihood. He elaborates that primitive man lived at a time when promiscuity prevailed and there was no way of establishing who the childs father was. The concept of marriage of pairs was formulated to help establish paternity and this was the earliest and greatest act of human intelligence. The bonds and ties that are attributed to the sexual reproduction that occurs in the family setting are not natural but a function of the society. Schneider (1984) observes that sexual relations can occur and have sign ificance even outside kinship. However, the social and cultural attributes that are created when sexual reproduction occurs in a nuclear family setting are formulated by the society. Biological relations are for this reason afforded special qualities by the society. This has led to the ties being regarded as natural and inherent in the human condition. The ties between biologically close members are not natural since they would not be special without the social and cultural connotations ascribed to them. The socialization process is responsible for inculcating the concept of kinship in children. As a child grows up in the family, he/she is taught the logic by which his/her specific culture classifies kin and these concepts become ingrained in him/her. The child is often ignorant as to what kinship terms such as â€Å"uncle†, and â€Å"aunty† mean but he/she is brought up to attach special meaning to the relationships. Schneider (1984) points out that the classification s of relatives may extend beyond the simple biological and genetic relationships with stipulated descent being included in the categories. Without the socializing process, the concept of the family would die out as individuals would not be confined to this socially prescribed structure. Schneider strongly rejects the understanding that family has to do with reproduction and he assertively declares that kinship is essentially undefined and vacuous which since it has little that can justify it (Read 2003). The inadequacy of blood relationships for a definition of family is accentuated by the inability for this consanguinity to account for practices such as adoption that still make fatherhood and motherhood possible. Read (2003) argues that it would be more convincing to state that family is a social convention rather than a function of procreation and parturition. Schneider argues that the family is a fabrication since some cultures do not have words that can reasonably translate to f ather or even child. In his ethnographic work among the Yapese, Schneider noted that the relationship between the biological father and offspring could not be translated as father and child in the English sense of the word (Schneider 1984). The Yapese people were able to exist without this genealogically based kinship relationship and even the passing down of property from generation to generation was not done on the basis of biological relationships. Further Evidence In addition to the thoughts of the renowned anthropologists referenced herein, current developments in the family structure provide more evidence that the family is a cultural construct. The traditional gender-specific division of labour has had to change with the increased participation of women in the labour market. Dykstra (2006) notes that the interaction between the partners who make up the family has become more of a matter of negotiation with the traditional gender-specific notions being all but discarded in mos t developed nations. The recent legitimization of gay and lesbian family formation in many Western countries further reinforces the assertion that family is a fabricated concept. For centuries, homosexual relationships were frowned upon by societies with severe penalties being imposed on individuals who engaged in these unions. Schneider (1997) reveals that the notion of sodomy was so abhorred in Western culture that if justified killing and enslaving so many in the 15th and 16th centuries (p.271). This has changed and homosexual unions are today tolerated on a greater scale. Schneider (1997) notes that gay and lesbian rights are today asserted with antidiscrimination laws and fringe benefits being accorded to this previously marginalized sub-group. The traditional notion of family has had to be reinvented as non-heterosexual couples form relationships and become â€Å"families†. Discussion The idea that family is a fabricated concept has led to the fall of kinship studies as modern anthropologists have abandoned the subject due to the many internal problems and theoretical weaknesses contained in it (Kuper 2003). In spite of the different approach taken in their arguments, the three thinkers analysed in this paper, Levi-Strauss, Kuper, and Schneider all contend that family is a cultural construct. The paper has demonstrated that the prevalence of families in all communities is not an indication of their naturalness. Renowned anthropologists such as Levi-Strauss have demonstrated that the seemingly universal concept is not an indication of the naturalness of the family unit. Rather, it is a statement of the scientific operations of classification of objects and phenomena which occurs in both Western and primitive societies. The universal family structure as we know it is a product of identical mental manipulations, which explains the seemingly self-consistent systems exhibited all over the world. The fact that the family unity is not what it used to be is proof enough that the family is a fabricated unit that keeps evolving with the culture of the society. In the recent past, alternative household organizations such as single-parent families and singles have become prevalent hence necessitating a review of the importance of the nuclear and extended family. These realities suggest that the assumption of genealogy or biology as the basis of the family is faulty since if this were the case, the family structure would remain static through time. In spite of the understanding that the family is a fabrication, this unit will continue to play an important role in society. The nuclear family is still the engine-room of socialization and it continues to bestow economic benefits for its members. Even Schneider (1984) acknowledges that kinship is a privileged institution since it is the major building block out of which all social systems are constructed. Conclusion This paper set out to examine the ideas of prominent anthropologists in orde r to demonstrate that the family is a fabricated thing. A review of these ideas has revealed that family is an ideological illusion constructed by man over the centuries. The paper has demonstrated that the concept of family started from the individual actor playing for economic and political advantage and using the family as a tool for social cohesion. The paper has convincingly shown that most aspects of kinship are not natural but rather the social construction of various societies over the centuries. The family relationship is not primarily one of genealogical and reproductively, instead, it is culturally specified and the manner in which it is expressed and perceived is a fabrication. It can therefore be authoritatively stated that family is not inherently human or universal; rather, it is a cultural construction that is arbitrary and variable in nature. References Dykstra, A 2006, Family relationships: the ties that bind, Amsterdam Study Centre for the Metropolitan Environment , Amsterdam. Johnson, C 2003, Claud Levi-Strauss: The formative years, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kuper, A 1982, ‘Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospective’, Ann. Rev. Anthropol, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.71-95. Kuper, A 2003, ‘What Really Happened to Kinship and Kinship Studies’, Journal of Cognition and Culture, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 329-335. Kuper, A 2008, ‘Changing the subject – about cousin marriage, among other things’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 14, no.1, pp. 717-735. Levi-Strauss, C 1969, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Beacon Press, Boston. Levi-Strauss, C 1970, The raw and the cooked, John and Harper, New York. Read, D 2001, What is Kinship? In The Cultural Analysis of Kinship: The Legacy of David Schneider and Its Implications for Anthropological Relativism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Schneider, D 1984, A critique of the study of kinship, University of Michigan Press, Michigan. Schne ider, D 1997, ‘The power of culture: notes on some aspects of gay and lesbian kinship in America today’, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 270-274. VonSturmer, J 1970, Claude Levi-Strauss: the anthropologist as everyman, Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Voss, S 1977, ‘Claude Levi-Strauss: The Man and His Works’, Nebraska Anthropologist, vol. 145, no.1, pp. 21-38.

