Causes and Effects of the Crus Essay Example

Causes and Effects of the Crus Essay Towards 1071 AD, Seldjuk Turks had grown powerful and had started conquering the East. Christians began to find it difficult to reach the holy places during their pilgrimages. The military expeditions planned and fought by western European Christians that began around 1095 AD, are known today as the Holy Wars, or the Crusades. The purpose of these expeditions was to overtake and gain control of the holy land of Jerusalem, from the Muslims. Deus Vult, meaning God Wills It, was the battle cry of the thousands of Christians who took part in the event of the Crusades. It was Christian belief that fate was to gain control of the Holy Land for the glory of God. In the year of 1095 AD, Pope Urban II started the Crusades. On November 18, 1095 AD, Pope Urban II opened the Council of Clermont. Nine days later, the Pope made a speech just outside the French city of Clermont-Ferrand.During this speech, Pope Urban II had called the Christians to join a holy war Holy War to reclaim the Holy Lands as an act of Christianity. Pope Urban II stayed in France until September 1096 in hopes of providing leadership and control for the First Crusaders. Soon, his famous speech had begun to spread throughout the west, and many people of different social classes started joining the crusading army. For peasants, the crusade let them be free of feudal bonds. Everyone was also promised immediate salvation in heaven if they were killed in trying to free the holy land from non-Christians. This goaded many people to become part in this battle. Soon, Urban lost all control of the vast army that was far beyond his control. Therefore, he did not have to power to stop the slaughter of Jews in northern France, and so many other populations in the East and in Europe. At this time, and at the start of the crusades, the Pope had little real power over Christianity. Urban was hoping that the Crusades would help strengthen his power and

In Quest of a Standard American Pronunciation

In Quest of a Standard American Pronunciation In Quest of a Standard American Pronunciation In Quest of a Standard American Pronunciation By Maeve Maddox American English has many regional variants, some of them more comprehensible than others. Along with spelling rules, schools once taught a standard pronunciation. The purpose was to maintain a standard speech easily understood by people in every part of the country and by non-native speakers who learn English as a second language. No one doubted that children were capable of learning the standard speech without abandoning whatever dialect they spoke at home. Now, however, a doctrine of political correctness inhibits the teaching of standard pronunciation with the result that the media has become the final arbiter. Certain pronunciations that were once considered non-standard are catching on, even when they fly in the face of rules I imagined were still being taught in the early grades. Apparently it is now possible to get out of school without learning the most basic rules for forming the plurals of nouns. I think I knew by fourth grade that the nouns life, knife, and wife form their plurals by changing the f to v and adding es. Yet I have heard an announcer on NPR use lifes as the plural of life. Ignoring the First Rule of Silent Final e (e makes the vowel say its name). I was startled to attention one day when I heard someone on the radio talking about gas-powered micro-turbans. I figured out from the context that the intended word was turbines. Another time I heard someone pronounce finite as if it would rhyme with mine it instead of pronouncing both vowels as long is. An NPR reporter once described a scene in which people were wielding staves (plural of staff). She pronounced staves as stavs. The sounds of s, sh, and zh Ive heard the word coercion /co er shun/ pronounced co er zhun, and the word resource /re sors/ pronounced rezorse. One of the most interesting drifts Ive noticed concerns the pronunciation of the noun house /hous/ and its plural houses /houz iz/. (NOTE: When the word house is used as a verb, the s is pronounced /z/.) Until fairly recently, the pronunciation of the plural houses with a soft s /hous iz/ was a nonstandard regionalism not even mentioned in the dictionary. Now, however, the pronunciation has been spread by announcers from the eastern and northern areas of the United States. (The same ones who pronounce tourist /toor ist/ as tor ist.) TV Meltdown Because actors come from different parts of the country, their pronunciations of certain words vary. I listened in fascination one evening to the actors in an episode of Numbers. The plot required them all to say the word houses numerous times. Some of them said /houz iz/ and some said /hous iz/. If I remember correctly, one actor used both pronunciations, in different sentences! Its probably time for English teachers to take a united stand for a standard pronunciation. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Spelling category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:25 Subordinating Conjunctions7 Tips for Writing a Film ReviewNarrative, Plot, and Story

The use of the Alternative voting system in parliamentary elections Essay

