Manufacturing in China and its environmental impacts Essay

Manufacturing in China and its environmental impacts - Essay Example The automotive industry played, and continues to play, a key role in this concept. The Volkswagen Group has set up two joint ventures for the manufacture of automobiles in China. While the Shanghai Volkswagen success story began in 1984, the contracts for FAW-Volkswagen were signed in the northern Chinese city of Changchun in 1990. In January 2003, another joint venture, this time producing gearboxes, began operations in Shanghai. This was followed in 2004 by a joint company for manufacturing powertrain components. Two further joint ventures for modern engines started production in 2006 and 2007. Data suggest that there is a constant steady growth during the time of study, except between the years 2001 and 2002. Primarily, the reason for this is that China has become a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001. As the sales performance shows, the Volkswagen Group has gained full advantage of this opportunity. The data clearly suggest continuous growth of product sale from 1999 to 2006; however, the market share has been reduced from a peak of 50% to 17.1% in 2006. The tendency of decrease in market share is expected, mainly due to the current and anticipated burgeoning growth of automobile ownership in China. Toyota has grown to become a large multinational corporation from where it started. It has expanded to different worldwide markets and countries by becoming the largest seller of cars in the beginning of 2007 and the most profitable automaker in 2006 with increasing sales in the world. Toyota has long been recognized as an industry leader in manufacturing and production. In retrospect, Toyota Motor Company Limited (currently Toyota Motor Corporation) was established in 1937 and started to export automotive to China since 1964. It founded Toyota Automotive Services Centre in Beijing and the Technical Support Centre in Tianjin in 1980 and 1990, respectively.

Medical Marijuana Essay Example for Free

Medical Marijuana Essay Introduction: â€Å"Cannabis isn’t for everybody, but patients are entitled to pick and choose their own medicine.† Michelle Rainey (VanMusic, 2010, Pg. 1) Thesis: The prescription drug companies dispense medicines that are harmful and that is what I am here to change your minds about today. This will explore what Medical Marijuana can be used for, the lies you’ve been told about Marijuana and how corrupt the Pharmaceutical drug companies are. Body: I. Why is Marijuana medicine? 1) What THC does in our bodies (Wikipedia Cannabinoid Receptor, n. d., Pg.1) * Cannabinoid receptors are activated by 3 major groups of: Ligands, Endocannabinoids (found in the mammalian body) and Plant Cannabinoids (found in THC in plants). 2) What can Marijuana treat? (Wikipedia Medical Cannabis, n.d., Pg. 3) * Crones Disease, Glaucoma, Anorexia Nervosa, Huntington’s Disease, Arthritis, Epilepsy, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, Distoria, A.I.D.S., H.I.V., Menstrual Cramps, Digestive Diseases, Cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, Appetite Stimulant, Anxiety, P.M.S., Pruritus, Leukemia, Methicillin- Resistant Disease, Tourette Syndrome, Multiple Syntosis, Multiple Sclerosis, Bi- Polar Disorder, Tics, Insomnia, Psoriasis, Fibromyalgia, Migraines, Hepatitis C, Painkiller, Parkinson’s Disease, Depression, Asthma, Nausea. 3) How do you consume it? * Vaporizers * Bongs * Joints * Pipes * Bubblers * Food II. The lies around Marijuana use. 4) The Gateway Theory (Harvey B. -The Union, 2007, Documentary) * Harry Anslinger’s â€Å"Stepping Stone Theory† * â€Å"If you step on this stone Marijuana, then you are bound and determined to go onto the next stone, which would be one of the so called hard drugs.† * For every 104 Marijuana users, 1 uses Cocaine and less than 1 use Heroin. 5) Marijuana Kills Brain Cells (Harvey B. -The Union, 2007, Documentary) * The 1947 Dr. Heath/ Tulane Study * Monkeys were administered 30 Columbian strength Marijuana cigarettes everyday for 1 year. Brain damage was determined by counting the brain cells of the monkeys that were given the Marijuana and ones that has not. 6) Marijuana will kill you (Harvey B. -The Union, 2007, Documentary) * There has never been one recorded death that was directly attributed to Marijuana use. III. How Corrupt is the Pharmaceutical Companies? 7) Marinol (DEAsucks.com, n.d. Pg. 1)(Morrow A., 2009, Pg.1) * THC that has been synthetically reproduced as a prescription drug. * Nauseated or vomiting people cannot swallow pills. * Less dosage control/ Longer to release into system. * Costs $600-$1000 US per month. 8) Pharmaceutical Domination (Goldacre B., 2007, Pg.1)(Mercola, 2010, Pg.1) * In the UK the pharmaceutical trade is the third most profitable activity after finance. * In 2002, 10 US companies on the Fortune 500 list had combined international sales of $217 Billion. * GlaxoSmithKline sued the South African government for trying to supply A.I.D.S. victims with affordable medicines. * Johnson Johnson recently pleaded guilty to illegally promoting it’s epilepsy drug Topamax for psychiatric purposes. Conclusion: Now that you know the truth about how corrupt the pharmaceutical companies are, the lies you’ve been told about Marijuana and how it can be used medically. Next time you have an ache or pain consider smoking a joint before heading out to see the doc. References DEAsucks.com. (n.d.). DEAsucks.com Medical Marijuana Myths vs Facts. DEAsucks.com The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sucks!. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://deasucks.com/essays/marimyths.htm Mercola. (2010, November 18). The Top 6 Drug Companies Thugs of the Medical World. Natural Health Articles Latest and Current Health News and Information by Dr. Mercola. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/18/drug-companies-are-ranked-in-the-top-100-corporate-criminals-of-the-1990s.aspx Goldacre, B. (2007, August 4). Evil ways of the drug companies | Science | The Guardian . Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | guardiannews.com | The Guardian . Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/04/sciencenews Morrow, A. (2009, April 6). Marinol vs Marijuana Marijuana and Marinol. About Palliative Care Hospice and Palliative Care. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://dying.about.com/od/symptommanagement/f/marinol_vs_MJ.htm Harvey, B. (Director). (2007). The Union The Business Behind Getting High [Documentary]. Canada: Eagle Entertainment. VanMusic. (2010, October 21). Pot Activist Dies After A Brave Battle With Cancer. VanMusic. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://www.vanmusic.ca/news/michelle-rainey-dies-of-cancer Wikipedia. (n.d.). Medical cannabis Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cannabinoid receptor Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor

History of Egypt Essay -- Historical Egypt Africa Cairo Essays Papers

History of Egypt The rich history of Egypt is tied very closely with the Nile River’s fertile banks and existence as a source of water. Flowing south to north, this massive river has had a tremendous impact on agriculture, transportation, religion, migration of populations, and culture as a whole. The narrow Nile Valley as well as the surrounding deserts provided defense and isolation from the arising cultures of the time. Over many centuries, the rainfall has affected the levels of flooding on the Nile and therefore the way in which the Egyptians had to live. This region is rich with cultural and historical records of the ongoing relationship of culture and society with the environment and the Nile. Cairo is the capital of Egypt and is the biggest city not only in Egypt but the Middle East as well. With a current population of over 15 million inhabitants, the city has evolved for over four thousand years with a variety of social and cultural influences. Northern Africa has been occupied by Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks and monuments that still stand today are evidence of these influences. Cairo has been known by many names, including Memphis, Heliopolis, Babylon, and, Al-Qahira. The city was a center of religious development for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam throughout its thirty or more dynasties. Over 8,000 years ago, Northern Africa was rich with diverse wildlife including elephants, buffalo, hippopotami, and giraffe (Lamb). However by 5,000 BC, some of these species began to die out or migrate from this region, perhaps due to the increased migration of humans and settling near the Nile. The Nile was the best and only source of fresh water in the area and its annual flooding and receding le... ...In 1882, the British seized control of Egypt until it could repay its debts. Egypt gained its independence in 1952 and has continued to grow, with Cairo being the centerpiece of ongoing development (www.lonelyplanet.com). Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the West Bank of the Nile River was concreted over to make room for urban sprawl. The relationship of the city with the Nile was becoming less cooperative and increasingly damaging to its natural state. Cairo expanded north into Nasr City in what has become an eyesore to the landscape. Cairo has even expanded up and over the Muquattam Hills, which once stood as a barrier to previous eastern growth. The rapid expansion of Cairo seems as if it will pose a serious problem to the Nile and its resources as transportation, industry, and residential construction litter the banks of the once coveted and worshipped Nile.

