Free Essays - A Separate Peace :: Separate Peace Essays

In Knowles’ novel, A Separate Peace, Gene is portrayed as an intelligent student who is motivated by academics.   He is also a thinker that considers a situation from all sides before making a decision. Gene is also a person who follows all the rules and regulations. He always obeys his teachers, studies hard, never misses a class, and makes excellent grades. He does not really enjoy sports, for he is not a good athlete. While in school he lets many distractions such as his friend Finny take part in his life.   This leads to his internal wars. Finny is Gene’s roommate and best friend, who has a completely opposite personality from Gene. He always acts on blind impulse, never thinking about the rules or the consequences. He is also a poor student, for he does not devote himself to his studies. He would rather be playing sports, since he is the best athlete on campus. He lets sports motivate him and wants to participate in the 1944 Olympics.   During their days at Devon, Gene is motivated by Finny’s perfect grace and coordination.   Gene begins to adore and worship Finny as a super hero. He feels his roommate can handle any situation and charm the teachers and classmates. As a result, Gene tries to imitate him and also lets himself be controlled by him.   Gradually, Gene grows jealous of his friend. He begins to hope that Finny will get caught and punished for one of his many wild stunts. For instance, when Pinny wore an outrageous pink shirt, he escaped punishment by giving a satisfying reason saying that it was his emblem.   Gene   wants Finny to be forced down to his level so that he can compete with him and not just lose to him.Gene tries to please Finny. Although he knows that by doing so, he is acting against every instinct of his behavior. In order to keep up with Finny, he jumps from the tree into the river, a daring feat, even though he is scared to death. He also allows Finny to take him away f rom his studies, which are very important to Gene. When Finny saves Gene’s life by preventing him from falling from the tree, Gene knows that he should be grateful, instead he accuses him by saying he would not have been up in the tree if weren’t for Finny. He concludes that he

Respect for All Natural Living Beings: An argument to Acknowledge All

Respect for All Natural Living Beings: An argument to Acknowledge All animal Rights in Society Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying â€Å"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere† (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Pe ter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which... ...g: Contemporary Readings for Writers. By Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print. "Natural Selection." BioWeb. Web. 06 Apr. 2012. . Peta. "Civil Rights Leaders' Words Still Ring True." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. . Peta. "Why Animal Rights?" People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. . Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Perennial, 2009. Print. Wyckoff, Jason, and M.A Bertz. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? - By Gary L. Francione & Robert Garner." Journal of Applied Philosophy 28.4 (2011): 414-16. Print.

foolear Essay on the Fool in Shakespeares King Lear -- King Lear ess

Importance of the Fool in King Lear       Beginning in the late 17th century, producers of King Lear removed the Fool from productions of King Lear. He did not return until 1838. Producers greatly diminished both King Lear and Lear as a result.    One should notice the importance of the Fool very early in the play. In Scene 4, Lear asks for his Fool twice. The second time is just a few lines after the first. He seems to need his Fool urgently. Yet the Fool has been pining over the loss of Cordelia (1.4. ). Yet Lear orders the Fool to come to him.    Upon the Fool's arrival, one can see the Fool is a king of teacher to Lear (1.4. ). The Fool arrives and begins to teach Lear a speech. Also, when the King is going mad, he asks the advice of the Fool. Although Lear may not realize it, he constantly depends on the Fool.    In addition to advice and teaching, the Fool adds commentary on Lear's decision. He voices what many people are thinking-Lear is the Fool. In fact, the Fool calls Lear less than a fool. He calls him nothing (1.4. ). His constant comments shed...

