Project Management in Arabian gulf Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Project Management in Arabian gulf - Term Paper Example the level of the state the following issues need to be taken into consideration: a) the resources required for the development of projects related to the public sector are usually limited, compared to the private sector where the needs of projects in terms of funding, staff or infrastructure can be covered easier; b) projects of the public sector are more difficult to be closely monitored due to the high bureaucracy that characterizes the particular sector; c) tight deadlines are often not welcomed in the public sector where the time required for identifying necessary resources or completing the paperwork related to the project can be extremely high; in the private sector where no such issues appear it is quite easy to avoid delays in the completion of a project under the terms that the resources required have been identified in advance and d) in the public sector the potentials for introducing changes in a project which is in progress are rather limited, since such initiative needs to be approved by the authority which gave the permission for the project’s beginning. Current paper focuses on the characteristics and the performance of project management in Arabian Gulf. The particular area is characterized by major construction projects, as explained below. Projects in other sectors are also periodically developed in the specific region according to the local needs. It is revealed that the performance of project management in Arabian Gulf is quite high with signs for further growth. Still, it is necessary that appropriate measures are taken so that the monitoring of these projects to be improved; in this way, the projects’ costs will be kept low while the chances for the successful implementation of these projects will be significantly increased. The paper has been divided into four parts. Apart from the Introduction and the Conclusion sections of the project, as they are included in Part A and Part D, emphasis should be given on Part B, where explanations

What Type of Parent I Will Be Essay Example for Free

What Type of Parent I Will Be Essay To be able to decide what type of parent I will be and discuss my issues I feel I may come across when the time comes; I first need to decide what style of parent I feel I will have. In order to do this I have researched Dr. Diane Baumrind’s three styles of parenting; permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. (Baumrind, 1967). All three of these styles vary dramatically but the one I feel I would fit into the most would be the authoritative style of parenting. By Dr. Baumrind’s definition that is: a parent that attempts to direct the child’s activities but in a rational, issue-oriented manner. The parent encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. Both autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity are valued. Therefore the parents exert firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but does not hem the child in with restrictions. The parents enforces their own perspective as adults, but recognizes the childs individual interests and special ways. The authoritative parent affirms the childs present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct. They use reason, power, and shaping by regime and reinforcement to achieve their objectives, and does not base their decisions on group consensus or the individual childs desires. (Baumrind, 1967). When a person becomes a parent they will truly discover what style of parenting they will have. However, until that day comes, I chose the style of authoritative parenting based on how my parents were and how they raised me to be. I feel both of my parents fit into this category, therefore I have a strong background with this style. While I have been exposed to all three styles of parenting from watching my friend’s parents, my own brother as a parent and now my step mom as a parent, I feel the authoritative style is the one that fits my values, beliefs and issue concerns the best. For example, my step mom, who I feel has a very permissive style of parenting, doesn’t have much â€Å"control† over my step brother. There is one movie in particular that I feel displays the permissive style of parenting very well. Problem child 1 and 2. The child is adopted so the father wants the child to be as happy as possible and in turn the parent gets walked all over. My step brother is a 12 year old boy, who is a good child who listens for the most part has a terrible diet. This is because my step mom wanted to be his friend first and a parent second. She does not like conflict so she allows him to each the sugary starchy foods instead of enforcing healthy choices. On top of that his idea of exercise is playing video games. This may not present health issue at this very time, however, my concerns arise when he is older. What type of choices will he make diet wise, exercising and over all what type of lifestyle will he have? My mom on the other hand, fully enforced eating fruits and veggies at a young age and always made sure my two brothers and I played outside and did extra-curricular activities to get healthy amounts of exercise. Today at 25 years old, I can probably count on one hand the number of foods I don’t like. I also thorough enjoy exercising. A healthy diet and exercise are extremely important for the growth and development of any child. This brings me to one of my issues I am concerned with when I become a parent. Will my child enjoy and eat the healthy choices I make for them. I feel this all begins with infants. After reading a couple journal articles from an online nursing search engine breast feeding is where it all begins. I find it interesting that some mothers would choose not to breast feed. Breast feeding provides multiple benefits for both the mother and the child. The breast feeding processes represents an intricate bonding between the mother and child that is far greater than just nutrition. It creates an immune system, aids in building brain function, developing socialization and establishing long term health. (Godfrey. J Lawrence, R. 010) I feel this relates to one of my issues with being a parent because nutrition of my child is my most important concern. According to our textbook, nutrition is especially crucial in the first two years for brain and body development because they grow so rapidly. An infant’s energy needs are twice that of an adult. Breast feeding provides the correct balance of fat and protein, helps ensure healthy physical growth and protects against disease. (Berk, 2010). According to Piaget, infants think with their eyes, hands and ears. Therefore, I would want my child to be developed to the max potential and not held back for nutritional reason. Erickson’s theory of basic trust vs. mistrust in the first year affect the way a child socializes later in life also related to will the child be into physical activities. The trusting infant expects the world to be good and gratifying, (Berk, 2010) so the child feels confident about exploring and venturing into new things. I feel this related to children wanting to be involved in different activities with other children. The mistrusting baby cannot count on the kindness and compassion of others and therefore withdrawals themselves and protects themselves from other people and activities with other children (Berk, 2010). I feel perhaps this may relate to my step brother and why he plays video games all the time and is glued to the television, instead of playing outside trying to make new friends. As the child begins to grow and develop into the next phase of early childhood I will be faced with new concerns but still centered on nutrition. In this stage the body growth begins to slow down but the brain development from ages two to six increase by about seventy percent of its adult weight to nighty percent. In early childhood the skeletal part of the body also begins to