Foucault Power

The Subject and Power Author(s): Michel Foucault Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 777-795 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/1343197 . Accessed: 26/09/2011 07:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www. jstor. org/page/info/about/policies/terms. jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email  protected] org. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical Inquiry. http://www. jstor. org The Subject and Power Michel Foucault Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject The ideas which I wo uld like to discuss here represent neither a theory nor a methodology. I would like to say, first of all, what has been the goal of my work during the last twenty years.It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis. My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects. My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transform human beings into subjects. The first is the modes of inquiry which try to give themselves the status of sciences; for example, the objectivizing of the speaking subject in grammaire generale, philology, and linguistics.Or again, in this first mode, the objectivizing of the productive subject, the subject who labors, in the analysis of wealth and of economics. Or, a third example, the objectivizing of the sheer fact of being alive in natural history or biology. In the second part of my work, I have studied the obje ctivizing of the subject in what I shall call â€Å"dividing practices. † The subject is either This essay was written by Michel Foucault as an afterword to Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralismand Hermeneuticsby Hubert L.Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow and reprinted by arrangement with the University of Chicago Press. â€Å"Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject† was written in English by Foucault; â€Å"How Is Power Exercised? † was translated from the French by Leslie Sawyer. Critical Inqury 8 (Summer 1982) , 1982 by The Uni ersity of Chicago. 0093-1896/82/0804-0006$01. 00. All rights reserved. 777 778 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power divided inside himself or divided from others. This process objectivizes him. Examples are the mad and the sane, the sick and the healthy, the criminals and the â€Å"good boys. Finally, I have sought to study-it is my current work-the way a human being turns himself into a subject. For example, I have chosen the domain of s exuality-how men have learned to recognize themselves as subjects of â€Å"sexuality. † Thus, it is not power but the subject which is the general theme of my research. It is true that I became quite involved with the question of power. It soon appeared to me that, while the human subject is placed in relations of production and of signification, he is equally placed in power relations which are very complex.Now, it seemed to me that economic history and theory provided a good instrument for relations of production and that linguistics and semiotics offered instruments for studying relations of signification; but for power relations we had no tools of study. We had recourse only to ways of thinking about power based on legal models, that is: What legitimates power? Or, we had recourse to ways of thinking about power based on institutional models, that is: What is the state? It was therefore necessary to expand the dimensions of a definition of power if one wanted to use this definition in studying the objectivizing of the subject.Do we need a theory of power? Since a theory assumes a prior objectification, it cannot be asserted as a basis for analytical work. But this analytical work cannot proceed without an ongoing conceptualization. And this conceptualization implies critical thought-a constant checking. The first thing to check is what I shall call the â€Å"conceptual needs. † I mean that the conceptualization should not be founded on a theory of the object-the conceptualized object is not the single criterion of a good conceptualization. We have to know the historical conditions which motivate our conceptualization.We need a historical awareness of our present circumstance. The second thing to check is the type of reality with which we are dealing. A writer in a well-known French newspaper once expressed his surprise: â€Å"Why is the notion of power raised by so many people today? Is Michel Foucault has been teaching at the College de Fra nce since 1970. His works include Madness and Civilization (1961), The Birth of the Clinic (1966), Discipline and Punish (1975), and History of Sexuality (1976), the first volume of a projected five-volume study. Critical Inquiry Summer1982 779 it such an important subject?Is it so independent that it can be discussed without taking into account other problems? † This writer's surprise amazes me. I feel skeptical about the assumption that this question has been raised for the first time in the twentieth century. Anyway, for us it is not only a theoretical question but a part of our experience. I'd like to mention only two â€Å"pathological forms†-those two â€Å"diseases of power†-fascism and Stalinism. One of the numerous reasons why they are, for us, so puzzling is that in spite of their historical uniqueness they are not quite original. They used and extended mechanisms already present in most other societies.More than that: in spite of their own internal mad ness, they used to a large extent the ideas and the devices of our political rationality. What we need is a new economy of power relations-the word â€Å"economy† being used in its theoretical and practical sense. To put it in other words: since Kant, the role of philosophy is to prevent reason from going beyond the limits of what is given in experience; but from the same moment-that is, since the development of the modern state and the political management of society-the role of philosophy is also to keep watch over the excessive powers of political rationality, which is a rather high expectation.Everybody is aware of such banal facts. But the fact that they're banal does not mean they don't exist. What we have to do with banal facts is to discover-or try to discover-which specific and perhaps original problem is connected with them. The relationship between rationalization and excesses of political power is evident. And we should not need to wait for bureaucracy or concentr ation camps to recognize the existence of such relations. But the problem is: What to do with such an evident fact? Shall we try reason? To my mind, nothing would be more sterile.First, because the field has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Second, because it is senseless to refer to reason as the contrary entity to nonreason. Last, because such a trial would trap us into playing the arbitrary and boring part of either the rationalist or the irrationalist. Shall we investigate this kind of rationalism which seems to be specific to our modern culture and which originates in Aufkldrung? I think that was the approach of some of the members of the Frankfurt School. My purpose, however, is not to start a discussion of their works, although they are most important and valuable.Rather, I would suggest another way of investigating the links between rationalization and power. It may be wise not to take as a whole the rationalization of society or of culture but to analyze such a proces s in several fields, each with reference to a fundamental experience: madness, illness, death, crime, sexuality, and so forth. I think that the word â€Å"rationalization† is dangerous. What we have 780 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power to do is analyze specific rationalities rather than always invoke the progress of rationalization in general.Even if the Aufkliirung has been a very important phase in our history and in the development of political technology, I think we have to refer to much more remote processes if we want to understand how we have been trapped in our own history. I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power relations, a way which is more empirical, more directly related to our present situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice. It consists of taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point.To use another metaphor, it consists of using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power relations, locate their position, and find out their point of application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the antagonism of strategies. For example, to find out what our society means by sanity, perhaps we should investigate what is happening in the field of insanity. And what we mean by legality in the field of illegality.And, in order to understand what power relations are about, perhaps we should investigate the forms of resistance and attempts made to dissociate these relations. As a starting point, let us take a series of oppositions which have developed over the last few years: opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live. It is not enough to say that these are anti-authority struggles; we must try to define more precisely what they have in common. . They are â€Å"transversal† struggles; that is, they are not limited to one country. Of course, they develop more easily and to a greater extent in certain countries, but they are not confined to a particular political or economic form of government. 2. The aim of these struggles is the power effects as such. For example, the medical profession is not criticized primarily because it is a profit-making concern but because it exercises an uncontrolled power over people's bodies, their health, and their life and death. 3. These are â€Å"immediate† struggles for two reasons.In such struggles people criticize instances of power which are the closest to them, those which exercise their action on individuals. They do not look for the â€Å"chief enemy† but for the immediate enemy. Nor do they expect to find a solution to their problem at a future date (that is, liberations, revolutions, end of class struggle). In comparison with a theoretical scale of explanations or a revolutionary order which polarizes the historian, they are anarchistic struggles. Critical Inquiry Summer1982 781 But these are not their most original points. The following seem to me to be more specific. . They are struggles which question the status of the individual: on the one hand, they assert the right to be different, and they underline everything which makes individuals truly individual. On the other hand, they attack everything which separates the individual, breaks his links with others, splits up community life, forces the individual back on himself, and ties him to his own identity in a constraining way. These struggles are not exactly for or against the â€Å"individual† but rather they are struggles against the â€Å"government of individualization. 5. They are an opposition to the effects of power which are linked with knowledge, competence, and qualification: struggles against the privileges of knowledge. But they are also an opposition against secrecy, deformation, and mystifying representations imposed on people. There is nothing â€Å"scientistic† in this (that is, a dogmatic belief in the value of scientific knowledge), but neither is it a skeptical or relativistic refusal of all verified truth. What is questioned is the way in which knowledge circulates and functions, its relations to power.In short, the regime du savoir. 