Aggressive and threatening language

Aggressive and threatening language Essay Pip and Magwitch are the most mysterious and strange quasi family in the novel. They are connected but without either knowing for the most part. Its coincidental that the father of the woman loved by Pip is his benefactor, however a benefactor without knowing his own daughter.  The two first meet in the Marshes. Magwitch, a convict demands a file and some wittles (food) at the cost of the boys life. Here, Dickens brings the scene to life with his use of aggressive and threatening language. Pip brings Magwitch what he has asked and hopes never to be associated with such a man again. In Chapter 39 his fears are answered.  A guest visits Pip, a snobbish almost gentleman Pip.  Pip is shocked and horrified as Magwitch gradually discloses he is his benefactor, that Jaggers is his agent. Magwitch has risked being hanged just to return to England (After serving time in Australia) to see his creation his gentleman. Pip finds him repulsive but shelters him and gives him Herberts bed. In discovering Magwitch is his benefactor, Pip is faced with his own vanity and gullibility. His life has been guided by fantasy. Dickens uses some cold language during this chapter to show Pips annoyance and grief that Magwitch unintentionally has caused. When I awoke without having parted in my sleep with the perception of my wretchedness, the clocks of the Eastward churches were striking five, the candles were wasted out, the fire was dead, and the wind and rain intensified the thick black darkness. Pip.  Magwitch, on the contrary is happy about his (mirroring Mrs. Havisham and Estella) creation.   , lookee here, dear boy, he said dropping his voice and laying a long finger on my breast in an impressive manner.  By Chapter 42 the relationship of the two has increased somewhat. Pip manages to get Magwitch to tell him and Herbert his life story, and about Compeyson. Although Magwitch reluctantly tells the two friends the story, telling Pip so much, indicates he may have begun to truly trust Pip. By this chapter, Pip is maturing; he is only now becoming a real gentleman. Magwitch may have spotted this, and this could be the only reason why Magwitch told Pip so much.  However, it is only by Chapter 46 that they become more open towards each other. In this chapter, Herbert and Pip decide to use a boat to get Magwitch out of the country. The use of language is friendlier between Pip and Magwitch.  Dear Boy he answered, clasped my hands, I dont know when we may meet again, and I dont like Good-Bye, say Good-Night! Good Night!  The use of exclamation marks is more frequent and the actual dialogue is friendlier.  Chapter 54 is the almost escaped chapter. Magwitch gets captured and the reader now sees there is genuine care for Magwitch from Pip, as he promises never to leave his side. During the journey, Magwitch is strangely passive. This may imply that he is going to miss Pip, and he trusts Pip.  Pips failure to export Magwitch out of country makes him pity Magwitch. During Chapter 56, we notice their relationship at its strongest. Magwitch is sentenced to death for his crimes, but dies naturally before. Pip is at his bedside. Pips and Magwitchs language is solemn, as if with a lump in their throat. They have become good friends. Pips final words Youre daughter is beautiful and I love her is a sweet end to an otherwise bitter life, and more fulfilling than having created a gentleman.  The language and emotions shared between them is one as if theyre father and son, which links with Magwitch said back in Chapter 39 READ: Death Of A Salesman EssayLookee here, Pip. Im your second father. Youre my son more to me nor any son. Magwitch, pg.313 Bottom.  The devotion between Pip and Magwitch shows there is a genuine love between them.  O Lord, be merciful to him, a sinner!  Magwitchs created gentleman has now really become a gentleman.  The grouping of Pip and Magwitch is the only one that actually works as a whole. The grouping/quasi family features qualities that keep the grouping together and functional. The members of group rely and can trust each other, they pity each other and they love each other. As a whole none of the other quasi families feature these qualities and so, can be called dysfunctional.