change. Between the ages of two and six years old there is approximately forty five percent new growth centers, in which cartilage becomes bone. (Berk, 2010). According to an article posted in a sports medicine journal, the relation to calcium and bone development during this time is crucial. There is a correlation between calcium intake, physical activity and bone development at this stage. Although there are varying factors such as genetics, age and body type there is still a positive influence. This article discusses the importance of children in the early childhood to adolescent stage to have a calcium intake of 1000mg/day or more of calcium to help build stronger bones and increase the development of the femoral head. There are many different sources of calcium such as dairy products; most cereals have some amount of calcium as well. I feel that it’s important to give children in this stage a multivitamin as well to ensure the child is getting enough calcium. At this stage many children become picky eaters and are very unpredictable. They can like a food one day and the next say they hate it. This is another reason why I feel it’s important to give children in this stage a multivitamin. I also feel that introducing a wide variety of different food to children at this time helps. Being an authoritative style of parenting I would have my child try everything at least once, encouraging these new foods and if they didn’t like it tell them they can always spit it out. This is a major developmental stage that I feel sets the tone if your child will be or become obese. This is an increasing issue with children today. Moms are becoming more busy with work and aren’t stay at home moms anymore. It’s quicker and easier to just stop at McDonalds and get your child a happy meal than it is to come home and cook a healthy meal. I do feel fast food restaurants are trying to incorporate healthy choices with children’s meals but in my opinion fried chicken nuggets are still fried chicken nuggets even if they come with apples. The apples are a healthy choice however those come with sugary caramel sauce to dip them in. There are many consequence of obsess children. Diabetes in children is one of the most common major issues. Diabetes type two is the type of diabetes that was once an adult disease has increasing become more common in younger children. Many of the signs and symptoms are asymptomatic I feel many parents over-see what is really going on. There are many risk factors for early onset associated with type two diabetes which includes: overweight and obesity, especially in the abdomen area, high or low birth weight and rapid increase of weight in early childhood, physical in activity or sedentary lifestyle (playing video games all the time) as well as consuming foods that are low in fiber and high in fats and sugars. (Schub. T Caple, C. , 2011) The sad part is many of this risk factors are modifiable but too many parents reward with sugary fatty treats. Unless the parent is health conscious it is very difficult to change these issues. The other problem that arises with this is many times parents see their child as being perfect and over-see what is really going on. In this stage of development according to Piaget the child has moved from the sensorimotor to the preoperational stage. This spans the years from two until approximately seven years old. The major difference in this stage is symbolic or representational activity. A major example of this change is make-believe play. Piaget believed that through this type of play children are practicing and strengthening newly acquired representational schemes. (Berk, 2010) I agree with Piaget’s views. I feel it’s important for children to have make-believe play but only to a certain extent. As a parent I want my child to be more interested in playing with other children in more real activities opposed to always want to play make-believe by themselves. An example I feel is acceptable is when girls want to play house together with dolls or babies. I feel I control this situation as a parent by encouraging interactive play with other children with play dates. Exercise in this stage is also very important. Involving your child in activities outside of school helps the child develop social skills by having to interact with new children in different situations. As long as this is followed by positive reinforcement by the parent I also feel this helps build confidence in the child. Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural is another major factor in this developmental stage. Language at this stage is the important factor in Vygotsky’s theory. Children begin to talk to themselves much in the same way they do with fellow students. This increases their ability to think and their ability to control their own behavior. (Berk, 2010). According to a study published in a developmental psychology journal there is little correlation between private speech and problem solving process. Approximately half the subjects had private speech and those who did, did not utter very much. The article also discussed within a Vygotskian framework, private speech will tend to co-occur with failure in cognitive tasks because both private speech and the likelihood of failure increase with task difficulty. We also learned that in this stage children begin to remember. It’s not that they are just now building a memory; they now have the language skills to describe their memories. We had a discussion board regarding our earliest autobiographically memory and as the textbook stated, no one could really come up with a memory early than three years old. This is explained because we didn’t have an understanding of language to describe what we were experiencing. The third developmental stage that I feel I will have the most parenting issues or concerns is now the adolescent stage. I can only hope that by this point in time I have taught my child to make good nutritional choices and I have engaged them in other activities so they are confident in socializing and want to have active lifestyles opposed to sedentary. I feel this is going to be the most difficult stay to deal with. Now I am dealing with hormonal changes which create physical and mental changes but now I will also have to deal with social changes and sexual activity. During the adolescence stage children go through puberty. This can cause many different physical changes. I hope that I can teach my child to always have a positive body image of them. I feel by keeping them active will help with this issue. If I have a girl I am going to have to be concerned with eating disorders and the possibility of becoming pregnant. I feel the only way to have control over these issues is just being open with my child or children and make them feel comfortable talking to myself or husband (hopefully present) about anything as well as taking responsibility in my own hands to make sure my children are properly educated about things like safe sex and sexually transmitted diseases. I don’t want to be a naive parent and think â€Å"oh my child would never do that! † I know I was there age at one point and they are going to do whatever they want to do. I will also teach my children about peer pressure to help prevent them from making mistakes because of it. Through this entire paper I feel I have learned that parenting is no easy task. A lot of things are learned by trial and error. Also, just because these are my views I hope that I have a husband who shares the same parenting style otherwise we ourselves will be in a pickle. I don’t want my household to have one good parent and one bad parent I want us to be equal and on the same playing field. I want my husband and I to work as one, which comes down to communication. I also feel my parents raised me with many skills I with use while parenting. All I can do is try my hardest to teach my children the same ways and hope they are responsive to me and respectful and understand one day they will be responsible for the same thing.