6. Finally, all these present struggles revolve around the question: Who are we? They are a refusal of these abstractions, of economic and ideological state violence, which ignore who we are individually, and also a refusal of a scientific or administrative inquisition which determines who one is. To sum up, the main objective of these struggles is to attack not so much â€Å"such or such† an institution of power, or group, or elite, or class but rather a technique, a form of power.This form of power applies itself to imm ediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him. It is a form of power which makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word â€Å"subject†: subject to someone else by control and dependence; and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to.Generally, it can be said that there are three types of struggles: either against forms of domination (ethnic, social, and religious); against forms of exploitation which separate individuals from what they produce; or against that which ties the individual to himself and submits him to others in this way (struggles against subjection, against forms of subjectivity and submission). I think that in history you can find a lot of examples of these three kinds of social struggles, either isolated from each other or mixed together. But even when they are mixed, one of them, most of the time, prevails.For instance, in the feudal societies, the struggles against the 782 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power forms of ethnic or social domination were prevalent, even though economic exploitation could have been very important among the revolt's causes. In the nineteenth century, the struggle against exploitation came into the foreground. And nowadays, the struggle against the forms of subjectionagainst the submission of subjectivity-is becoming more and more important, even though the struggles against forms of domination and exploitation have not disappeared. Quite the contrary. I suspect that it is ot the first time that our society has been confronted with this kind of struggle. All those movements which took place in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and which had the Reformation as their main expression and result should be analyzed as a great c risis of the Western experience of subjectivity and a revolt against the kind of religious and moral power which gave form, during the Middle Ages, to this subjectivity. The need to take a direct part in spiritual life, in the work of salvation, in the truth which lies in the Book-all that was a struggle for a new subjectivity.I know what objections can be made. We can say that all types of subjection are derived phenomena, that they are merely the consequences of other economic and social processes: forces of production, class struggle, and ideological structures which determine the form of subjectivity. It is certain that the mechanisms of subjection cannot be studied outside their relation to the mechanisms of exploitation and domination. But they do not merely constitute the â€Å"terminal† of more fundamental mechanisms. They entertain complex and circular relations with other forms.The reason this kind of struggle tends to prevail in our society is due to the fact that, since the sixteenth century, a new political form of power has been continuously developing. This new political structure, as everybody knows, is the state. But most of the time, the state is envisioned as a kind of political power which ignores individuals, looking only at the interests of the totality or, I should say, of a class or a group among the citizens. That's quite true. But I'd like to underline the fact that the state's power (and that's one of the reasons for its strength) is both an individualizing and a totalizing form of power.Never, I think, in the history of human societies–even in the old Chinese society-has there been such a tricky combination in the same political structures of individualization techniques and of totalization procedures. This is due to the fact that the modern Western state has integrated in a new political shape an old power technique which originated in Christian institutions. We can call this power technique the pastoral power. Critic al Inquiry Summer1982 783 First of all, a few words about this pastoral power.It has often been said that Christianity brought into being a code of ethics fundamentally different from that of the ancient world. Less emphasis is usually placed on the fact that it proposed and spread new power relations throughout the ancient world. Christianity is the only religion which has organized itself as a church. And as such, it postulates in principle that certain individuals can, by their religious quality, serve others not as princes, magistrates, prophets, fortune-tellers, benefactors, educationalists, and so on but as pastors.However, this word designates a very special form of power. 1. It is a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual salvation in the next world. 2. Pastoral power is not merely a form of power which commands; it must also be prepared to sacrifice itself for the life and salvation of the flock. Therefore, it is different from royal power, which demands a sacrifice from its subjects to save the throne. 3. It is a form of power which does not look after just the whole community but each individual in particular, during his entire life. 4.Finally, this form of power cannot be exercised without knowing the inside of people's minds, without exploring their souls, without making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of the conscience and an ability to direct it. This form of power is salvation oriented (as opposed to political power). It is oblative (as opposed to the principle of sovereignty); it is individualizing (as opposed to legal power); it is coextensive and continuous with life; it is linked with a production of truth-the truth of the individual himself.But all this is part of history, you will say; the pastorate has, if not disappeared, at least lost the main part of its efficiency. This is true, but I think we should distinguish between two aspects of pastoral power-between the ecclesiastical institutional ization, which has ceased or at least lost its vitality since the eighteenth century, and its function, which has spread and multiplied outside the ecclesiastical institution.An important phenomenon took place around the eighteenth century-it was a new distribution, a new organization of this kind of individualizing power. I don't think that we should consider the â€Å"modern state† as an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence, but, on the contrary, as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form and submitted to a set of very specific patterns.In a way, we can see the state as a modern matrix of individualization or a new form of pastoral power. 784 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power A few more words about this new pastoral power. 1. We may observe a change in its objective. It was no longer a question of leading people to their salvation in the next world but rather ensuring it in this world. And in this context, the word â€Å"salvation† takes on different meanings: health, well-being (that is, sufficient wealth, standard of living), security, protection against accidents.A series of â€Å"worldly† aims took the place of the religious aims of the traditional pastorate, all the more easily because the latter, for various reasons, had followed in an accessory way a certain number of these aims; we only have to think of the role of medicine and its welfare function assured for a long time by the Catholic and Protestant churches. 2. Concurrently the officials of pastoral power increased. Sometimes this form of power was exerted by state apparatus or, in any case, by a public institution such as the police. We should not forget that in the eighteenth century the police force was not invented only for maintaining law and order, nor for assisting governments in their struggle again st their enemies, but for assuring urban supplies, hygiene, health, and standards considered necessary for handicrafts and commerce. ) Sometimes the power was exercised by private ventures, welfare societies, benefactors, and generally by philanthropists. But ancient institutions, for example the family, were also mobilized at this time to take on pastoral functions. It was also exercised by complex structures such as medicine, hich included private initiatives with the sale of services on market economy principles, but which also included public institutions such as hospitals. 3. Finally, the multiplication of the aims and agents of pastoral power focused the development of knowledge of man around two roles: one, globalizing and quantitative, concerning the population; the other, analytical, concerning the individual. And this implies that power of a pastoral type, which over centuries-for more than a millennium-had been linked to a defined religious institution, suddenly spread ou t into the whole social body; it found support in a multitude of institutions.And, instead of a pastoral power and a political power, more or less linked to each other, more or less rival, there was an individualizing â€Å"tactic† which characterized a series of powers: those of the family, medicine, psychiatry, education, and employers. At the end of' the eighteenth century, Kant wrote, in a German newspaper-the Berliner Monatschrift-a short text. The title was â€Å"Was heisst Aufklairung? † It was for a long time, and it is still, considered a work of relatively small importance.But I can't help finding it very interesting and puzzling because it was the first time a philosopher proposed as a philosophical task to investigate not only the metaphysical system or the foundations of sci- Critical Inquiry Summer1982 785 entific knowledge but a historical event-a recent, even a contemporary event. When in 1784 Kant asked, Was heisst Aufklirung? , he meant, What's going on just now? What's happening to us? What is this world, this period, this precise moment in which we are living? Or in other words: What are we? as Aufklidrer,as part of the Enlightenment? Compare this with the Cartesian question: Who am I?I, as a unique but universal and unhistorical subject? I, for Descartes, is everyone, anywhere at any moment? But Kant asks something else: What are we? in a very precise moment of history. Kant's question appears as an analysis of both us and our present. I think that this aspect of philosophy took on more and more importance. Hegel, Nietzsche †¦ The other aspect of â€Å"universal philosophy† didn't disappear. But the task of philosophy as a critical analysis of our world is something which is more and more important. Maybe the most certain of all philosophical problems is the problem of the present time and of what we are in this very moment.Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get rid of this kind of political â€Å"double bind,† which is the simultaneous individualization and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion would be that the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual from the state and from the state's institutions but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state.We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries. How Is Power Exercised? For some people, asking questions about the â€Å"how† of power would limit them to describing its effects without ever relating those effects either to causes or to a basic nature. It would make this power a mysterious substance which they might hesitate to interrogate in itself, no doubt because they would prefer not to call it into question.By proceeding this way, which is never explicitly justified, they seem to suspect the presence of a kind of fatalism. But does not their very distrust indicate a presupposition that power is something which exists with three distinct qualities: its origin, its basic nature, and its manifestations? If, for the time being, I grant a certain privileged position to the question of â€Å"how,† it is not because I would wish to eliminate the ques- 786 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power tions of â€Å"what† and â€Å"why. Rather, it is that I wish to present these questions in a different way: better still, to know if it is legitimate to imagine a power which unites in itself a what, a why, and a how. To put it bluntly, I would say that to begin the analysis with a â€Å"how† is to suggest that power as such does not exist. At the very least it is to ask oneself what contents one has in mind when using this all-embracing and reifying term; it is to suspect that an extremely complex configuration of realities is allowed to escape when one treads endlessly in the double question: What is power? and Where does power come from? The little question, What happens? although flat and empirical, once scrutinized is seen to avoid accusing a metaphysics or an ontology of power of being fraudulent; rather, it attempts a critical investigation into the thematics of power. â€Å"How,† not in the sense oJ â€Å"How does it manifest itself? † but â€Å"By what means is it exercised? † and â€Å"Whathappens when individuals exert(as theysay) power over others? † As far as this power is concerned, it is first necessary to distinguish that which is exerted over things and gives the ability to modify, use, consume, or destroy them-a power which stems from aptitudes directly inherent in the body or relayed by external instruments.Let us say that here it is a question of â€Å"capacity. † On the other hand, what c haracterizes the power we are analyzing is that it brings into play relations between individuals (or between groups). For let us not deceive ourselves; if we speak of the structures or the mechanisms of power, it is only insofar as we suppose that certain persons exercise power over others. The term â€Å"power† designates relationships between partners (and by that I am not thinking of a zero-sum game but simply, and for the moment staying in the most general terms, of an ensemble