Leadership in Julius Caesar Essay

In Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Cassius is shown as the leader of the conspirators. Brutus, as chose by Cassius, becomes a secondary leader in the plan to eliminate Caesar. Cassius and Brutus portray specific leadership qualities in very different ways. Brutus shows he is a more sufficient leader by his bravery, integrity and selflessness. Cassius’ lack of bravery is matched up to that of Brutus at the time of their deaths during the Battle of Philippi in the fifth act. Just before Cassius’ death, he says to Pindarus, â€Å"O, coward that I am, to live so long, / To see my best friend ta’en before my face!† â€Å"Stand not to answer: Here, take though the hilts; / And, when my face is cover’d, as ‘tis now, / Guide thou the sword.† (V.III.2536-2537, 2546-2548) Cassius believes Brutus to be dead and assumes this means the end of the battle; the outcome not in his favor. Cassius has his servant, Pindarus, kill him rather than havi ng the courage to kill himself. On the other hand, Brutus, hearing that Cassius has died, admits that they, the conspirators, have been defeated. Brutus bravely kills himself by his own doing rather than to someone else do it for him. â€Å"Hold then my sword, and turn away thy face, / While I do run upon it. Wilt thou, Strato?† (V.IV.2728-2729) Brutus had shown more bravery than Cassius by having his own death carried out by himself. Brutus also has a greater integrity than Cassius, shown by Brutus’ intentions for the conspirators. Brutus tells Cassius, â€Å"We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar, / And in the spirit of men there is no blood.† (II.I.787-788) Brutus is explaining to Cassius that the point should not to be to kill Caesar, as Cassius wants, but to kill what Caesar stands for. Brutus says, â€Å"Let us be sacrificers, not butchers.†(II.I.786) It can be assumed that Brutus wants to kill Caesar with honor; that he wants to be seen as someone fighting for a cause, not j ust a murderer. Brutus shows higher respect toward Caesar as a person, which displays a greater integrity. Brutus is a more selfless person than Cassius and has a greater passion for Rome plus its people. At Caesars funeral, Brutus tells the plebeians, â€Å"If then that friend demands / Why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: / Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved / Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and / Die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live / All free men?† (III.II.1552-1558) Brutus’ intentions were really to help the people of  Rome, rather than Cassius who secretly wanted the crown for himself. The people of Rome did not want a dictator so Brutus’ plan was to create a republic. Cassius, though, did not actually care for helping the people of Rome, he was only after the power that Caesar had. He says. â€Å"That part of Tyranny that I do bear / I can shake off at pleasure.† (I.III.525-526) Here, Cassius is saying he can’t bear the fact of someone having more power than him. Cassius implies he’d rather kill himself than be beneath Caesar. Cassius would have been miserable if Caesar became king and became a tyrant. Brutus proved himself as a more selfless person by the way he cared for the people. Cassius was set at such a high place of being a leader, but Brutus proved he was better fit for the title. Brutus displayed leadership qualities such as bravery, integrity and selflessness that Cassius lacked. Brutus had the ability to become a leader of Rome, where he could do what was right for the people rather than gain more power for himself.

Making a Case for Premarital Education

Based on current information gathered from empirical analysis, professional/public opinion, and rational debate, Stanley (2001) constructed four arguments that support an increased need for premarital counseling. The arguments were â€Å" presented for the plausible benefits of engaging in premarital preventive efforts on a broad scale† (Stanley, 2001, p. 272). The author’s arguments include: 1. Using premarital strategies to slow couples down in an effort to allow them time get to know one another better before jumping into marriage. . Using premarital counseling strategies to emphasize the importance of the marital union and the long-term family and societal consequences attached to the decision to marry. 3. The use of premarital strategies will demonstrate that there are resources available to assist couples when they start to experience marital discord. 