The use of the Alternative voting system in parliamentary elections would improve democracy in the united kingdom - Essay Example These reforms are sometimes evolutionary in nature and take place gradually over a long time-period; sometimes are revolutionary in nature and takes place at the spur of a moment; while at other times are deliberately brought in through changes in the legislation. UK has seen in many such reforms that have made it a modern democracy with elected representatives, from being a monarchic state (Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, 2007, 9). My article will examine the current electoral changes that have been proposed, which signal the ushering in of the Alternative Voting system (AVs). This topic has been in debate in the UK parliament for quite some years, and is currently under review, in the House of Lords and the Parliament. My article will explore to find out whether the changes in the electoral processes that will bring in use of the Alternative Voting System or AVs in parliamentary elections, would actually work towards improving democracy in United Kingdom. Discus sion What is AV: â€Å"AV represents a very simple change to our current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) voting system. The principle behind AV is a no-brainer: the winner in an election should need the support of a majority of the people. AV makes this happen with ‘preference voting’. ... In the present electoral process that is known as the First-Past-the–Post or FPTP, Candidate ‘A’ has garnered the maximum number of votes, and is the clearly the winner, though he hasn’t received even 50% of the total vote share, that is, majority of the voters are not backing him, yet under the present legislation, yet he must be declared the winner, thus casting aspirations on the true nature of UK democracy. However, under AV we find there are certain changes in the whole process that are certainly more democratic in nature. â€Å"With AV voters’ ‘first preferences’ are counted as before. As no candidate has 50% support the last placed candidate, ‘D’, is eliminated, and her supporters’ second preferences are transferred to the others. Still no candidate has 50% support, so candidate ‘C’ drops out and his voters’ second choices are transferred. ‘B’ emerges with majority support. She wins!†(Ibid.) Is AV more democratic in nature? A basic problem of the FPTP system that undermines the very meaning of the word democracy is that, often under this process the candidate who does not have the support of the majority of the voters, emerge as the winner. AV addresses this fundamental problem, and ensures that the winner is the person who genuinely enjoys the support of the maximum number of the voters in UK. Thus, we find we find that this system represents a more fair form of the electoral procedure, which brings forth the person who is the actual choice of the majority. The FPTPs that is in use in present day UK general elections and also used for local councils in England and Wales, is an ancient and rather outdated process, which started during the

Two Kinds and Everyday Use Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Two Kinds and Everyday Use - Essay Example The mother sees being in America a tremendous opportunity to succeed in life, as when she said, â€Å"of course, you can be a prodigy too.† This is synonymous with her dreams of making it big in America and be a success in life through her own daughter. In fact, she believed anyone can be anything what one wanted in America (open a nice restaurant and be an entrepreneur or be self-employed, work in government and get a good salary and a good retirement package too, buy a house with little or no down payment at all, to get rich, or to become famous). In other words, the conflict between the mother and daughter in this story is that of the clash of cultural norms, attitudes, and values in which the mother saw the need to work hard to be successful while the daughter sees it differently. Her daughter wanted to be left alone, so to speak, to pursue her own desires and dreams, to be not dictated by anybody, not even her mother. Their personal conflict is intensified due to this cultural difference, in which the two of them are working on different paradigms (or mindset). In other words, the title â€Å"Two Kinds† could mean an entirely different thing, that of two worlds, China and the United States (Bloom, 2009, p. 2). In the case of Maggie, people would naturally be sympathetic to her because of what had happened to her. She got burn scars when their house burned down, which some readers had suspected to be set by Dee because she intensely disliked their old and run-down house of which she is ashamed to even invite her own friends over to their old house. Besides, the character of Maggie is that of a shy girl, introverted and demure to the extent she did not bother to attend the school in their area to get a proper education. In a sense, she is the epitome of what a good kind of daughter that every mother wants a daughter to be, one who is obedient and submissive. The character

A mid summer nights dream Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