Cultural Issues Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Cultural Issues - Essay Example The cultural variety today becomes a very significant issue in the research field of international relations, first of all for the best understanding of laws of social life, an organization of statehood and management in complex communities, prevention and resolution of conflicts. There is no doubt that cultural factor is obviously present in the modern policy of international relations. Robert Garson (â€Å"extra information†) states: â€Å"issues of culture, rights, and justice drive international relations and international politics in a certain direction†. Moreover, according to Garson, culture is very important because: The cultural variety today becomes a very significant issue in the research field of international relations, first of all for the best understanding of laws of social life, an organization of statehood and management in complex communities, prevention and resolution of conflicts. There is no doubt that cultural factor is obviously present in the mo dern policy of international relations. Robert Garson (â€Å"extra information†) states: â€Å"issues of culture, rights, and justice drive international relations and international politics in a certain direction†. Moreover, according to Garson, culture is very important because:†¢ â€Å"It is the key to our social and ultimately individual identity†;†¢ â€Å"if to look at the rhetoric of international politics, that rhetoric is actually wrapped up in cultural phrases. People talk of themselves as being French or Tanzanian or American, they use these identities†;†¢ â€Å"culture is actually one of the organizing principles of most political communities†.For the first time, the question on cultural variety arises in world politics after the First World War I when the countries-winners have formulated the doctrine of self-determination on an ethnocultural basis as the mechanism of the abolition of imperial states of Austria-Hungary, O ttoman Turkey, Imperial Germany and Imperial Russia. A certain formula of "national self-determination" gradually began to gain a foothold as the international norm of state formation.  There was an idea that the society should be culturally homogeneous.

Random drug testing at school Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Random drug testing at school - Research Paper Example 827). Based on a study that Ringwalt and colleagues had done in 2005 but reported only in 2008, a substantial proportion of schools in the United States are implementing random drug testing. As early as 2005, author Neil McKeganey has observed that random drug-testing has been not only practiced but also widely-developed not only within the United States but also within the United Kingdom (12). ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF DRUG-TESTING. Based on the work of James-Burdumy and colleagues, random drug-testing at schools is being promoted because it can reduce student substance abuse in three ways (xviii). First, it is a deterrent because if students are sufficiently aware of ongoing random tests, the random tests will lead them to eventually stop using drugs or abusing substances. Second, by detecting substance abuse, mandatory and random drug testing can identify users for appropriate treatment or counseling. Finally or third, the random drug testing can have spillover effects on non-users. Reducing drug use or substance abuse is important because negative consequences can result from drug use such as low academic performance, bad habits and risky sexual behaviors (James-Burdumy and Colleagues xvii). COUNTERARGUMENTS. We use the key arguments revealed by researchers Kern and her colleagues, working for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance, on why some educators are saying no on the issue of random drug testing at schools in the United States. In summary, some educators are reported to be saying no to random drug testing because it is ineffective, costly, other methods are more reliable, and because drug testing can lead to other types of problems. The authors raised 8 points on why some educators are saying no to drug testing (Kern et al. 2). First, they say that drug testing is ineffective anyway. Second, drug testing is costly and there more effective

Voting and Turnout Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Voting and Turnout - Essay Example But personally speaking, I don’t agree to their argument. Cost factor of $25 on the registration of voters is a one time cost. If the general opinion favors abolition of the cost that should be considered for exemption by the government and voter IDs should be provided at the government expense so that those who speak against these laws could not find an excuse due to the cost factor of $25. I do not agree with the analysis of the New York Times that the number of 120 fraud cases filed by the Justice Department is not a big enough number. On the contrary, I agree with the opinion of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, that voting frauds are a genuine threat, and only voter IDs can help check it (Lee, 2012). Any step taken by the government to leak-proof the voting process will help the democratic process in the long run. It is the ethical responsibility of the federal government, irrespective of which party is in power, to provide voter ID cards to the poor classes, senior citizens and minorities at its own cost Lee, S. (2012, Nov. 5). Everything you’ve ever wanted to know about voter ID laws. ProPublica.org. Retrieved from