French revolution

French revolution To what extent were the ideas of the French philosophes and Enlightenment thinking a precondition to the French Revolution in 1789 were the social and economic crises of the time not sufficient in causing the Revolution themselves? The extent to which the philosophy of the 18th century impacted the French Revolution has occupied the historian ever since the days of the Revolution itself. It has proved to be immensely complex; many historians have written on the subject of the Revolution many choosing to see it purely as a sequence of events culminating in Revolution. The intellectual origins of the Revolution take root initially in the ideas of Sixteenth Century writers. The constant development of these ideas led into the great period of the Eighteenth Century, where philosophers sought to develop new ways of thinking that would allow man to better himself, and to free him from old ways of thinking and superstitions that had engrained themselves in the world. The generations that had grown up in the intellectual environment of the time and the way they were affected by these revolutionary ideas was an essential part of the Revolution. Trained historians have tended to play down the role of played by the philo sophes; instead they focus on the historical causes of the Revolution, on the facts such as the financial crisis or the inefficacy of the tax system. However, it is fundamental in understanding the cause of the revolution to appreciate the undercurrent of the development of new ideas over time this gradual occurrence does not necessarily warrant as much attention as events that happen abruptly, which may have caused the influence of enlightenment thinking to be cast aside somewhat. So how can the extent to which the ideas and writings of the philosophes influenced the general population be measured? To what extent were the revolutionaries influenced by the philosophes and perhaps most importantly did the revolutionaries mould their own philosophies around the circumstances in which they found themselves? The idea of volontà © nationale was a fundamental concept that needed to be considered by many Enlightenment thinkers. What was meant by volontà © nationale? It could be interpreted as volontà © de la majorità ©, but how could the will of the masses be gauged? The will of the people needed to manifest itself in some form in order for a people to become revolutionary. To understand how the Enlightenment affected the everyday individual in France is to fully appreciate the question at hand il faudra chercher a connaà ®tre là ©tat despirit des hommes à   là ©poque, à   nous rendre compte de ce quà ©prouvait alors lindividu par rapport à   la masse dont il fasait partie.[1] The Philosophes and Enlightenment thinking in the 18th Century Voltaire was one of the key figures in terms of his revolutionary thinking during the Eighteenth Century. He believed that laws were outdated and needed to be changed because they had been created at a different time, haphazardly and the existing laws were basà ©es sur lignorance et la superstition.[2] In a letter he wrote to Catherine II Voltaire declared les lois sont faites aprà ¨s coup, comme on calfate des vaisseux qui ont voies deau; elles sont innombrables, parce quelles sont faites sur des besoins toujours renaissants; elles sont condradictoires, attendu que ces besoins ont toujours changà ©. Voltaire was convinced that laws needed to be changed in order to allow the society to become enlightened.   For Voltaire religion also holds man back from becoming enlightened. In terms of morals, he compares the religious morals with philosophical morals. Voltaires belief that the philosophical morality is no different from religious morality is clearly explained by Groethuysen: L es philosophes ont tous des idà ©es diffà ©rentes sur les principes des choses, mais ils enseignent tout la mà ªme parole.[3] All religions thus have a harmonising and moralising aspect, however Voltaire criticises the way in which religion is based upon so many superstitions and obscure cult practices. These outdated superstitions have led to war and destruction les gens se sont disputes sur les dogmes, ils sont fait la guerre; des nations en ont detruit dautres parce queelles croyaient en Jesus-Christ et non en Mahoment.[4] Laws and religion are not necessary in order to allow man to know the difference between right and wrong reason is independent of law and religion. Man has been corrupted by the irrational aspects of religion. He does not use his sense of reasoning to understand the world and commits act of destruction and violence solely in the name of religion. Voltaire wanted man to be freed from its inability to reason, much alike Kants belief in Was ist Aufklarung that Aufklà ¤rung ist der Ausweg des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmà ¼ndigkeit. Sapere aude! In answering the question as to how a law of reason can be established Voltaire proposes une loi fondamentale [qui] agit sur toutes les nations que nous conaissons.[5] The principle behind this law is first and foremost to distinguish between what is right and what is not. But Voltaire sees this law as secondary in terms of human judgement and reason every man has an inner instinct that allows them to know what is right, un sens de lequite commun a tous les hommes. For Voltaire ideas of morality are of the utmost importantce; knowledge of all other ideas must come second to morality: seules les idees morales peuvent nous server a conduire notre vie de facon a la mener en commun avec les autres hommes. A new philosophy of morality was necessary to create the new modern man; this was Voltaires main objective; he wrote in a letter to Frederic Guillaume in October 1737 that lhumanite est le principe de toutes mes pensees. Man has to look only to the goodness within him and his own instinctive moral principles pour que sa raison trouve en lui une egalite universelle dominant toutes les legislations particulieres. This in turn would lay down the