A mid summer nights dream - Essay Example You will find that the entire plot collapses, in the absence of that simple-looking character; the story has lost most of its punch and strength! What laurels did Puck bring to the play, without being an important member of the team and what are his strengths and weaknesses? The character of Puck in â€Å"A Mid Summer Nights Dream,† is falls into the above category. He is there through the entire plot of drama, as if what they call—from the cradle to the grave and from the womb to the tomb. He doesn’t occupy the front seat in the sequence of characters. Yet, he controls them all with his witticisms and tricks. There is not a single character in the play that is not affected by the tricks of Puck; some of them are ‘injured seriously,’ with the Puck’s humor blow. He hits them hard by the deft handling of the meandering situations/graphs in the drama. In the ‘politics’ of the drama, Puck is an important political worker, who pulls and controls the strings from behind the curtain. He creates confusing situations, but also has the pre-panned solutions. He articulates crisis but knows that every crisis is an opportunity to further the cause of the overall beauty of the drama. The audience falls in love with him instantly. He is perhaps aware, what all complications his pranks are going to create. He is a dynamic spirit, but at times, Puck’s dynamism proves to be destructive. Some of his actions should have invited legal actions—but unfortunately such legal provisions to govern the affairs of love, did no exist during the Shakespearean times! He commits the serious mistake of applying the love potion to Lysander instead of Demetrius, thus causing total confusion amidst the group of lovers. His transforming Bottom’s head into that of an ass is difficult to condone taking into consideration the problem s that it created for Bottom! This

Howard Becker Criminology | A Theory Analysis

Howard Becker Criminology | A Theory Analysis With close reference to a selection from your research/reading (minimum 3 references by or about your criminologist), critically assess the contribution made by your author to criminological knowledge. You should focus closely on how he /she developed critiqued or applied theory. INTRODUCTION Howard Becker is hailed as the founder of modern labeling theory. He also developed the term moral entrepreneur to describe persons in power who campaign to have certain deviant behavior outlawed (Becker, 1963). He claims that many laws are established for such purposes, and that behavior that is defined as criminal is dynamic and changes throughout time. Therefore, the actual criminal behavior is irrelevant to the theory. What really matters is which outlaws are arrested and processed by the criminal justice system (Becker, 1963). As a result of the belief that personal and societal factors do not contribute to motivations for criminal behavior there has been little study of the criminal him/herself and the aforesaid factors. As one might expect, this aspect of Labeling Theory is still being debated. There is one exception to this belief, however most labeling theorists claim that the system is biased toward the lower class, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of arrests and convictions within the American criminal justice system (Wellford, 1975). This Labeling Theory, found in Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963), is perhaps his most important and influential contribution to sociology. Influenced by Cooleys looking-glass self, Meads theories on the internalization of the self, and Lemerts social constructionism, Becker explains that deviance is based on the reactions and responses of others to an individuals acts. The label of deviant is applied to an individual when others observe their behavior and react to it by labeling that person as deviant. No particular act is inherently deviant until a group with socially powerful statuses or positions label it as such (Becker, 1963). This theoretical approach to deviance has influenced criminology, gender, sexuality and identity research. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes: social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.[8] While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to justify his actions. He wrote: To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation.[9] INFLUENCES Beckers theory evolved during a period of social and political power struggle that was amplified within the world of the college campus (Pfohl, 1994). Liberal political movements were embraced by many of the college students and faculty in America (Pfohl 1994). Howard Becker harnessed this liberal influence and adjusted Lemerts labeling theory and its symbolic interaction theoretical background. The labeling theory outlined in Outsiders is recognized as the prevailing social reaction approach by Lemert as well as most other sociologists (www.sonoma.edu). Beckers approach has its roots in the symbolic interaction foundation of Cooley and Mead, and the labeling influences of Tannenbaum and Lemert. Charles Cooleys Human Nature and the Social Order (1902) examines the personal perception of oneself through studies of children and their imaginary friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability (Cooley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main idea of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to societys perception of them (www.d.umn.edu). Cooleys ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a persons acceptance of labels as attached by society. George Meads theory is less concerned with the micro-level focus on the deviant and more concerned with the macro-level process of separating the conventional and the condemned (Pfohl 1994). In Mind, Self, and Society (1934), Mead describes the perception of self as formed within the context of social process (Wright, 1984). The self is the product of the minds perception of social symbols and interactions (www.d.umn.edu ). The self exists in objective reality and is then internalized into the conscious (Wright 1984). The idea of shifting the focus away from the individual deviant and looking at how social structure