4. Couples participation in premarital education programs are less likely to have marital problems and are less li kely to divorce (Stanley, 2001).Stanley (2001) presents the arguments as possible research programs that could be studied further to help develop a better understanding of what strategies can be implemented to lower and/or prevent divorce and decrease marital distress. Scott Stanley makes some compelling arguments for the need of premarital counseling and places emphasis on all of society taking an attitude of prevention in regards to developing strategies to effectively deal with the high divorce rate and high levels of marital discord that our country is currently battling.While the arguments have a sound basis are very rational, they lack validity from empirical research. Stanley (2001) acknowledges the need for more empirical research is needed to determine how to successfully prevent marital distress for society as a whole and lower the current divorce rates. Silliman and Schumm (2000) support the need for more research on this topic when they discuss how further attention to t heoretical frameworks to guide premarital counseling is needed although the research and practice of premarital counseling have already been established.A high rate of divorce is one of many social problems affecting society today. Stanley (2001) states, â€Å"it is estimated that approximately 40% or more of new marriages among the younger generation will eventually end in divorce† (p. 272). There currently seems to be a push to put things in place to help prevent marital and family breakdown and the suggestion that couples should be required to undergo premarital education to help improve and prevent marital distress.Risch et al (2003) support the use of premarital counseling when they state, â€Å"marriage preparation programs have been used by practitioners and couples for decades, generally speaking programs aim to enhance the quality and stability of marriages and the content is chosen with this goal in mind† (p. 2). This preventative approach is an area that is receiving much attention worldwide as some governmental units are requiring premarital counseling as a means to reduce divorce and strengthen families† (Stahmann, 2000, p. 104).It is certainly advantageous to have preventative programs in place to assist couples who make a commitment to the union of marriage. This union affects the couple directly, their growing family, their separate families, and society as a whole. Premarital counseling strategies can be viewed as society’s commitment towards promotion and the attainment of a happy and healthy life. Anything preventative should be viewed as worthwhile means to the end. While new research is being developed, there is a lot to say for taking the necessary steps to put preventative measures in place to deal with what is currently known about the topic.Premarital counseling should be viewed as a practice to promote general health to the entire family system. The preventative measures associated with these strategies can cleanse the entire family system as they can assist in the decrease in marital discord and divorce, which have a cause and affect relationship with domestic violence, child abuse, and mental health issues related to the consequence of a broken marriage. This is a good example of how â€Å"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure† (Benjamin Franklin).

Organizational Culture and Performance Essay

The concept of organizational culture has drawn attention to the long-neglected, subjective or ‘soft’ side of organizational life. However, many aspects of organizational culture have not received much attention. Instead, emphasis has been placed primarily on the cultural and symbolic aspects that are relevant in an instrumental/pragmatic context. The technical cognitive interest prevails. Culture then is treated as an object of management action. In this regard, Ouchi and Wilkins (1985: 462) note that ‘the contemporary student of organizational culture often takes the organization not as a natural solution to deep and universal forces but rather as a rational instrument designed by top management to shape the behavior of the employees in purposive ways’. Accordingly, much research on corporate culture and organizational symbolism is dominated by a preoccupation with a limited set of meanings, symbols, values, and ideas presumed to be manageable and directly related to effectiveness and performance. This is in many ways understandable, but there are two major problems following from this emphasis. One is that many aspects of organizational culture are simply disregarded. It seems strange that the (major part of the) literature should generally disregard such values as bureaucratic-‘meritocratic’ hierarchy, unequal distribution of privileges and rewards, a mixture of individualism and conformity, male domination, emphasis on money, economic growth, consumerism, advanced technology, exploitation of nature, and the equation of economic criteria with rationality. Instrumental reason dominates; quantifiable values and the optimization of means for the attainment of pre-given ends define rationality (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1947; Marcuse, 1964). Mainstream organizational culture thinking – in organizations but also in academia – tend to take this for granted. The values and ideas to which organizational culture research pays attention are primarily connected with the means and operations employed to achieve pre-defined and unquestioned goals. A second problem is that subordinating organizational culture thinking to narrowly defined instrumental concerns also reduces the potential of culture to aid managerial action. Organizational