foundations for a moral law. As Voltaire grew older he increasingly focused his thoughts against religion and the Church. In a letter written to Frederic II in 1767 he declared depuis dix-sept cents ans, la secte chretienne na jamais fait que du mal. He called on all philosophers of his time to rise up with him in his fight against the Church. Voltaire declared that sooner or later the time would come in France when people would be able to see the conspiracy and lunacy of religion people were raising des mains invisibles pour percer le fanatisme dun bout de lEurope a lature avec les fleches de la verite. He became very excited about the prospect of the coming revolution through the Enlightenment and could foresee the coming of the age of reason. In 1761 he wrote to dAlembert, je suis tetu. Jusqua mon dernier souffle, je repeterai mon caeterum censo: Ecrasez lInfame. Cest une grande lutte, la lutte de tous les etres pensants contre les etres non-pensantstous les etres pensants doivent etre tendrement uniscontre les fanatiques, les hypocrites, egalement persecuteurs. However, Voltaire was particularly critical of other philosophers of his time, toutes les philosophes sont trop tiedes; ils se contentent de rire des erreurs des hommes, au lieu de les ecraser.[6] Voltaire wanted all the philosophes to join together to cause change in the world and to help the population become enlightenened, he did not wanted the other philosophes to want to enlighten the world and not just see the mistakes in the existing one; les missionaries courent la terre et les mers, il faut au moins que les philosophes courent les rues, il faut quils aillent semer le bon grain de maisons en maisons.[7] This use of particularly strong language by Voltaire shows the extent to which he believed in the Enlightenment and how much he wanted it to be realised in the world. Voltaire, in writing to Alembert vehemently calls those leaders who prevent their citizens from becoming enlightened as monstres persecuteurs, quon me donn e seulement sept ou huit personnes que je puisse conduire et je vous exterminerai.[8] He declared that eventually reason will prevail but bemoans the fact that he will not be alive to see this beau changement of lEglise de la sagesse, dans laquelle les philosophes seront les precepteurs du genre humain. He calls on the philosophes to see the fruit of the trees that they themselves had planted. As regards the division of France into three estates Voltaire is very clear that the existing system needs to be abolished. Representez vous le tier etat. Mais ce sont les paysans sur leur champsles millions dhommes qui travaillent, a cote des deux cent mille members du clerge ou de la noblesse qui ne travaillent pas.[9] This inequality is a major problem for Voltaire for, in his eyes, all men are born equally on the Earth and this inequality from birth poses a major problem in allowing the Third Estate to become enlightened. Le tiers etat a lui seul est dà ©jà   toute la nation[10] Voltaire calls on the revolutionary masses of 1789 to look deeper and more closely at things and to question everything around them. Fiez-vous donc a votre raisonnement, substituez toujours le concret, le defini aux affirmations indecises ou generales. He explains how not every man is born with the ability to be a philosophe but that every man is able to become enlightened; la faculte critique est quelq ue chose de positif en lhomme. Cest la joie detre libre de prejudges, de savoir que la raison est souverain en tout homme.[11] Voltaire wants every man to win the fight against superstition and false beliefs. Voltaire praises the other philosophes, for despite their differences, they are honnetes gensqui ne savent point ce qui est, mais qui savent fort bien ce qui nest pas.[12] They have called the world into question and although they do not have answers to much of it they have created the foundations upon which the Enlightenment can be built. Although Voltaires philosophy may be interpreted as somewhat pessimistic in terms of   the insignificance of man in terms of the universe, he is also optimistic in that man does have the capacity to think about things outside his world there is la misere de la condition humaine but also les grandes pensees, le ciel etoile dans sa legalite invariable, leternite dont lhomem essaye de surprendre le secret pendant le court instant dure sa pauv re existence instable.[13] The philosophes need to join together and give their mutual support to one another in order to win the fight against the enemy that seeks to continue its domination over unenlightened man. But by what means could Voltaires notion of an enlightened nation be achieved? In a letter to the Marquis dArgence de Dirac in 1764 he declares il ne faut pas disputer avec les gens entetesjamais la dispute na convaincu personne; on peut ramener les hommes en les faisant penser par eux memes, en paraisant douter avec eux, en les conduisant, comme par la main, sans quiils sen apercoivent. For Voltaire if all the philosophes were united in their philosophies and it worked its way peacefully through the masses then la plus belle à ©poque de lhistoire de lespirit humain would be born. From the advent of Christianity Voltaire believes that history has only been formed through errors and mistakes. In opposition to Montesquieu, he proposes all existing laws to be forgotten so that humanity can be re-rooted in reason and enlightened thinking. For Voltaire there is nothing to be learnt from history la critique historique decouvre partout la deraison dont temoignent les actes et les lois faites par les hommes, depuis que lEglise a fat regner la superstition dans le monde.[14] Man needs to be enlightened from this absurd world, created by generations of mans mistakes. Although on the face of it Voltaires analysis of the current situation could be interpreted as pessimistic he trusts that reason will prevail in allowing a new order to be created, as Groethuysen explains: la raison conduira la passionla passion devenue raison, la passion de la raison va posseder les hommes de la revolution francaise.