affects the separation of those persons considered unconventional has a great influence on how Becker approaches labeling theory. Social Pathology (1951) outlines Edwin Lemerts approach to what many consider the original version of labeling theory. Lemert, unhappy with theories that take the concept of deviance for granted, focuses on the social construction of deviance (Lemert 1951). Lemert (1951) describes deviance as the product societys reaction to an act and the affixing of a deviant label on the actor. Social Pathology details the concepts of primary and secondary deviance. According to Lemert (1951), primary deviance is the initial incidence of an act causing an authority figure to label the actor deviant. This initial labeling of a deviant act will remain primary as long as the actor can rationalize or deal with the process as a function of a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1951). If the labeled deviant reacts to this process by accepting the deviant label, and further entrenches his/herself in deviant behavior, this is referred to as secondary deviance (Lemert, 1951). Lemert considers the causes of p rimary deviance as fluid, and only important to researchers concerned with specific social problems at a certain time. In the years following Social Pathology, Lemert argues for the decriminalization of victimless crimes, advocates pre-trial diversion programs, and has backed away labeling determinism (Wright, 1984). BECKERS LABELLING THEORY Howard Beckers approach to the labeling of deviance, as described in Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963), views deviance as the creation of social groups and not the quality of some act or behavior. Becker (1963) criticizes other theories of deviance for accepting the existence of deviance and by doing so, accept the values of the majority within the social group. According to Becker (1963), studying the act of the individual is unimportant because deviance is simply rule breaking behavior that is labeled deviant by persons in positions of power. The rule breaking behavior is constant, the labeling of the behavior varies (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes rules as the reflection of certain social norms held by the majority of a society, whether formal or informal. Enforced rules, the focus of Beckers (1963) approach, are applied differentially and usually facilitate certain favorable consequences for those who apply the label. In short, members of the rule-maki ng society may label rule breaking behavior deviant depending on the degree of reaction over time (Becker, 1963). Becker (1963) views those people that are likely to engage in rule breaking behavior as essentially different than members of the rule-making or rule-abiding society. Those persons who are prone to rule-breaking behavior see themselves as morally at odds with those members of the rule-abiding society (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) uses the term outsider to describe a labeled rule-breaker or deviant that accepts the label attached to them and view themselves as different from mainstream society. Deviants may consider themselves more outside than others similarly labeled (Becker 1963). Deviant outsiders might view those rule making or abiding members of society as being the outsiders of their social group (Becker, 1963). The final step in the creation of a career delinquent involves the movement of a rule breaker into a deviant subculture (Becker, 1963). The affiliation of the labeled deviant with an organized provides the person with moral support and a self-justifying rationale (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how those involved in an organized crime may learn new forms of deviance through differential association. Becker (1963) also focuses on those in positions of power and authority that make and enforce the rules. Rules are created by a moral entrepreneur, a person that takes the initiative to crusade for a rule that would right a society evil (Becker 1963). The moral entrepreneurs motive may be to elevate the social status of those members of society below him/her (Becker 1963). The success of the crusade may lead to the entrepreneur to become a professional rule creator (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) states that the success of each moral crusade brings along with it a new group of outsiders, and a new responsibility of an enforcement agency. According to Becker (1963), the enforcement of societys rules is an enterprising act. The enforcement of a rule occurs when those that want a rule enforced, usually to some sort of gain to their personal interests, bring the rule infraction to the attention of the public (Becker 1963). The rule infraction, brought to the attention of those in positions of authority, is dealt with punitively by the entrepreneur (Becker, 1963). The enforcement of the rule may involve the mediation of conflicts between many different interest groups by those in positions of power (Becker, 1963). The enforcers themselves may have a moral crusade to stop crime, but most engage in the process strictly as a part of their occupation (Becker 1963). Rule enforcers use the process of formal enforcement to satisfy two major interests, the justification of their occupation and the winning of respect from the people he/she patrols (Becker, 1963). The enforcer is armed with a great deal of discretion and may use hi s/her power to label an innocent person in order to gain respect (Becker, 1963). The misuse of labeling powers by