culture calls for considerations that break with some of the assumptions characterizing technical thinking, i.e. the idea that a particular input leads to a predictable effect. This chapter thus shows some problems associated with the use of the term culture that does not take the idea of culture seriously enough and presses the concept into a limited version of the technical cognitive interest. It argues for a ‘softer’ version of this interest as well as for thinking following the other two cognitive interests (as sketched in Chapter 1). A basic problem in much management thinking and writing is an impatience in showing the great potential of organizational culture. Associated with this is a bias for a premature distinction between the good and the bad values and ideas, trivialization of culture, overstressing the role of management and the employment of causal thinking. Premature normativity: the idea of good culture Associated with the technical interest of optimizing means for accomplishment of goals is an underdeveloped capacity to reflect upon normative matters. Viewing cultures as means leads to evaluations of them as more or less ‘good’, i.e. as useful, without consideration whether this goodness is the same as usefulness or if usefulness may be very multidimensional. The more popular literature argues that ‘good’ or ‘valuable’ cultures – often equated with ‘strong’ cultures – are characterized by norms beneficial to the company, to customers, and to mankind and by ‘good’ performance in general: Good cultures are characterized by norms and values supportive of excellence, teamwork, profitability, honesty, a customer service orientation, pride in one’s work, and commitment to the organization. Most of all, they are supportive of adaptability – the capacity to thrive over the long run despite new competition, new regulations, new technological developments, and the strains of growth. (Baker, 1980: 10) Good cultures are, according to this author, cultures that incorporate all good things in peaceful co-existence. Also many other authors eager to appeal to practitioners focus on highly positive-sounding virtues, attitudes, and behaviour claimed to be useful to the achievement of corporate goals as defined by management (e.g. Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Trice and Beyer, 1985). They are largely instrumental in character, without considering any ambiguity of the virtue of culture or what it supposedly accomplished in terms of goal realization. The assumption that culture can be simply evaluated in terms of right and wrong come through in embarrassing statements such as that ‘the wrong values make the culture a major liability’ (Wiener, 1988: 536) has already been mentioned. Similarly, Kilmann et al. (1985: 4) argue that ‘a culture has a positive impact on an organization when it points behavior in the right direction†¦. Alternatively, a culture has negative impact when it points behavior in the wrong direction’. According to Wilkins and Patterson (1985: 272): ‘The ideal culture †¦ is characterized by a clear assumption of equity †¦ a clear sense of collective competence †¦ and an ability to continually apply the collective competence to new situations as well as to alter it when necessary.’ Kanter (1983) talks about ‘cultures of pride’, which are good, and ‘cultures of inferiority’, which any sane person will avoid. This type of functionalist, normative, and instrumentally biased thinking is also found in Schein’s (1985) book, in which culture is seen as a pattern of basic assumptions that has ‘proved’ to be valid for a group coping with problems of external adaptation and internal integration. Basically, culture in this literature is instrumental in relation to the formal goals of an organization and to the management objectives or tasks associated with these goals (i.e. external and internal effectiveness). It is assumed to exist because it works – or at least used to work. Of course, changed circumstances can make a culture dysfunctional – calling for planned, intentional change – but the approach assumes that culture is or can be ‘good’ for some worthwhile purpose. As will be shown later ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not, however, self-evident, especially when it comes to complex phenomena such as culture. A bias towards the ‘positive’ functions of culture and its close relation to issues such as harmony, consensus, clarity, and meaningfulness is also implicit in many of these studies (see Martin and Meyerson, 1988). Symbols and cultural aspects are often seen as functional (or dysfunctional) for the organization in terms of goal attainment, meeting the emotional-expressive needs of members, reducing tension in communication, and so on. Instrumental/functional dimensions are often emphasized, for instance, in studies of rites and ceremonies (e.g. Dandridge, 1986; Trice and Beyer, 1984). The typical research focus is on social integration (Alvesson, 1987). Culture is understood as (usually or potentially) useful – and those aspects of culture that are not easily or directly seen as useful remain out of sight, e.g. on gender and