[15] Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were also arguably among some of the most important Enlightenment thinkers contributing to the French Revolution. In terms of laws Montesquieu believed that all men should conform to laws and that they must begin by working to create worthy people.[16] Justice, for Montesquieu was a harmonious relationship which really exists between two things. This relationship never varies; whether it is viewed from the perspective of God, an angel, or of maneven if God did exist, we ought always to love justicejustice is eternal and nowise dependant on human conventions.[17] Justice was an absolute standard and laws must exist because they are just. Montesquieu saw man as a product of his environment and felt that man should adapt himself as best he could within this environment. Unlike Voltaire, Montesquieu did not see the need to rid the world of all its existing laws; instead he declares it is sometimes necessary to change certain laws, but such occasions are rare and when they arise one should only touch laws with a trembling hand.[18] This approach to the tampering with laws is not particularly revolutionary; however, he wanted all political societies to be judged on his absolute principles of justice and liberty. For Montesquieu the idea form of government took shape in a moderate government, however, he states that moderate governments are a masterpiece of legislation that chance produces very rarely and men rarely allow prudence to create[19] In de lEsprit des Lois, published in 1748 Montesquieu discusses the legality of laws and how to judge whether a law exists for the good of man. He believes that laws should be made in order to better mankind and to transform the existing system. All laws need to be judged as to whether they correspond or contradict the rights of man. For Montesquieu every law needs to be based on moral principles and should guide man towards morality. Cest dans les principes du droit que noud devons chercher la norme absolue qui nous permettra de construire une collectivite.[20] Montesquieu saw the intellectual world as a group of collectivites. The life of every individual is fundamentally conditioned by the community in which they live. A world of collectivites would create a new, happy people and man would achieve happiness in such a collectivite. It could be interpreted that Montesquieu sees France as a collectivite. Cest la nation qui seule peut se donner la loi.[21] Montesquieu wanted to see a change in the law-citizen relationship; he wanted it to change from man being the object of laws to man becoming the subject of legislative power. Montesquieu wanted human reason to be applied to the reality in which people lived. However, Montesquieus philosophy does not sit well with the French Revolution because his ideals of universal and absolute reason are only applicable to the world at large and which must govern the world at large. As a result, if these laws were to be implemented, one would only be implementing ideas based upon legality within nature. Montesquieu believed that the legislative and executive powers needed to be separate so that the citizens could not be oppressed and would remain free. For Montesquieu the main purpose of religion was to make better citizens; he believed that religious beliefs were a product of the environments in which people lived. Despite the fact that he believed that all religions strengthened the morality of the followers Montesquieu believed Christianity to be the most favourable in creating good citizens. Montesquieus de lEsprit des Lois put forward the notion of liberalism in which liberty could only be secured through a contrived equilibrium between the competing interests within society[22] Although Montesquieus message is not always clear within de lEsprit des Lois he does not waver from his belief that governments should act in the needs of the people, as opposed to being the means to change a society, that institutions and beliefs are the result of the environment and the actions of generations in the past and that there are moral imperatives that transcend time and which bind all men together. Fundamentally Montesquieu and Rousseau had conflicting concepts of freedom. As previously stated Montesquieu believed that freedom could be achieved in collectivites. Governments needed to respect the independence of these collectivites and vote in favour of the esprit general. On the other hand, Rousseaus notion of political freedom consisted of allowing man to achieve all he wanted, which was obviously in the best interest of the community at large. This would be achieved through the liberation of man from his state of ignorance by abolishing all existing institutions and denaturing man. One legislator would ensure this denaturing and change his existence through changing the society in which he lived. Despite Montesquieus belief that governments should let people pursue their own interests, he wanted the governments to pursue both freedom and justice it would be wrong to say to say that Montesquieu was not urging political action. Rousseau was urging for a regeneration of the cur rent system, and as Hampson explains this concept of regeneration was to become one of the most abused words of 1789.[23] Both Rousseau and Montesquieu had devoted a great deal of their time to political issues and had begun to challenge the existing political situation, however more writers needed to challenge the existing order but the influence of these philosophes in allowing revolutionary thinking and ideas to come into being cannot be understated. Montesquieu and Rousseaus impact in the years leading up to the Revolution took shape in numerous forms. There was constant reference to Montesquieu in the many pamphlets of literature of 1788 in support of the parlements challenge to the royal family. Lawyers were constantly referencing Montesquieu and De lesprit des lois. Furthermore, Rousseaus influence was also present with references to du Contrat social the state of monarchy is only useful for corrupted nations.