enforcers may create a deviant out of a person who otherwise would not be prone to rule breaking behavior (Becker, 1963). Beckers work pays particular attention to the way society reacts to people with criminal labels. He proposes that this label becomes a persons master status, meaning that this is a constant label, affecting and over-riding how others will view them. The status people use to identify and classify a person will always be that of a criminal. Any other statuses a person occupies are no longer heeded. A person could be a parent, employee, spouse, etc., but the first and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963). Beckers Outsiders (1963) uses two cases to illustrate his approach to labeling theory. Becker (1963) analyzes the history of marijuana laws in the United States and how individuals progress into the recreational use of the drug. Becker (1963) chooses to analyze marijuana because the progression of use can be observed. The first time user of marijuana finds the experience as somewhat unpleasant, but as the user imitates peers he/she learns to perceive the effects of marijuana as enjoyable (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) identifies three stages of marijuana use: the beginner, the occasional user, and the regular user. The three self-explanatory categories of marijuana users can be manipulated through the use of social controls (Becker, 1963). Control of the marijuana supply has both positive and negative effects (Becker, 1963). A diminished supply of marijuana may lead to a decreased use of the drug among some people, but it may also drive a user to associate with an organized group of deviants to obtain marijuana (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) believes that while control of marijuana supply is an important social control, it does not deter use. The best way to deter a user is to control his/her individual moral view of marijuana use. A marihuana user is labelled to be deviant as it contravenes the rules and norms of the society. Becker researched on marihuana users and used it in supporting his labelling theory . Becker notes that this deviant behaviour is based on the given kind of behaviour as an end product of a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a comprehension of the meaning of the behaviour, the perceptions and judgements of objects and situations, all of which makes the activity possible and desirable. An individual will only be able to use marihuana for pleasure if he goes through a process of learning to conceive of it as an object where he is able to recognise the effects and connect them with drug use; to inhale in a way that produce real upshot; and learning to enjoy the sensation he comprehends. Once the ability to achieve enjoyment is acquired, he will continue to use it. (continuing usage of the marihuana is the secondary deviant) Considerations of morality and appropri ateness, occasioned by the rejoinder of society, may hamper and impede use, but use persists to be a possibility in terms of the notion of the drug. The act will only be impossible when the ability to achieve the enjoyment is vanished, through a revolutionize of users conception of the drug occasioned by certain kind of experience with it. Becker (1963) uses a participant observation study of the lives of Chicago dance musicians to illustrate the social life of a deviant subculture. Although dance musicians as a group are law-abiding, their unconventional lifestyles lead them to feel as outsiders (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how being a dance musician involves a change in attitudes and opinions in order to conform to the subculture. The culture of the dance musician is rich in its own language and gestures (Becker, 1963). Many of the dance musicians live a conventional family life during the day and change into their role as musician at night (Becker, 1963). Another aspect of labelling theory in which Becker outlines as problematic, is the concept of morality. He questions a situation where the researchers sympathies should lie. He contemplates on whether one should side with the underdog or simply judge criminal behaviour as inherently wrong? He stresses the sociological difficulty of this decision. He claims that the researcher, whether taking either side, will be accused of taking a one-sided and distorted view, but how is it possible to see the situation from both sides simultaneously (Becker, 1963)? Despite many contributions, the evaluation of labelling theorists is normally considered with an excessive amount of criticism. Becker concludes Outsiders (1963) by emphasizing the need for empirical research of his approach to labeling theory. Social scientists produced a vast amount of literature in response to Beckers request. Much of the research involving labeling theory directly reflects Beckers approach, while others use Becker (1963) as a foundation for theory development. APPLICATION Gideon Fishman tests Beckers labeling theory by studying a sample of midwestern juvenile delinquents (Friday and Stewart, 1977). Fishmans research design measures negative self-perception and whether this self-perception affects future delinquency (Friday and Stewart, 1977). The results of Fishmans study show that secondary deviance is not universal and individuals react to deviant labels in different ways (Friday and Stewart, 1977). A popular application of Beckers labeling theory (1963) is in the area of mental health. Thomas Scheff embraces Beckers approach to labeling and describes how people