ethics. The most common ideas guiding organizational analysis draw upon such metaphors for culture as tool, social glue, need satisfier, or regulator of social relations. Problems include the premature use of moral judgement, in a way hidden behind technical understanding in which culture is viewed as a tool and presumably as easy to evaluate in terms of its goodness as a hammer. But few issues are simply good or bad, functional or dysfunctional. Some things that may be seen as good may be less positive from another angle. A ‘clear sense of collective competence’ – to connect to the citation above – does in itself sound positive and is good for self-esteem and commitment, but a high level of self-confidence may be a mixed blessing as it easily forms a part of, or leads to, fantasies of omnipotence, and may obstruct openness, reflection, willingness to listen to critique and take new external ideas seriously (Brown and Starkey, 2000). Cultural themes thus call for careful consideration, where normative judgement should be applied with great caution. Normative talk easily prevents more nuanced interpretation. Trivialization of culture As argued above, the consequence of the functionalist/pragmatic approach is that culture tends to be reduced to those limited aspects of this complex phenomenon that are perceived to be directly related to organizational efficiency and competitive advantage (see, e.g. Barney, 1986; Kilmann et al., 1985). This means a rather selected interest in organizational culture. But much worse is a tendency to emphasize mainly the superficial aspects of these selected parts of organizational culture. These superficial aspects have the advantage that they are compatible with technical thinking, presumably accessible to managerial interventions. Culture may even be equated with certain behavioural norms viewed as ‘an excellent vehicle for helping people understand and manage the cultural aspects of organizational life’ (Allen, 1985: 334). In marketing, market-oriented culture is frequently defined as the key to strong performances (Harris and Ogbonna, 1999), culture here implying certain behaviours. The problem, of course, is that norms are not the best vehicle for understanding culture. Whereas norms tell people how to behave, culture has a much broader and more complex influence on thinking, feeling, and sense-making (Schneider, 1976). Again, Barney (1986), Pfeffer (1994) and others argue that to serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage culture must be ‘valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable’. If this statement is to make any sense at all, culture must be interpreted as highly normative, accessible to evaluation in terms of frequency (i.e. quantifiable), and capable of being copied a t will. This conception deprives culture of the richness that is normally seen as its strength. At the same time, any culture may be seen as vital for competitive advantage (or as disadvantage), as it is arguably, highly significant and not easy to imitate. As Pfeffer (1994), among others, notes, many of the earlier identified sources of competitive advantage, such as economies of scale, products or process technology, access to financial resources and protected or regulated markets, become of diminishing significance as a consequence of more fragmented markets with an increasing need for flexibility in production, shorter product life cycle, internationalizations and de-regulations. A company’s competence and ability to manage people – to a considerable degree overlapping organizational culture – are not easy to imitate. Even to describe and analyse culture is difficult, as indicated by all the management texts providing only superficial and trivial descriptions of culture, such as norms about ‘market-oriented’ behaviour. The trivialization of organizational culture is not, however, solely restricted to writings promising the quick fix. Despite an effort to define organizational culture on a deeper level, emphasizing basic assumptions, Schein (1985) in most of his empirical examples tends to address the more superficial aspects. One example concerns the acquisition of a franchised business: The lack of understanding of the cultural risks of buying a franchised business was brought out even more clearly in another case, where a very stuffy, traditional, moralistic company whose management prided itself on its high ethical standards bought a chain of fast-food restaurants that were locally franchised around the country. The company’s managers discovered, much to their chagrin, that one of the biggest of these restaurants in a nearby state had become the local brothel. The activities of the town were so well integrated around this restaurant that the alternative of closing it down posed the risk of drawing precisely the kind of attention this company wanted at all costs to avoid. The managers asked themselves, after the fact, ‘Should we have known what our acquisition involved on this more subtle level? Should we have understood our own value system better, to ensure compatibility?’ (Schein, 1985: 34–5) Here the problem seems to be lack of knowledge on a very specific point – what the company was buying – rather than lack of understanding of the company’s own value system. Most ordinary, ‘respectable’ corporations, whatever their organizational culture, would probably wish to avoid becoming owners of brothels. Prostitution is broadly seen as illegitimate, not only by those who Schein views as ‘very stuffy, traditional, moralistic’ people. Apart from the moral issue, there is of course the risk that bad publicity would follow and harm the company. Managerialization of culture Another aspect of adapting culture to technical concerns, and the reduction of complexity and depth contingent upon such concerns, is the confusion of organizational culture with the firm’s management ideology. Frequently what is referred to as organizational or corporate culture really stands for the ideals and visions prescribed by top management (Alvesson, 1987; Westley and Jaeger, 1985). It is sometimes held that the best way to investigate ‘corporate culture’ is through interviews with top managers, but the outcome of this approach tends to be a description of the espoused ideology of those managers that ‘only skim the culture that surrounds the top executives’ (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992: 174). Denison (1984) in a survey claiming to study corporate culture, for example asked one manager per company in a large number of companies to fill in a questionnaire. Organizational culture and managerial ideology are in most cases not the same, partly due to the lack of depth of ideology compared to culture, partly due to variation within organizations and discrepancies between top management and other groups. To differentiate between corporate culture as prescribed and manager-led and organizational culture as ‘real culture’ and more or less emergent from below is one possibility (Anthony, 1994). However, management ideology is not necessarily very different from organizational culture – there are cases where management ideology powerfully impregnates cultural patterns (Alvesson, 1995; Kunda, 1992). But this needs to be empirically investigated and shown, and cannot be assumed. Management ideology is but one of several expressions of organizational culture. In most discussions of the relationship between culture and performance, authors focus on values espoused by senior managers, to a higher or lower degree shared by larger groups, while the complexity and variety of culture is neglected.1 From a management point of view, the managerialization of organizational culture immediately appears appealing; but arguably deeper, less conscious aspects of cultural patterns than those managers are already aware of and promote are more valuable, at least in the long run, to focus on. Rather than smoothing over differences and variations in meanings, ideas and values within organizations, highlighting the latter is significant as a basis of informed management thinking and action. Loosening the grip of premature practicality The three weaknesses of much organizational culture thinking reviewed above are related to the wish to make culture appear as of immediate interest to practitioners, and to fit into a predominantly technical cognitive interest in which culture is reduced to a tool. Cultural studies should be permitted to develop unrestricted by, or at least more loosely connected to, concerns for practicality. It is important here is to recognize the contradiction between sophisticated thinking and easily applicable practical concerns: The more rigorously (anthropologically) the term (culture) is applied, the more the concept of organizational culture gains in theoretical interpretative power and the more it loses in practicality. In the effort to overcome this contradiction the danger is that theoretical rigour will be lost in the interest of practicality. (Westley and Jaeger, 1985: 15) Even if one wants to contribute to practicality, rather than to anthropology, this still calls for another kind of intellectual approach than most of the authors cited above exemplify. Oversimplification and promises of ‘quick fixes’ do not necessarily serve narrow pragmatic interests, neither those of managers nor of others. Making things look clear-cut and simple may mislead. Practitioners might benefit much more from the pro-managerial and pragmatic organizational culture literature if it stopped promising recipes for how to manage and control culture and instead discussed other phenomena which managers might, with luck and skill, be able to influence – for example, specific cultural manifestations, workplace spirit and behavioural norms. Learning to ‘think culturally’ about organizational reality might inspire enlightened managerial everyday action rather than unrealistic programmes for culture change or bending patterns of meaning, ideas and valu es to managerial will. Before assuming that culture is functional or good for organizational or managerial purposes, it makes sense to distinguish among possible consequences and to recognize that they may conflict. Critical reflection and learning may be a good thing, consensus facilitating