[24] Other pamphlets draw on Rousseau to an even greater extent; man is born free, laws are acts of the general will, government is the agent of the general will and not a part to the social contract.[25] As Hampson further explains all the pamphlets shared a common vocabularythe subjects of the kingdom had been replaced by the citizens of the nation. Those of whom the writers approved were the enfants de la patrie and their opponents agents of ministerial despotism'[26] This is a clear demonstration of the influence of Rousseaus philosophy and his success in shaping revolutionary ideas through the use of this republican language. Billaud Varenne, was particularly influenced by the ideas of Rousseau and expressed his admiration for the fine works of Rousseau, who describes so well the power of the Supreme Being[27] In Varennes Despotisme des ministres de France Varenne echoes many of Rousseaus sentiments; superior by our knowledge, our industry and our force, to every nation in the universe, when we could be second Romans, betrayed by our generals, strangled by our ministers, every day we risk being subjugated to foreign domination or becoming wholly enslaved to our own[28] Moreover, Montesquieus philosophy was also put forward by Varenne in this three-volume work great agitation within a state should always be avoided as much as possible.[29] It is clear that the work of the philosophes had a major impact on the revolutionaries and fundamentally provided the intellectual stimulus upon which the re volutionaries could propose concrete changes contributing to the revolution of 1789. The expression of the philosophes ideals in the French Revolution Many modern day historians continue to argue that the link between Enlightenment thought and the French Revolution long pre-dated the revolution itself, claiming that many anti-philosophes were convinced that the philosophes were attempting to undermine and destabilise the already established order. Nonetheless, the revolutionaries claimed that the Revolution was a direct consequence of Enlightenment thinking; as Brissot boasted in 1791 Our revolution is not the fruit of an insurrection. It is the work of a half century of enlightenment. As Roland N. Stromberg explains Those who tried to guide the Revolution never ceased to legitimize or rationalize their actions by appealing to the words of Voltaire, Rousseau ,Montesquieu, Diderot, and other intellectual heroes of the Enlightenment, though they might do so selectively and erratically[30] Most damming in seeing the Revolution as the result of the Enlightenment is the fact that the majority of the remaining philosophes of the time did not agree with the Revolution. From the Holbach coterie, which included Raynal, Marmontel, Morellet and Grimm. With the onset of revolution, Raynal, who had written perhaps the most influential revolutionary piece of the 1770s, fled Paris. Morellet also declared that the French Revolution had created a state of anarchy and also left Paris. Further, Marmontel saw a dangerous fanaticism and the spirit of licence, faction and anarchy. Grimm, who had served a secretary of sorts to the philosophe movement also fled the country and returned to his native Germany and left his riches to be seized by the revolutionary government.   Alan Kors had named this group as the radical enlightenment group and argues that their opposition to the Revolution held true to their own Enlightenment views. The fact that the French Revolution had taken such an ir rational and anarchic course went against their beliefs in rational order and scientific method.[31] The philosophes favoured a far more gradual progression of the Revolution through reform and allowing the leaders and the population of France to come to understand the ideas of the Enlightenment. The Marquis de Condorcet, whose pure philosophy contributed a great deal to the Revolution still, on the Eve of the Revolution, believed that France could only solve its social and economic crises through the slow diffusion of Enlightenment ideas. His friend The Abbe Sieyes in the Societe de 1789, who essentially symbolised the Revolution of the Third Estate in 1789, also withdrew from politics in 1790 due to his disapproval of the path the Revolution had taken.  Ã‚   Of the philosophes still alive in 1789 the Cercle Social still made attempts to allow the ideas of the past be realised in modern day France. The Cercle Social was later to become the Girondist faction of the Revolution. The group had its own printing press, published journals and placed major emphasis on education of the ideas of the philosophes. Condorcet and Brissot were key members of this group and were determined to make Enlightenment ideals become part of the new emerging world. They wanted to spread the ideas of the Enlightenment and create a rational political institutions based on the ideas of the Enlightenment.[32] They believed that a sudden and aggressive move from one form of government to the next was not the way Revolution should be carried out, rather ideas needed to be understood by the everyday man so that his attitudes could be changed. The point that changes needed to take place on all levels of society is aptly explained by Foucault; nothing in society will be c hanged if the mechanisms of power that function outside, below and alongside the State apparatuses on a much more minute and everyday level are not also changed.[33] It was believed by these revolutionaries that France would become a nation devoted to the Revolution, in which Rousseau du Contrat Socials civil religion would become the new moral cement. Many of the revolutionaries began to see themselves as the priests of this new religion. These Girondists also believed that education could change human nature an idea derived from John Locke and put forward by Condillac in France. The Girondists were adamant that this could be achieved if the philosophes and revolutionaries were able to gain control of education they could mold a new species of mankind.