are labeled mentally ill in order to explain certain rule-breaking behavior that society cant categorize (Holstein, 1993; www.sscf.ucsb.edu). Scheff is not concerned with occasional acts of deviance, rather it is the residual or episodic deviance that often falls under the label of mental illness (Wright, 1984; Pfohl, 1994). People labeled as mentally ill adopt the behaviors of the stereotypical mental patient as portrayed through the mass media (Wright 1984). Scheff argues that those who express the stereotypical behavior of the mentally ill are rewarded by enterprising psychology professionals (Wright, 1984; Pfohl, 1994). According to Scheff, everybody expresses the popular symptoms of mental illness at some point in their life and labels are attached to those without power (Wright 1984). Scheff provides empirical evid ence in the form of several studies of the process of mental hospital commitment (Holstein, 1993; Pfohl, 1994; Wright, 1983; www.sscf.ucsb.edu). Many social scientists challenge Scheffs arguments on theoretical and empirical grounds. James A. Holstein (1993) attacks Scheffs approach for focusing on the deviant and not the moral entrepreneurs that attach the labels. Florence Ridlon (1988) criticizes Scheffs work for being deterministic and argues for a less causal model to explain mental afflictions such as alcoholism. Walter Gove (1980), an adamant critic of Scheff, believes that Scheff should not dismiss the influence of psychopathological variables on mental illness. Gove (1980) also criticizes Scheffs empirical methodology and operations. Edwin Schur modifies Beckers labeling theory in Labeling Deviant Behavior (1971) by shifting some of the focus to the individual deviant. Schur (1971) also theorizes that as persons labeled deviant gain power and organize, they progress in social definition from an uprising, social movement, and civil war to the formation of a mainstream political party. Schur argues in Labeling Women Deviant (1983) that women in America are automatically labeled deviant by the male-dominated society. Women accept the deviant label as their master status and limit their life chances (Schur, 1983). CRITICISMS Beckers theory of labeling, while maintaining a great deal of popularity today, does encounter several criticisms (Pfohl 1994; www.mpcc.cc.ne.us ; Ridlon 1988). Many sociologists view labeling theory as untestable and, by definition, not a true theory (Ridlon 1988). Becker (1963) acknowledges that his labeling theory is a theoretical approach, not a true theory, and that sociologists should attempt to establish empirical tests for his approach. Another major criticism of labeling theory is its failure to explain primary deviance (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us). Both Lemert (1951) and Becker (1963) believe that primary deviance is influenced by many different and changing variables and the research of primary deviance causes is futile. Pfohl (1994) details the criticism of many sociologists that labeling theory is causal or deterministic. Becker (1963) qualifies his approach to social reaction theory by stating that some groups of rule-breakers may be able to choose alternative courses of action. Beckers immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that while sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote: I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do.[10] Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20 years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded structuring perspective.[11] From a logical standpoint there are flaws within the main points of labeling theory. Initially the theory states that no acts are inherently criminal (Wellford, 1975). Meaning that acts are only criminal when society has deemed them as such. The implications of this being that criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to society. But if this is true then why are certain acts illegal within the majority of the civilized world? Murder, rape, arson, armed robbery. All these are considered crimes in any society or country one could care to name. Also the theory claims that for a criminal to be successfully labeled an audience must be present to provide a reaction to the crimes committed. Does this mean that if a murder is committed where the killer has successfully avoided anyones suspicion that the act is then not criminal and the killer will not think of him/herself as such? Its probable that the murderers socialization and/or value system could initialize self-labeling, but the theory clearly states the labeling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973). For the sake of argument, if self labeling is possible and a person has obtained a self-initialized criminal master status/label, how do they react to it? Do they become criminals or try to rationalize as stated by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (Foster Dinitz Reckless, 1972)? Beckers labelling theory has also drawn to a considerable criticism. One of such is that his labelling theory failed to answer the etiological question about primary deviance, for example: What causes deviance? Jack Gibbs pointed out that the theory failed to provide ample answers to three etiological questions: Why does the prevalence of a particular act vary from one population to the next? Why do some persons commit the act while others do not? Why is the act in question considered deviant and criminal in some societies but not in others? This clearly shows that labelling theory is mere humanistic-antideterministic or