control and coordinated action another, and reduction of anxiety a third; but not all these good things may be attainable at the same time and they may contradict each other. Perhaps more important, contradictory interests – those of professions, divisions, classes, consumers, environmentalists, the state, owners, top management, etc. – may produce different views on what is good, important, and appropriate. Also within complex organizations, corporate goal-attainment may presuppose considerable variation in cultural orientations. Most aspects of culture are difficult to designate as clearly good or bad. To simplify these relationships runs the risk of producing misleading pictures of cultural manifestati ons. Instead, the focus must become the tensions between the creative and destructive possibilities of culture formation (Jeffcutt, 1993). Approaches to the cultureÂâ€"performance relationship There are different ideas regarding to what extent organizational culture can be used as a managerial tool. I will point at and discuss three versions of how managers can work with culture. These represent the relative significance of management versus culture: can management control culture or must management adapt to culture? Cultural engineering: corporate culture as managerial design In the most instrumentally oriented of these formulations, culture is conceived as a building block in organizational design – a subsystem, well-demarcated from other parts of the organization, which includes norms, values, beliefs, and behavioural styles of employees. Even though it may be difficult to master, it is in principle no different from other parts of the organization in terms of management and control. The term ‘cultural engineering’ captures the spirit of this position, which is sometimes called the ‘corporate-culture school’ (Alvesson and Berg, 1992). Kilmann (1985: 354) recognizes that there is considerable disagreement about what culture is but concludes that ‘it is still important to consider what makes a culture good or bad, adaptive or dysfunctional’. He describes culture almost as a physical force: ‘Culture provides meaning, direction, and mobilization – it is the social energy that moves the corporation into allocation †¦ the energy that flows from shared commitments among group members’ (p. 352) and ‘the force controlling behaviour at every level in the organization’ (p. 358). He believes that every firm has a distinctive culture that can develop and change quickly and must be managed and controlled: ‘If left alone, a culture eventually becomes dysfunctional’ (p. 354). The underlying metaphor then clearly comes from technical science. The crucial dimension of culture, according to Kilmann, is norms; it is here that culture is ‘most easily controlled’. More precisely, it is the norms that guide the behaviour and attitudes of the people in the company that are of greatest interest and significance, because they have a powerful effect on the requirements for its success – quality, efficiency, product reliability, customer service, innovation, hard work, loyalty, etc. This is the core of most (American) texts on corporate culture (e.g. Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Sathe, 1985; Wiener, 1988). There are many difficulties with this model. Norms refer to a too superficial and behaviour-near aspect to really capture culture, at least as defined in this book. Norms and behaviours are affected by many dimensions other than culture. Within a culture there are a number of norms related to the enormous variety of different behaviours. The point with culture is that it indicates the meaning dimension, i.e. what is behind and informs norms. A related problem with this behaviour-near view on culture is the tendency to see culture as more or less forcefully affecting behaviour. For example, Sathe (1985: 236) argues that ‘the strength of a culture influences the intensity of behavior’, and the ‘strength’ of a culture is determined by ‘how many important shared assumptions there are’, how widely they are shared, and how clearly they are ranked. A ‘strong’ culture is thus characterized by homogeneity, simplicity, and clearly ordered assumptions. In a ‘complex’ culture – by definition any culture – assumptions will probably be very difficult to identify and rank, and it can even be argued that such a measurement approach distorts the phenomena it is supposed to study. As Fitzgerald (1988: 9–10) has put it: Values do not exist as isolated, independent, or incremental entities. Beliefs and assumptions, tastes and inclinations, hopes and purposes, values and principles are not modular packages stored on warehouse shelves, waiting for inventory. They have no separate existence, as do spark plugs in an engine; they cannot be examined one at a time and replaced when burned out†¦. They have their own inner dynamic: Patriotism, dignity, order, progress, equality, security – each implies other values, as well as their opposites. Patriotism implies homeland, duty, and honor, but also takes its strength from its contrast to disloyalty; dignity requires the possibility of humiliation and sham e.