of actions which induce others and follow from one another).It is necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication which transmit information by means of a language, a system of signs, or any other symbolic medium. No doubt communicating is always a certain way of acting upon another person or persons. But the production and circulation of elements of meaning can have as their objective or as their consequence certain results in the realm of power; the latter are n ot simply an aspect of the former. Whether or not they pass through systems of communication, power relations have a specific nature.Power relations, relationships of communication, and objective capacities should not therefore be confused. This is not to say that there is a question of three separate domains. Nor that there is on one hand the field of things, of perfected technique, work, and the transformation of the real; on the other that of signs, communication, reciprocity, and the production of meaning; and finally, that of the domination of the Critical Inquiry Summer1982 787 means of constraint, of inequality, and the action of men upon other men. It is a question of three types of relationships which in fact always overlap one another, support one another reciprocally, and use each other mutually as means to an end. The application of objective capacities in their most elementary forms implies relationships of communication (whether in the form of previously acquired infor mation or of shared work); it is tied also to power relations (whether they consist of obligatory tasks, of gestures imposed by tradition or apprenticeship, of subdivisions and the more or less obligatory distribution of labor).Relationships of communication imply finalized activities (even if only the correct putting into operation of elements of meaning) and, by virtue of modifying the field of information between partners, produce effects of power. They can scarcely be dissociated from activities brought to their final term, be they those which permit the exercise of this power (such as training techniques, processes of domination, the means by which obedience is obtained) or those, which in order to develop their potential, call upon relations of power (the division of labor and the hierarchy of tasks).Of course, the coordination between these three types of relationships is neither uniform nor constant. In a given society there is no general type of equilibrium between finalize d activities, systems of communication, and power relations. Rather, there are diverse forms, diverse places, diverse circumstances or occasions in which these interrelationships establish themselves according to a specific model.But there are also â€Å"blocks† in which the adjustment of abilities, the resources of communication, and power relations constitute regulated and concerted systems. Take, for example, an educational institution: the disposal of its space, the meticulous regulations which govern its internal life, the different activities which are organized there, the diverse persons who live there or meet one another, each with his own function, his well-defined character-all these things constitute a block of capacitycommunication-power.The activity which ensures apprenticeship and the acquisition of aptitudes or types of behavior is developed there by means of a whole ensemble of regulated communications (lessons, questions and answers, orders, exhortations, cod ed signs of obedience, differentiation marks of the â€Å"value† of each person and of the levels of knowledge) and by the means of a whole series of power processes (enclosure, surveillance, reward and punishment, the pyramidal hierarchy).These blocks, in which the putting into operation of technical capacities, the game of communications, and the relationships of power are adjusted to one another according to considered formulae, con1. When Jiirgen Habermas distinguishes between domination, communication, and finalized activity, I do not think that he sees in them three separate domains but rather three â€Å"transcendentals. † 788 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power titute what one might call, enlarging a little the sense of the word, â€Å"disciplines. † The empirical analysis of certain disciplines as they have been historically constituted presents for this very reason a certain interest. This is so because the disciplines show, first, according to artifi cially clear and decanted systems, the manner in which systems of objective finality and systems of communication and power can be welded together.They also display different models of articulation, sometimes giving preeminence to power relations and obedience (as in those disciplines of a monastic or penitential type), sometimes to finalize activities (as in the disciplines of workshops or hospitals), sometimes to relationships of communication (as in the disciplines of apprenticeship), sometimes also to a saturation of the three types of relationship (as perhaps in military discipline, where a plethora of signs indicates, to the point of redundancy, tightly knit power relations calculated with care to produce a certain number of technical effects).What is to be understood by the disciplining of societies in Europe since the eighteenth century is not, of course, that the individuals who are part of them become more and more obedient, nor that they set about assembling in barracks, schools, or prisons; rather, that an increasingly better invigilated process of adjustment has been sought after-more and more rational and economic-between productive activities, resources of communication, and the play of power relations.To approach the theme of power by an analysis of â€Å"how† is therefore to introduce several critical shifts in relation to the supposition of a fundamental power. It is to give oneself as the object of analysis power relations and not power itself-power relations which are distinct from objective abilities as well as from relations of communication. This is as much as saying that power relations can be grasped in the diversity of their logical sequence, their abilities, and their interrelationships.What constitutesthe specificnature of power? The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between partners, individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions modify'others. Which is to say, of course, that something called Po wer, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist. Power exists only when it is put into action, even if, of course, it is integrated into a disparate field of possibilities brought to bear upon permanent structures.This also means that power is not a function of consent. In itself it is not a renunciation of freedom, a transference of rights, the power of each and all delegated to a few (which does not prevent the possibility that consent may be a condition for the existence or the maintenance of power); the relationship of power can be the result of a prior or permanent consent, but it is not by nature the manifestation of a consensus. Critical Inquiry Summer 1982 89 Is this to say that one must seek the character proper to power relations in the violence which must have been its primitive form, its permanent secret, and its last resource, that which in the final analysis appears as its real nature when it is forced to throw aside its mask and to show itself as it really is? In effect, what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action which does not act directly and immediately on others.Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action upon an action, on existing actions or on those which may arise in the present or the future. A relationship of violence acts upon a body or upon things; it forces, it bends, it breaks on the wheel, it destroys, or it closes the door on all possibilities. Its opposite pole can only be passivity, and if it comes up against any resistance, it has no other option but to try to minimize it.On the other hand, a power relationship can only be articulated on the basis of two elements which are each indispensable if it is really to be a power relationship: that â€Å"the other† (the one over whom power is exercised) be thoroughly recognized and maintained to the very end as a person who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of powe r, a whole field of responses, reactions, results, and possible inventions may open up.Obviously the bringing into play of power relations does not exclude the use of violence any more than it does the obtaining of consent; no doubt the exercise of power can never do without one or the other, often both at the same time. But even though consensus and violence are the instruments or the results, they do not constitute the principle or the basic nature of power. The exercise of power can produce as much acceptance as may be wished for: it can pile up the dead and shelter itself behind whatever threats it can imagine.In itself the exercise of power is not violence; nor is it a consent which, implicitly, is renewable. It is a total structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more difficult; in the extreme it constrains or forbids absolutely; it is nevertheless always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting s ubjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action. A set of actions upon other actions.Perhaps the equivocal nature of the term â€Å"conduct† is one of the best aids for coming to terms with the specificity of power relations. For to â€Å"conduct† is at the same time to â€Å"lead† others (according to mechanisms of coercion which are, to varying degrees, strict) and a way of behaving within a more or less open field of possibilities. * The exercise of power consists in guiding the possibility of conduct and putting in order the possible outcome.Basically power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or the linking of one to the other than a question of government. This word must be allowed the very broad meaning *Foucault is playing on the double meaning in French of the verb conduire, â€Å"to lead† or â€Å"to drive,† and se conduire, â€Å"to behave† or â€Å"to conduct oneself†; whence la conduite, â€Å"con duct† or â€Å"behavior. â€Å"-Translator's note. 790 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power which it had in the sixteenth century. Government† did not refer only to political structures or to the management of states; rather, it designated the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. It did not only cover the legitimately constituted forms of political or economic subjection but also modes of action, more or less considered or calculated, which were destined to act upon the possibilities of action of other people. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others.The relationship proper to power would not, therefore, be sought on the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can, at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode of action, neither warlike nor juridical, which is government. When one defines the exercise of power as a mode of action upon the actions of others, when one characterizes these actions by the government of men by other men-in the broadest sense of the term-one includes an important element: freedom.Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. Where the determining factors saturate the whole, there is no relationship of power; slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains. (In this case it is a question of a physical relationship of constraint. Consequently, there is no face-to-face confrontation of power and freedom, which are mutually exclusive (freedom disappears everywhere power is exercised), but a much more complicated interplay. In this game freedom may well appear as the condition for the exercise of power (at the same time its precondition, since freedom must exist for power to be exerted, and also its permanent support, since without the possibility of recalcitrance, power would be equivalent to a physical determination). The relationship between power and freedom's refusal to submit cannot, therefore, be separated.The crucial problem of power is not that of voluntary servitude (how could we seek to be slaves? ). At the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom. Rather than speaking of an essential freedom, it would be better to speak of an â€Å"agonism†*–of a relationship which is at the same time reciprocal incitation and struggle, less of a face-to-face confrontation which paralyzes both sides than a permanent provocation. *Foucault's neologism is based on the Greek &ycvro-ota meaning â€Å"a combat. The term would hence imply a physi cal contest in which the opponents develop a strategy of reaction and of†¢ mutual taunting, as in a wrestling match. -Translator's note. Critical Inquiry How is one to analyze the power relationship? Summer1982 791 One can analyze such relationships, or rather I should say that it is perfectly legitimate to do so, by focusing on carefully defined institutions. The latter constitute a privileged point of observation, diversified, concentrated, put in order, and carried through to the highest point of their efficacity.It is here that, as a first approximation, one might expect to see the appearance of the form and logic of their elementary mechanisms. However, the analysis of power relations as one finds them in certain circumscribed institutions presents a certain number of problems. First, the fact that an important part of the mechanisms put into operation by an institution are designed to ensure its own preservation brings with it the risk of deciphering functions which are e ssentially reproductive, especially in power relations between institutions.Second, in analyzing power relations from the standpoint of institutions, one lays oneself open to seeking the explanation and the origin of the former in the latter, that is to say, finally, to explain power to power. Finally, insofar as institutions act essentially by bringing into play two elements, explicit or tacit regulations and an apparatus, one risks giving to one or the other an exaggerated privilege in the relations of power and hence to see in the latter only modulations of the law and of coercion.This does not deny the importance of institutions on the establishment of power relations. Instead, I wish to suggest that one must analyze institutions from the standpoint of power relations, rather than vice versa, and that the fundamental point of anchorage of the relationships, even if they are embodied and crystallized in an institution, is to be found outside the institution. Let us come back to t he definition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain actions may structure the field of other possible actions.What, therefore, would be proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted â€Å"above† society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. In any case, to live in society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible-and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more olitically necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without power relations is not to say either that those which are established a re necessary or, in any case, that power constitutes a fatality at the heart of societies, such that it cannot be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into question of power relations 792 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power nd the â€Å"agonism† between power relations and the intransitivity of freedom is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence. The analysis of power relations demands that a certain number of points be established concretely: 1. The system of differentiationswhich permits one to act upon the actions of others: differentiations determined by the law or by traditions of status and privilege; economic differences in the appropriation of riches and goods, shifts in the processes of production, linguistic or cultural differences, differences in know-how and competence, and so forth.Every relationship of power puts into operation differentiations which are at the same time its conditions and its results. 2. The typesof objectivespursued by those who act upon the actions of others: the maintenance of privileges, the accumulation of profits, the bringing into operation of statutary authority, the exercise of a function or of a trade. 3.The means of bringing power relations into being: according to whether power is exercised by the threat of arms, by the effects of the word, by means of economic disparities, by more or less complex means of control, by systems of surveillance, with or without archives, according to rules which are or are not explicit, fixed or modifiable, with or without the technological means to put all these things into action. 4. Forms of institutionalization: these may mix traditional redispositions, legal structures, phenomena relating to custom or to fashion (such as one sees in the institution of the family); they can also take the form of an apparatus closed in upon itself, with its specific loci, its own regulations, its hierarchical structures which are car efully defined, a relative autonomy in its functioning (such as scholastic or military institutions); they can also form very complex systems endowed with multiple apparatuses, as in the case of the state, whose function is the taking of everything under its wing, the bringing into being of general surveillance, the principle of regulation, and, to a certain extent also, the distribution of all power relations in a given social ensemble. 5. The degrees of rationalization: the bringing into play of power relations as action in a field of possibilities may be more or less elaborate in relation to the effectiveness of the instruments and the certainty of the results (greater or lesser technological refinements employed in the exercise of power) or again in proportion to the possible cost (be it the economic cost of the means brought into operation or the cost in terms of reaction constituted by the resistance which is encountered).The exercise of power is not a naked fact, an instituti onal right, nor is it a structure which holds out or is smashed: it is elaborated, transformed, organized; it endows itself with processes which are more or less adjusted to the situation. One sees why the analysis of power relations within a society cannot be reduced to the study of a series of institutions, not even to the study of Critical Inquiry Summer1982 793 all those institutions which would merit the name â€Å"political. † Power relations are rooted in the system of social networks. This is not to say, however, that there is a primary and fundamental principle of power which dominates society down to the smallest detail; but, taking as point of departure the possibility of action upon the action of others (which is coextensive with every social relationship), multiple forms of individual isparity, of objectives, of the given application of power over ourselves or others, of, in varying degrees, partial or universal institutionalization, of more or less deliberate or ganization, one can define different forms of power. The forms and the specific situations of the government of men by one another in a given society are multiple; they are superimposed, they cross, impose their own limits, sometimes cancel one another out, sometimes reinforce one another. It is certain that in contemporary societies the state is not simply one of the forms or specific situations of the exercise of power–even if it is the most important-but that in a certain way all other forms of power relation must refer to it.But this is not because they are derived from it; it is rather because power relations have come more and more under state control (although this state control has not taken the same form in pedagogical, judicial, economic, or family systems). In referring here to the restricted sense of the word â€Å"government,† one could say that power relations have been progressively governmentalized, that is to say, elaborated, rationalized, and centrali zed in the form of, or under the auspices of, state institutions. Relations of power and relations of strategy. The word â€Å"strategy† is currently employed in three ways. First, to designate the means employed to attain a certain end; it is a question of rationality functioning to arrive at an objective.Second, to designate the manner in which a partner in a certain game acts with regard to what he thinks should be the action of the others and what he considers the others think to be his own; it is the way in which one seeks to have the advantage over others. Third, to designate the procedures used in a situation of confrontation to deprive the opponent of his means of combat and to reduce him to giving up the struggle; it is a question, therefore, of the means destined to obtain victory. These three meanings come together in situations of confrontation-war or games-where the objective is to act upon an adversary in such a manner as to render the struggle impossible for hi m. So strategy is defined by the choice of winning solutions.But it must be borne in mind that this is a very special type of situation and that there are others in which the distinctions between the different senses of the word â€Å"strategy† must be maintained. Referring to the first sense I have indicated, one may call power strategy the totality of the means put into operation to implement power effectively or to maintain it. One may also speak of a strategy proper to 794 Michel Foucault The Subjectand Power power relations insofar as they constitute modes of action upon possible action, the action of others. One can therefore interpret the mechanisms brought into play in power relations in terms of strategies. But most important is obviously the relationship between power relations and confrontation strategies.For, if it is true that at the heart of power relations and as a permanent condition of their existence there is an insubordination and a certain essential obstin acy on the part of the principles of freedom, then there is no relationship of power without the means of escape or possible flight. Every power relationship implies, at least in potentia, a strategy of struggle, in which the two forces are not superimposed, do not lose their specific nature, or do not finally become confused. Each constitutes for the other a kind of permanent limit, a point of possible reversal. A relationship of confrontation reaches its term, its final moment (and the victory of one of the two adversaries), when stable mechanisms replace the free play of antagonistic reactions.Through such mechanisms one can direct, in a fairly constant manner and with reasonable certainty, the conduct of others. For a relationship of confrontation, from the moment it is not a struggle to the death, the fixing of a power relationship becomes a target-at one and the same time its fulfillment and its suspension. And in return, the strategy of struggle also constitutes a frontier fo r the relationship of power, the line at which, instead of manipulating and inducing actions in a calculated manner, one must be content with reacting to them after the event. It would not be possible for power relations to exist without points of insubordination which, by definition, are means of escape.Accordingly, every intensification, every extension of power relations to make the insubordinate submit can only result in the limits of power. The latter reaches its final term either in a type of action which reduces the other to total impotence (in which case victory over the adversary replaces the exercise of power) or by a confrontation with those whom one governs and their transformation into adversaries. Which is to say that every strategy of confrontation dreams of becoming a relationship of power, and every relationship of power leans toward the idea that, if it follows its own line of development and comes up against direct confrontation, it may become the winning strategy .In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally, the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the same links or the same types of intelligibility, Critical Inquiry Summer 1982 795 lthough they refer to the same historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact, it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those fundamental phenomena of â€Å"dom ination† which are present in a large number of human societies.Domination is in fact a general structure of power whose ramifications and consequences can sometimes be found descending to the most recalcitrant fibers of society. But at the same time it is a strategic situation more or less taken for granted and consolidated by means of a long-term confrontation between adversaries. It can certainly happen that the fact of domination may only be the transcription of a mechanism of power esulting from confrontation and its consequences (a political structure stemming from invasion); it may also be that a relationship of struggle between two adversaries is the result of power relations with the conflicts and cleavages which ensue. But what makes the domination of a group, a caste, or a class, together with the resistance and revolts which that domination comes up against, a central phenomenon in the history of societies is that they manifest in a massive and universalizing form, at the level of the whole social body, the locking together of power relations with relations of strategy and the results proceeding from their interaction.