[34] The Jacobins were even more extreme in their views on education as they wanted to take children away from their parents and indoctrinate them in new Enlightenment ideas. As Stromberg explains the philosophes had addressed only an elite, the next task was to expand this charmed circle to embrace the whole nation. However, Gary Kates argues that the Girondists were not a bourgeois party but a party of those who had come to understand the Enlightenment. Despite their will to see the ideas of the philosophes realised within the Revolution they proved to be ineffective politicians and thus were defeated by the Montagnards. Robespierrists felt that their enemies were far more educated than they were and attempted to confuse the masses with their complicated ideas of philosophy. Saint-Just declared that these enemies tried to fool people with complicated intellectual arguments. Robespierre himself was not an advocate of theory and declared it is not necessary to search in the books of political writers, who did not at all foresee the Revolution. Many historians have also questioned the extent to which Robespierre really was influenced by the philosophes given his suspiciousness of their ideas and many argue that he did not even have a very great knowledge of Rousseau, of whom he declared himself to have been greatly influenced. Brissot once called Robespierres speeches unintelligibility posing as profundity. The down with the philosophes slogan of the Jacobins is further evidence in proving the lack of respect that they had for the Enlightenment ideas of the 18th century. At this point it is clear that t he ideas of the philosophes were no longer attached to the Revolution the Jacobins were far more interested in politics than with the ideas of the Enlightenment and thus the Revolution broke away from the Enlightenment.[35] The Bourgeoisie and the Revolution The bourgeoisie and the educated classes played a major role in the French Revolution through the summoning of the Assembly. Between November 1788 and the meeting of the Estates General over 2,500 pamphlets were published. The ideas of the philosophes which were now being forwarded through the revolutionaries became of great interest to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie began to focus on how the current system could be changed and how their desires might become a reality. The system of government had been attacked and criticised for decades prior to the Revolution the introduction of new ideas change to the existing constitutional and political situation had enlightened the bourgeoisie and fuelled their desire for change. 2 [1] BernardGroethuysen, Philosophie de la Rà ©volution Franà §aise, Page 82 [2] Ibid, Page 133 [3] Ibid, Page 135 [4] Ibid [5] Ibid, page 136 [6] Lettre de Voltaire a dAlembert, 26-XII en 1767 [7] Lettre de Voltaire a dAlembert, 26-VI en 1766 [8] Lettre de Voltaire a dAlembert, 26-VIII en 1766 [9] Page 155, Groethuysen [10] Ibid [11] [12] Letter page 158 [13] Page 161 [14] Philosophie de la Revolution Francaise, page 166 [15] Ibid, page 167 [16] Cahiers, I/393 Grasset, page 119 [17] Lettres Persanes, LXXXIII [18] Ibid CXXIX [19] De lespirit des lois, V/14 [20] Philosophie de la Revolution Francaise, page 128 [21] Philosophie de la Revolution Francaise, page 130 [22] Will and Circumstance, Norman Hampton, Page 24 [23] Will and Circumstance, Norman Hampton, Page 58 [24] Will and Circumstance, Norman Hampton, Page 60 [25] Ibid, page 61 [26] Ibid [27] Le dernier coup porte aux prejuges et a la superstition, London, 1789, page 348 [28] Despotisme des ministres de France, Amsterdam, 1789, 3rd Volume, Page 209 [29] Ibid, Page 243 [30] The Philosophes and the French Revolution, Some Reflections on recent research, Roland N. Stromberg, Page 323

Elizabeth Bowen’s The Heat of the Day - Comparing Scenes in the Movie and Book :: Comparison Compare Contrast Essays

Elizabeth Bowen’s The Heat of the Day - Comparing Scenes in the Movie and Book   Ã‚  Ã‚   With the Nazi invasion of France in the early 1940s, Europe became a very turbulent and dangerous place. There were many concerns of the people of all the countries of the continent: bombings, invasion and especially espionage. In her novel The Heat of the Day, Elizabeth Bowen describes the unsettling and uneasiness that were apparent in England during the war. Although Bowen gives us an eloquent description of the happens in England, readers get a much better view on the happens in certain scenes by viewing the adaptation of the novel into film. Although there are many scenes to compare between the film and the novel, the scene chosen for this study will be the funeral of Cousin Francis and the first appearance of Harrison in the movie. This occurs in the fourth chapter of the novel. A discussion of Robert and Stella’s conversation in his room at Holme Dene will also occur. The first scene begins, in the film, with Stella walking into the church when the funeral is about to begin. We see that she chooses to sit on the right side of the coffin where we can only assume that the family is meant sit. Next we see the camera pan to a shot of a man sitting on the opposite side of the isle. At this point, unless the audience has read the book, we have no idea who this man is. The funeral commences, ends and the next shot we see is the members of the funeral procession heading to the post funeral gathering. One odd thing that we must note at this point is that the unknown man who sat in the back of the church does not walk with anyone else in the party: he seems to just be follower. Many things occur at this point in the film. We learn that Stella’s son Roderick has become the sole person to inherit Cousin Francis’ home, Mount Morris, according to the family lawyer. We also discover that no one in the whole funeral party knows who the man who sat in the back of the church is. It is here in which we learn that the man is called Harrison after he introduces himself to Stella.