Act three of the crucible Essay

This leaves Mary Warren accused, with no way out, as Abigail expands on this statement to make it seem more realistic. Abigail has achieved what she wanted, she has gotten the attention away from herself using her accusations. The tension builds as we don’t know what Abigail is going to do next and we know that she is capable of destroying peoples lives. The Puritan society meant that everything revolved around God, the girls, knowing this, found that the strongest way to act was to accuse people of being against God. It would make them look in a better light as they are doing Gods work by ferreting the evil out of the village. Danforth, Hale and Hathorne believe that God is using the girls to help the village. This constant reference to the Bible and repetition of the puritan beliefs adds to the tension as it shows that they will not doubt the â€Å"messengers of God†. There is also a moment of humour were Proctor forgets one of the commandments, when he is trying to prove his wife’s innocence. Throughout the whole ordeal Proctor stands as the voice of reason, speaking the truth but not being heard over the tumult of lies. He voices sensible faults to Abigail’s accusations. When Abigail sees a yellow bird, Proctor says that he can’t see it and asks Hale the same thing even though he is being quieted by Danforth as he is trying to get the words out. He asks Hale because he thinks that Hale is starting to lose faith in the reliability of the court and calls to him for back up and support. He frantically tries to tell Danforth that the girls are just pretending in order to help Mary Warren, other wise he would feel guilty for Mary’s fate because he brought her there and told her to face up to Abigail and to tell the truth, â€Å"They’re pretending, Mr. Danforth! . . . They’re gulling you Mister! † This again adds to the tension as everyone is shouting over each other and the anger builds. As soon as everyone has been calmed down, once more they begin to yell their accusations over each other. The tension is built in peaks and troughs to keep the audience on edge. It is first built at the beginning when the characters first come on stage. It is lulled by Hale who asks for calm, and as they discuss the proceedings rationally, it is raised once more upon the entrance of Proctor as Parris claims he is there to overthrow the court. Another raise in tension is when Proctors wife is accused of keeping poppets in the house. Proctor cannot, despite the confession of Mary Warren, convince Danforth that it did not belong to Elizabeth. Abigail becomes worried that Danforth is starting to believe Proctor and so to strengthen the girls’ story she pretends she can feel a cold wind which is freezing her. The other girls pick up the act quickly and can also feel the wind. Proctor knows that they are only acting but cannot convince anyone else, as the girls’ have done it so much they start to believe it themselves. Act three – â€Å"Abigail : I – I know not. A wind, a cold wind, has come. (her eyes fall on Mary) Mary : (terrified, pleading) Abby! Mercy : (shivering) Your Honour, I freeze! Proctor : Their pretending! Hathorne : She is cold, Your Honour, touch her! † Abigail makes several attacks like this on Mary, when her and the other girls copy everything that Mary says and the one which finally cracks her, the yellow bird story. All these fantasies which Abigail makes up adds to the tension as we do not know what will happen to Mary if she does not confess. When Mary accuses Proctor she thinks she is doing what Abigail wants her to do but it ruins Abigail’s plan to get rid of Proctors wife so she could be with him instead. This is the end of the climax where Proctor is so angry at the injustice of the events and terrified of what with happen to him that in a moment of outrage that seals his arrest and ultimate hanging when he shouts out, â€Å"I say – I say – God is dead! † In the video the fury of the towns people is shown as they, in a Theocracy, feel very strongly about blasphemy. Proctor has seen the truth as he says that both Danforth and himself are doomed to hell as they have both sinned, â€Å"Proctor : God damns our kind especially, and we will burn , we will burn together! . . . You are pulling Heaven down and raising up a whore! † Hale has had enough and says he had nothing to do with the court proceedings and the overall verdict and storms out of the court. This is the final climax that Millar was building to the end were Proctor is so angry at Abigail and the court that he doesn’t care any more. When he says, â€Å"I say – I say – God is dead! † He is basically signing his own death warrant as the tolerance for blasphemy in his society was non-existent. Proctor knew this and knew this would anger everyone but he also knew that he couldn’t win. The end of the scene ends in chaos, as Hale storms out, The court falls apart, symbolising the less than perfect world of the Theocracy and their entire beliefs, which do not work when people have the freedom to lie and cause such thing as murder to happen legally and with the authorisation of the courts. I think that the point Arthur Miller is trying to make is that people will only believe what they want to believe. Also, there is not a straight line drawn through right and wrong, how crime and punishment are often influenced by thoughts, feelings and individual ideals. I think he is also trying to say that good doesn’t always conquer over evil no matter how superior their principals, intensions or morals are. Stephanie Moore English – Crucible essay Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Arthur Miller section.