Civil Rights Movement Essay

The civil rights movement in the United States was a political, legal, and social struggle that was organized primarily by black Americans with some help from white America. The civil rights struggle was aimed at gaining full citizenship and racial equality for all Americans, particularly the most discriminated group, African Americans, and was first and foremost a challenge to segregation. Segregation was deeply embedded in the South and was used to control blacks since the reconstruction of the South following the American Civil War. During the civil rights movement, individuals and organizations challenged segregation and discrimination by using a number of methods that included protests, marches, boycotts, and refusing segregation laws. Most historians agree that the civil rights movement began with either the Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 or the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and ended with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; however, there is a lot of debate on when it began a nd ended. There were civil rights issues well into the 1980s. The main tool of discrimination against blacks in the United States was segregation, often called the Jim Crow system. Segregation became common in the South after the Reconstruction when the Democratic Party had gained control of the South and started to reverse black advances made during reconstruction. Jim Crow laws emerged and effectively segregated every aspect of life for blacks in the South. This segregation included, but was not limited to, separate schools, transportation, restaurants, and parks, many of which were inferior to white establishments. In theory, the black and white establishments were to be equal. The denial of voting rights, known as disfranchisement, is how the South controlled segregation. Between 1890 and 1910 virtually all the Southern states passed laws imposing requirements for voting that kept the black voter out. Some of these requirements included, the ability to read and write, property ownership, and paying poll taxes; all these tactics were in direct violation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Blacks were virtually powerless, because they could not vote there was nothing they could do to prevent the segregation of the South. Conditions in the North were slightly better, blacks could vote but there were so few blacks in the North before World War II that their votes barely counted, furthermore, even though segregated facilities in the North did not exist legally, most blacks were denied access to the more affluent facilities. There were civil rights movements prior to the 1960s. The National Afro-American League was formed in 1890 followed by the Niagara Movement in 1905, and then the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909, the NAACP was to have a great impact on the civil rights movement of the 1960s and still continues to exist today. The NAACP became one of the most important organizations that championed civil rights in the twentieth century and relied on a legal strategy that challenged segregation and discrimination against blacks by using the American legal system. There were many cases that the NAACP fought in court that set the precedence for the legal battles during the civil rights movement that would take place twenty to thirty years later. Although the legal battles fought by the NAACP in the 1920s and 1930s did little to change discrimination against blacks they did lay the foundation for a legal and social challenge to the system the South had built. After two world wars and a nationwide depression the civil rights movement that most Americans are familiar with began to emerge. The great depression which devastated the United States in the late 1920s caused a migration of black Americans from the South to other parts of the country, this migration exposed many of them to different views on segregation and discrimination, many of these blacks from the South became the civil rights activist of the 1960s. World War II also caused migrations of large number of blacks within the United States as many blacks found themselves moving up the social ladder as they took over war essential factory jobs. On the other hand, the return of black soldiers that had a new outlook on social and racial equality in the United States most likely was one of the biggest factors that caused the civil rights movements of the 1960s. Not just black Americans were affected by these events; there were many white Americans, even in the South that felt a change was needed. One such white southerner, Harold Fleming wrote: It wasn’t that I came to love Negroes; it was that I came to despise the system that did this. I mean, the nearest thing you could be in the army to being black was to be a company officer with black troops, because you lived and operated under the same circumstances they did, and they got crapped all over . . . You were sort of a second-class officer or a second-class white because of your assignment. Fleming was a conventional white southerner born in Atlanta, Georgia, after he became involved in civil rights issues and according to Fleming, many of his white southern contemporaries would say, â€Å"You ought to know better, being a native-born Georgia white.† With all these factors in place, the civil rights movement in America emerged around the mid 1950s. On 17 May 1954, after hearing arguments on five cases that challenged elementary and secondary school segregation, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that stated racially segregated education was unconstitutional. Although this was an historic ruling that essentially voided the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling of 1896 that established the separate but equal doctrine which was so prevalent in the South. The fundamental problem with the Brown v. Education was that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have a plan to enforce this ruling. The ruling stated that the school cases were class actions and that left the states with the enforcement of this ruling, the court wrote, â€Å"because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity.† At first white Southerners received this ruling with shock, however, by 1955 white opposition had grown into a massive resistance with organizations like the White Citizens Council; this council called for the economic coercion of blacks and whites who favored integrated schools. Schools in the South remained desegregated; this desegregation became a national issue when the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus openly defied a federal court order to admit nine black students to a Little Rock high school on 2 September 1957. The media dramatized the seriousness of desegregation by showing the nation pictures of an American high school being patrolled by federal troops so that black students could be protected from angry white mobs. The civil rights movement quickly moved beyond school desegregation to challenge other unjust institutions in the South. It was Rosa Parks, a member of the Montgomery, Alabama NAACP, who refused to give up her seat to a white person on 1 December 1955; the Montgomery bus boycott that brought the city of Montgomery, Alabama to its knees had begun. Parks was arrested and the black community leaders rallied local blacks to protest segregated buses; this local protest evolved into a national boycott that involved support of over 50,000 blacks and lasted over a year and showed the American public the determination of the blacks to end segregation. During the Montgomery bus boycott the most influential civil rights leader emerged; Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) became, undeniably, the most important figure throughout the civil rights movement. It was King who seemed to have a master plan for the boycott, he emphasized keeping the struggle within the law and advocated nonviolence to achieve the goals of the civil rights movement. During the Montgomery bus boycott, King stated: We are not asking for an end to segregation, that’s a matter for the legislature and the courts. We feel that we have a plan within the law. All we are seeking is justice and fair treatment . . . We don’t like the idea of Negroes having to stand when there are vacant seats. We are demanding justice on that point. King’s and other black leaders along with the protestors of the Montgomery bus boycott hard work eventually paid off, in November 1956, a federal court ordered that Montgomery’s buses desegregate. The Montgomery bus boycott was one of the milestones of the civil rights movement because it established a national civil rights movement that recognized King as the leader and showed that nonviolent protest would work. Four black college students from North Carolina A & T University sat at a white only lunch counter on 1 February 1960 in Greensboro, North Carolina to protest racial segregation; within weeks, these student â€Å"sit-ins† had spread across the South to many cities as a form of protest. In April 1960, The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was founded to help organize and direct the student â€Å"sit-in† movement; SNCC would eventually move into other areas of the civil rights movement. Because SNCC focused on making changes at the local level rather than the national level, many of the accomplishments of this organization did not become nationally known. The â€Å"sit-ins† did make the national news media and it was the New York Times that brought it to a national level. The New York Times published an article that interviewed the store superintendent and the students, the article also told of how white teenagers and Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members tried to bar the way on the fifth day of the Greensboro â€Å"sit-in.† It was the well spoken black student Ezall Blair who told the newspaper on the second day that the students had been â€Å"complacent and fearful† the previous day and that they decided that morning that is was time for black students to â€Å"wake up and change the situation.† By November 1960, one hundred and fifty-five communities across the South had television crews that were filming the demonstrations and the injustice that the students faced, white America, through the use of the mass media was seeing the same scenes over and over and for the first time witnessed segregation in the South; the scenes shown were of students patiently waiting to get served, angry white hecklers, and carloads of students being taken to jail by police. White students joined in, and in the North, many students boycotted the larger stores in the North that had lunch counters in the South, such as Woolworths. The culmination of the â€Å"sit-ins† occurred in Nashville, Tennessee, when, surprisingly, an unlikely ally emerged for the â€Å"sit-ins.† The mayor of Nashville, Ben West, announced that lunch counters in Nashville would not be segregated. When asked why he made that decision, West replied, â€Å"I could not agree that it was morally right for someone to sell them merchandise and refuse them service . . . It was a moral question that a man has to answer, and not a politician.