The Reign of Terror: Was it Justified

In 1792, French adversaries were pushing in on all borders and spies were rampant on the streets. To defend from internal enemies, prominent French leader Robespierre enacted the Reign of Terror. Anyone suspected of aiding the enemy was swiftly put on trial and executed. (doc. G) The Reign of Terror was not Justified because the threats to France externally and internally did not warrant the methods used. Those suspected of being spies or opposers of war during the French revolution were quickly tried and unjustly executed. Steven Otflnoski remarks in Triumph and Terror:The French Revolution â€Å"A careless word of criticism spoken against the government could put one in prison or worse. â€Å"(Doc E). Such executions were both morally unjust and a waste of human manpower during a time of war. Instead of causing people to follow the law, the reign of terror instigated several rebellions in France. (doc A). A letter from the National Convention in France remarks â€Å"We had reaso n to hope that these gatherings would cease as soon as the public troops arrived. Our hopes were misguided and this causes us the greatest of worries. † (doc. D).Had authorities established a sense of nationalist pride in French citizens, war would have been fought vigorously, there would be fewer rebellions, and thus, less loss of human life. In order to defeat two military powers on the front, France enacted a draft and started two wars which fueled more rebellion as people felt they were fghting for a country they didn't love. Document A details revolutions occurred after mandatory military drafts were instated. The French people had overthrown their king and gone to war for freedom, not to be ruled by a monarchy once more.Document B, a map of the war during 1972 shows France lost several decisive victories and lost cities and lives. The two wars coupled with the military draft caused citizens and soldiers alike to dislike the new republic as their comrades died to the guns and guillotines around them. The sharp blade of the guillotine was applied liberally to the necks of anyone suspected of working against France's interest. Document F shows the decapitation of Louis the XVI after extremely inconclusive evidence and faux claims painted him as an enemy spy and counter-revolutionary.Unfortunately, with the invention of the guillotine, Louis was Just one of tens of thousands killed in such a manner. Many such public execution were merely to invoke fear in the people's hearts. (doc D). Steven Otfinoski wrote in Triumph and Terror â€Å"The revolutionary Tribunal was established to try all crimes against the state. Tribunal members would not be elected by the people but rather by the national convention. † (Doc E). Not only trials brief and often merely formality, the small group of government leaders could convict anyone opposing them.Killing for power and fear didn't place pride in the oppressed French peoples' hearts a country on its knees. t o nly placed panic and despair, two detrimental qualities ot Although the reign of terror achieved the ends desired, it was not morally Justified due to the great losses of human life, the oppression of the French people, and the pointless violence that blossomed across europe as a result. It took three failed republics before France finally achieved a sustainable and loved government. In this case, Machiavelli would the ends Justify the means in the most inefficient manner.

Primary and Secondary Sources

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES What is Primary Sources? * Primary sources  are original  materials. Generally, primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. * Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source. * Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring. Examples of Primary Sources: * archives and manuscript material * photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, films * journals, letters and diaries * speeches * scrapbooks * published books, newspapers and magazine clippings published at the time * government publications * oral histories * records of organizations * autobiographies and memoi rs * printed ephemera * artifacts, e. g. clothing, costumes, furniture * research data, e. g. public opinion polls What is Secondary Sources? * Offer an interpretation or analysis  of the primary source materials. * Second hand accounts of historical events. Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors. They may take a variety of forms. The authors of secondary sources develop their interpretations and narratives of events based on primary sources, that is, documents and other evidence created by participants or eyewitnesses.  ¦ Examples of Secondary Sources: * articles, * biographies, * books, * textbooks, * Reports on events, etc. THINGS TO ASK WHEN EVALUATING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES: * How does the author know these details (names, dates, and times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene? * Where this information does came from? Eyewitness accounts? Reports written by the others? * Are the author’s conclusion based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account? SOME TECHNIQUES FOR TESTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES: * Check the currency of secondary sources. * Make certain primary sources are housed in a reputable archive and/or have been indexed or catalogue by experts in the source’s discipline. * Research the authority and credentials of journal article author. Cross check to see if others researches agree with your critique. HOW CAN I TELL IF SOMETHING IS A SECONDARY SOURCE? As with any research, examine the document or article carefully for accuracy and credibility. Use the following questions to help you determine whether or not you are using a credible secondary source. AUTHORS: * How does the author know what he/she knows? * Does his/her knowledge stem from personal experience or having read about and analyzed an event? * Does the author cite several other (published) reports? CONTENT : Why is the information being provided or the article written? * Are there references to other writings on this topic? * Is the author interpreting previous events? * Does the information come from personal experience or other’s accounts? CURRENCY: * Is the date of publication evident? * Is the date of publication close to the event described or was it written much later? Sources: * http://www. yale. edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources. html * http://www. mitchellteachers. org * http://www. slideshare. net/stellacomans/primary-and-secondary-sources-7878126