voluntaristic hypothesis only . Then again, recent activists of the theory beginning to shift the labelling theory into a more scientific, deterministic one, and this approach is apparent in empirical studies of the secondary deviance. Instead of describing the process of interaction between labellers and the labelled that leads to secondary deviance, these revisioni sts defined, operationalised or measure labelling as a causal variable of secondary deviation. CONCLUSION Social scientists disagree on the future of labeling theory. Pfohl (1994) recognizes labeling theory as very influential in todays studies of deviance. Some social scientists view labeling theory as declining in importance due to lack of empirical support and a conservative political climate (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us ). Becker (1963) believes the future of labeling theory lies in the widespread empirical study of deviance and kinds of deviance. Beckers analysis gives us a dynamic account of how a person can be funneled into a deviant career by labeling processes. This is also a compellingly humanistic theory of deviance. We can identify and sympathize with the deviant who has been the victim of labeling processes, even to the extent of realizing that it could happen to any of us. In this and many other respects, Beckers micro-relativistic approach to deviance theory contrasts markedly with normative theories that emphasize in a detached, objective way the fundamental differences between deviants and nondeviants. If Becker makes us understand the human implications of reactions to deviance, then he has accomplished one of his major theoretical goals. In attempting to evaluate the contribution of the labelling theorists to the study of the sociology of deviance, it can be said that it depends on how the theory is viewed. If the theory is considered as a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, then its flaws are many. Yet if, as Backer suggests, we attempt to consider the theory as it were intended, that is, as a mere way of looking at deviance, then the contribution can be said to be weighty, as it opened up a whole new study of the individual after he has committed an act of deviance. At this point it must be mentioned that labelling theorists do not merely consider the after-effects of the deviant act, as it is sometimes suggested. Becker, for example, considers the individual and how he begins to smoke marijuana. As Schur sums up, labelling theory is not a revolutionary new approach to the analysis of social problems but rather a recording or emphasis of such analysis, a reordering that may hel p us to view deviance and control in a realistic, comprehensive, and sociologically meaningful light. As such, one can conclude that labelling theory continues in its usefulness, as long as deviant behaviour continues to exist.

Indigenous Art History and the Education System Essay -- Indigenous Ar

â€Å"His Buffalo and horses are always in motion--they're running for their lives. They can't be caught. That's real freedom†(Lee). In the American educational system the curriculum is supposedly designed to enrich the hearts and minds of all the students who wish to become enriched. Professional educators throughout western civilization compose their contributions as to what is considered to be in the best interests of the students. However, some oversights have been made apparent. The history of Indigenous American Art has been ignored, for too long, at the expense of the students who happen to be the descendants of the first peoples of this continent. Furthermore these students also happen to be the majority within the Los Angeles Unified School District; whether these students are of American, Canadian, Mexican, or Central American ethnicity they almost always have one thing in common, the indigenous blood that runs through their veins. Science has established that environment greatly influences behavior, whether that environment is a classroom, a home, or the American Continent. Subsequently, this continent is reflected within the hearts and minds of its people, and inevitably in our artistic expression. We the first people of this continent have existed here for thousands of years before the western civilization stumbled its way to this side of the planet. Indigenous American Art and its history play a vital part in our facet of the human experience. What's more, it is fundamental for fulfilling our potential and responsibilities as human beings. In addition to the contribution to our collective psyche, indigenous art is a historical and anthropological timeline of natural and supernatural phenomena. It is apparent that ... ...de as we all account for each other and ourselves with clear wisdom and responsibility before creation. Works Cited Gangel-Vasquez, Janice. â€Å"Re: Native Art History II†. Email to the author. 17 August. 2003. Lee, Jeff and Donna Hand. â€Å"2 dimensional Art-Ed Defender†. Trophies of Honor. 9 Aug. 2003. www.msstate.edu/Fineart_O...troph1.htm Martà ­n del Campo, Edgar. â€Å"Mesoamerican Deities†. Edgar†s Mesoamerican art page. 7 Oct. 1996. 9 Aug. 2003. members.aol.com/emdelcamp/edgar2.htm McMaster, Gerald R. â€Å"Towards an Aboriginal Art History†. Native American Art in the Twentieth Century. Ed. W. Jackson Rushing III. New York. Routledge. 1999. 81-96. Moreno, Lisa M. â€Å"RudyResponse†. E-mail to author. 15 Aug. 2003. Surrounded by beauty: History and Culture. 9 Aug. 2003. The Minneapolis Institute of Arts. www. Artsmia.org/surrounded-bybeauty/history_culture.html