† The â€Å"sit-ins† clearly demonstrated to America that young blacks and whites were determined to reject segregation openly and together. After the â€Å"sit-ins† many of the SNCC members began to participate in freedom rides that started in the summer of 1961, these â€Å"Freedom Riders,† both black and white, traveled the south in buses to test a 1960 Supreme Court decision that stated segregation was illegal in bus stations that were open to interstate travel. These freedom rides were organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and started in Washington, D.C., as the buses moved south more violence was directed towards them. This violence peaked when in Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama, buses were burned and the riders beaten. As a result of the freedom rides, the Attorney General’s Office realized that the Supreme Court decision in the Boynton v. Virginia was not enough to end discrimination on the Interstates and bus stations. In November 1963, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the administration of President John Kennedy intervened and regulations were issued. By 1963, the Attorney General was able to say, â€Å"Systematic segregation of Negroes in interstate transportation has disappeared.† While the freedom rides and â€Å"sit-ins† were happening, SCLC leaders, under the guidance of King, were planning a series of protest campaigns that would happen throughout Southern cities, these campaigns were to be highly publicized and were to break the barriers of age, social status, and race. The demonstrations were to be against racial injustice and required the mobilization of thousands of peaceful demonstrators, both black and white, who were willing to participate in protest marches as long as necessary and who were also willing to be arrested and go to jail to achieve their goals. The first direct action protest took place in the spring of 1961 at Albany, Georgia. The presence of King and other SCLC leaders escalated the Albany protests by bringing national attention to Albany, however, after months of protests the police continued to jail protestors without a show of police violence and the protests ended in failure. The protests continued across the South with see mingly little success. In the spring of 1963, SCLC’s direct action protests finally saw success; sadly, this success was at the expense of many protesters of whom some were elementary age school children. After mass demonstrations had been conducted for several days in Birmingham, Alabama, SCLC begin to send children in to the protests, some of them as young as six. The Birmingham police chief, Eugene Connor, jailed thousands of them and provoked the outrage of parents and caused the media to give undivided attention to the Birmingham protest, this is what King needed to be successful. The next day more children marched and Connor reacted with violence; photographs of high pressure fire hoses and police dog attacks released on peaceful demonstrators appeared on national and international media, producing an international outcry. Eventually some protestors began to fight back and the state police were called in, King called for a twenty-four hour truce. The next day, On 9 May 1963, King announce an agreement with some white business leaders of Birmingham; they agreed to the desegregation of some public facilities within ninety days, progress in hiring and promotion, the release of arrested protestors, and a biracial committee. Birmingham mayor, Art Hanes called the white negotiators â€Å"a bunch of quisling, gutless traitors,† King stated that the settlement was â€Å"the most significant victory for justice we’ve ever seen in the Deep South.† The civil rights movement direct action marches, for the most part, ended with the march on Washington D.C. In August 1963, over 200,000 civil rights supporters conducted a peaceful march in Washington, D.C.; it was at this demonstration that King gave his famous â€Å"I Have a Dream Speech.† Because of this march, President Kennedy proposed a new civil rights law; after Kennedy was assassinated, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress as a tribute to Kennedy. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), SNCC, SCLC, CORE, and NAACP all joined forces in 1964 to work towards establishing voter’s rights for blacks, particularly in the South. Voting rights issues have always been an objective of the civil rights movement, in fact, after the â€Å"sit-ins† and freedom rides, SNCC focused most of their attention on establishing voter’s rights and educating blacks on how to vote. It was most likely the combination of a series of deaths of civil rights workers in the South, and the MFDPs arrival at the Democratic National Convention of 1964 that caused all the different civil rights organizations to work together towards voting rights; It may also have been that simply voter’s rights was the last major obstacle to overcome. It was on 22 August 1964, during the Democratic National Convention, that MFDP member Fannie Lou Hamer, who was from a Mississippi sharecropper family, addressed the nation on national television. Hamer’s sincere and articulate speech made supporters for black voting rights all over the nation. President Johnson, who did not support the MFDP, tried to detract attention from Hamer by conducted a last minute press conference on national television as Hamer was giving her testimony; his ploy did not work. President Johnson recognized the support Hamer was getting and was willing to compromise and recognized the predominately black MFDP. It was the Selma, Alabama march on 7 March 1965 that was the final event to cause the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to happen. SCLC employed direct action techniques in a voting rights protest initiated by SNCC in Selma, when these protest were unsuccessful the protesters began a march to Montgomery, Alabama. As the marchers were leaving Selma, mounted police used tear gas and batons to beat down marchers and others who were not part of the march, this became known as â€Å"Bloody Sunday.† Because the march was televised, the violence shocked many Americans and caused a much-needed national support for a law to protect the Southern blacks’ right to vote. On 15 March 1965, President Johnson announced that he would send a voting rights bill to Congress. In a televised address to a joint session, Johnson spoke on racial injustices and stated, â€Å"Their cause must be our cause, too. Because it’s not just Negroes, but really it’s all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigo! try and injustice,† then he shocked the nation by saying, â€Å"And we shall overcome.† Two days later a voting rights bill went to Congress. On 6 August 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the civil rights movement, according to most historians, ended. Bibliography: Albert, Peter J. and Hoffman, Ronald, eds., We Shall Overcome: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Freedom Struggle. New York: Pantheon Books, 1990.

Nurse Practitioner Schooling How Long Is It What Do You Learn

Nurse Practitioner Schooling How Long Is It What Do You Learn SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Are you thinking about becoming a nurse practitioner? It can be a great way to make more money and have more responsibility at your job.But what options are there for nurse practitioner schooling? How long does it take to become a nurse practitioner? How do you apply, and what do you do once you begin a nurse practitioner program? In this guide, we answer those questions and give you all the information you need to know about nurse practitioner school. What Are Nurse Practitioner Schools? To become a nurse practitioner, you’ll need to get one of two graduate degrees: a Master’s of Science in Nursing (MSN) or a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP).In this section we analyze both of the degrees and give advice on which program you should pursue. Master’s of Science in Nursing Degree The MSN is a master’s program, and the coursework will often be similar to the coursework required to become an RN, although more specialized and at a higher level. You’ll learn the skills needed for patient care and case management so that you’re prepared to handle patients on your own and prescribe medication (if the state you live in allows NPs to write prescriptions). There are MSN programs for all the main nurse practitioner specializations, such as neonatal, family, psychiatric, and women’s health nurse practitioner specializations, among others.The coursework is a mixture of core classes all nurse practitioners take, courses in your field of specialization, and clinical practicum hours. Doctor of Nursing Practice Degree The DNP program covers all the information and skills you’ll learn in an MSN program, but you’ll take additional courses that teach you more about leadership, health care policy, and using evidence-based care in clinical practice, among other areas. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), all DNP programs must have courses that prepare students in the following eight core areas: Scientific underpinnings for practice Organizational and systems leadership for quality improvement and systems thinking Clinical scholarship and analytical methods for evidence-based practice Information systems/technology and patient care technology for the improvement and transformation of health care Health care policy for advocacy in health care Interprofessional collaboration for improving patient and population health outcomes Clinical prevention and population health for improving the nation’s health Advanced nursing practice DNP students must also complete an original scholarly work, often known as the DNP project, that shows they can apply the knowledge they learned to an actual issue affecting nursing. The DNP is a doctorate and a terminal degree, and it provides a broader area of skills than an MSN degree. In addition to learning the skills needed to be an effective nurse practitioner, those who graduate from a DNP program also are better prepared for leadership positions because they have more background in health care policy and better understand how hospitals and other healthcare facilities are run. Which Nurse Practitioner Program Should You Do? Both programs will qualify you to be a nurse practitioner, so you can really do either. Additionally, there isn’t much of a salary difference between nurse practitioners who have their MSN versus those with their DNP (the average annual salary of nurse practitioners across the country is just over $100,000.) MSN programs are shorter and are typically offered by more schools, including more online programs, which can make balancing school and other commitments easier.However, if you’re looking to achieve the top level of nursing education and/or learn more leadership and management skills, a DNP is the better option.Additionally, the AACN recommends that nurses hoping to become nurse practitioners get their DNP instead of their MSN, but they accept both as proper qualification. The choice depends on which program you think works better for your schedule and career plans. Also, you get your MSN, you can later go back and get your DNP in a two-year program if you later decide that’s what you want. How Long Do Nurse Practitioners Go to School? How long does it take to become a nurse practitioner? This answer depends both on your background and which NP degree you want to get, though you can become a nurse practitioner in as little as two years. The length of the two NP programs are as follows: Master’s of Science in Nursing: 2 (sometimes 3) years Doctor of Nursing Practice: 3-4 years However, you need to be a registered nurse (RN) to begin nurse practitioner school. If you already have a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) or an Associate’s Degree in Nursing (ADN) and have worked for several years as an RN, then you can go directly into either of the graduate programs. If, on the other hand, you don’t have a background in nursing, nurse practitioner schooling will take significantly longer.A BSN degree can take four years, although if you already have a bachelor’s degree in another field, there are often shorter programs that only take about two to three years, while an Associate’s Degree in Nursing usually takes two years to complete. This means it could take you up to eight years to become a nurse practitioner, depending on which combination of degrees you get. There are also a few programs that combine either a BSN or an ADN with a nurse practitioner program (often known as â€Å"bridge programs†), which will take less time to complete. These are often about five years, although the exact length of each program will vary based on the school. How Do You Get Into Nurse Practitioner Schools? As mentioned above, to apply to nurse practitioner schools, you need to be an RN with either a BSN or (sometimes) an ADN degree.There are a few nurse practitioner schools that accept students without a nursing background and offer a combined BSN and NP program, but these are uncommon and will take significantly longer than standard nurse practitioner schooling. If you don’t have a background in nursing, you will likely have to complete prerequisites in several course areas before you can begin a joint BS/RN program. Prerequisites will often be in the following areas: Biology Biochemistry Chemistry Human biology Microbiology Nutrition Psychology Statistics If you are an RN, you will also need to have passed the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) exam administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) (which you’d need to pass anyway to work as an RN). Most nurse practitioner programs also require you to have some experience working as a nurse before you start your nurse practitioner degree. One to two years of experience is generally the minimum amount required, but, on average, nurses have ten years of experience before they go to school to become nurse practitioners. You’ll need solid grades, but they don’t need to be as high as they would be if you were applying to med school. Generally, a college GPA of 3.0 or higher is enough to get you into many nurse practitioner programs. Your grades in human biology/anatomy and other classes related to nursing will be the most important. Applying to nurse practitioner school is like a combination of applying to college and applying to a job. Similar to applying to other schools, you'll need to submit transcripts, letters of recommendation, GRE test scores, and personal statements. However, like a job, you'll also need to provide a resume and contact information for references, and you'll likely have at least one interview per school during which you'll discuss your employment history. What Do You Do at a Nurse Practitioner School? Many nurse practitioners describe nurse practitioner school as similar to getting their RN, but faster-paced and with less hand-holding than you may have experienced in undergrad.You’ll generally divide your time between three areas: core classes, classes that focus on the specialtyyou’ve chosen, and clinicals. The core classes will typically focus on issues all nurse practitioners face or need to know how to deal with, such as using evidence-based practices, advanced nursing practices, statistics, pharmacology, and community health. Specialized classes will vary depending on which area you choose to focus in. There are many specialties nurse practitioner students can choose, including acute care, family medicine, neonatal care, oncology, psychiatry, and women’s health.You’ll also typically have to complete 500-800 clinical hours to graduate. Your class grades will usually be based on your scores on both papers and tests, although you’ll likely write more papers in grad school than you did in undergrad.Online nurse practitioner programs as well as hybrid online/in-person programs are also growing in popularity, and more students are choosing this option since it allows for greater flexibility when studying and completing coursework. License requirements for nurse practitioners vary by state but, in general, once you’ve completed your classes, you can then sit for the nurse practitioner exam and, after passing, begin work as a nurse practitioner. Summary: Nurse Practitioner Schooling A nurse practitioner degree allows nurses to make more money and have more responsibilities.In order to become a nurse practitioner, you need to get one of two degrees: a Master’s of Science in Nursing (MSN) or a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP).Both qualify you to become a nurse practitioner, but the DNP is a terminal degree and makes you more qualified for leadership positions. How long does it take to become a nurse practitioner? If you already have your BSN, getting your nurse practitioner degree will take about two to four years, depending on which degree you get.If you don’t have your BSN, it’ll often take longer, up to eight years, to become a nurse practitioner. The application process for nurse practitioner schooling is similar to when you applied for college, although you’ll need to provide more information, such as a resume and references from past employers.Once you start the nurse practitioner program, most students find it similar to nursing school, but faster-paced and with more papers. After you’ve completed nurse practitioner school, you’re able to take your certification test, and, once you pass, you can begin working as a nurse practitioner. What's Next? Are you studying clouds in your science class? Get help identifying the different types of clouds with our expert guide. Writing a research paper for school but not sure what to write about?Our guide to research paper topics has over 100 topics in ten categories so you can be sure to find the perfect topic for you. Have trouble understanding what dynamic equilibrium is?We break this sometimes tricky concept down so it's easy to understand in our complete guide to dynamic equilibrium. (coming soon)

ESL Holiday essay Essay Example

ESL Holiday essay Essay Example ESL Holiday essay Essay ESL Holiday essay Essay ESL Holiday essay BY KLtn Essay: Relationships and experiences shape an individuals sense of belonging. To what extent do the texts that you have studied support this idea? Relationship and experiences are two of the most common things in peoples life; they can shape peoples sense of belonging. A sense of belonging is the bond between people or something. Relationship like the brotherhood between brothers can form a strong sense of belonging between them. Experience such as life experience or Just a talk with someone can also shape peoples sense of belonging to something. Both of them ake place to such a great extent that happens to anyone, which can be seen from the film Billy Elliot by Stephen Daldry, the play Educating Rita by Willy Russell and the fiction Enders Game by Orson Scott Card. A sense of belonging between brothers is usually shaped by the brotherhood. In the orientation of Enders Game, Ender and his old brother Peter are playing a wrestling game where Peter obviously dominates Ender. After he beats Ender down on the floor he puts his toe against Enders groin and puts more and more weight on Ender, Ender can hardly breathe. Then Peter ays l could kill you like this. The emotive verb kill tells us that Peter tends to rule over his younger brother. Peters lack of mercy on Ender shows a bad relationship between the brothers. Similarly, in Billy Elliot, during the orientation of the story, when Tony finds out Billy has played his record, he asks aggressively: you have been playing my record? You little twat. The use of abusive language twat towards his younger brother shows their brotherhood lacking harmony. This is further emphasized as Tony takes Billys book, whacks on Billys head and calls Billy nob- ead However, as the proverb Blood is thicker than water goes, the true brotherhood love between brothers is unbreakable. It may be not that peaceful, but the sense of belonging between them shaped by their brotherhood will last forever. The night after Peter beats Ender, he sneaks to Enders bedroom and kissed him on his forehead and whispered Ender, Im sorry I love you, the comparison between the emotive words kill in the previous and the emotive word love conveys that no matter how unhappy brothers have been, the sense of belonging between them can lways call love back. The same idea is shown in the Billy Elliot when Jackie and Tony go to London to see Billys performance. Through a series of long shots showing Jackie and Tonys movement, Stephen gives us a comparison between the two characters. Jackie moves slowly, whereas Tony is in a hurry all the time. He runs in every single shot, and urges Jackie to hurry up with imperative tone, such as Dad! , Come on! and We are gonna be late. While they are on the escalator, through a high angle shot, both of them are depicted vulnerable in comparison to the big city. Jackie is fully shocked by the magnificence, as we can see he stands still and looks up at the ceiling; however, Tony is not impressed by anything. Although he also hasnt seen the great city before, his sense of belonging to Billy urges him to see Billys performance as early as possible. Relationship, the brotherhood, between the two brothers forms strong sense of belonging between them respectively. The sense of belonging to brothers shaped by their brotherhood is unbreakable as displayed in both texts. Moreover, peoples experience can also shape their sense of belonging. In er life experience. During one of the setbacks, Ms. Wilkinson and Billy are waiting on the bridge. When Ms. Wilkinson tells Billy the story Swan Lake, she is implying a metaphor for her own life. She was once a ballet dancer like the girl who was the princess; she was entrapped in the town like the princess who was turned into a swan; she used to have a strong sense of belonging to ballet but now it is dead, Just like the wrong ending she tells Billy shes dead ts Just a ghost story. Her sense of belonging is dead because of her life experience. Through a long shot at bottom ngle, the composer shows the magnificent steel bridge, which is like a huge cage exerting a massive depression to both characters. Audience can also experience the pressure, from Billys point of view. The bridge is the symbol of the town which entraps both of them. The next shot shows Billy is looking up the bridge like a bird who wants to break the cage, whereas Ms. Wilkinson Just smokes and doesnt even bother looking at anything. This indicates that Billy wants to break the cage and see the outside world, whereas Ms. Wilkinson has lost all motivation to chase her dream nd accepts what she has now. Her sense of belonging to ballet is re-shaped by her life experience in Everington where ballet dance is not valued. While in the play Educating Rita, Ritas sense of belonging to education is shaped through a talk with her mum. During the setbacks of the story in Scene7 Actl, Rita goes to pub with her mother and husband. Her mother explains why she cried: because we could sing better songs than those. The songs are metaphor for life. The use of subjunctive mood clearly shows that Ritas mother is regretting she didnt get educated when she was young. Rita also sees her mother as a mirror for her life, as she says:thats why I came back and thats way Im staying. The use of repetition further stresses that she doesnt want to be the image in the mirror of her mother. She wants to be educated; she wants to sing better songs. Her sense of belonging to education is not only shaped but also strengthened by it. Both characters sense of belonging have been shaped through their personal experience as demonstrated above In conclusion, relationship between people and their experience have such a great impact on peoples sense of belonging that they can shape peoples sense of belonging.