Literary Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 5

Literary Analysis - Essay Example (American Literature,2008). Sherwood Anderson, the American writer with a number of characters emerging in the story tries to describe the narrow mindedness and indifferent approach in people’s thinking and the resistance that the society offers to one who desires change and development. The storyline is a journey of a young man, George Willard, taking a train to Westbound from Winesburg. The journey is a symbolic representation of the urge to change and the process of striving across the limiting factors. An indication of inspiration and hope reveals while reading in between the lines of the first few sentences of the story. A commentary on the book by Sparknotes (2008) has reiterated this factor of inspiration as it is stated that George Willard in his journey is taking the readers also along with him. The buds sprouting after the fall represents the scope and the fortune waiting the young generation. A representation of the young generation has been made as George Willard, the main character of the story is said to wake up early in the morning. The carpet that the maple leaves pave under the foot symbolizes the future and fortune ahead, if the road towards a change is taken. The concern on the future has been portrayed as the boy had been thinking and wondering on what he would find at the end of the journey. Further, George Willard passes across a boy who was snoring in the coat laid in the hotel office. Here the main character is overtaking a representative of the lazy young generation in the journey towards change. A ray of hope and prosperity is brought in to the scene by the long streaks of light climbing into the sky. However the goodness of the past is still twinkling, as a star of the previous night is still found in the sky. When the boy walks into the lonely street it becomes obvious that in his journey of change he is alone, which in other ways is a representation of a revolutionary thought for development and the

LLB Company Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

LLB Company Law - Coursework Example In answering the questions of the case, the paper will first present a thorough view of the form of private limited companies in order to advise Emma. She will be told about the advantages and disadvantages of them, and why it should be opted over partnership. The second part of this paper will advise Chris and David on whether they can go against the articles written down in their Articles of Association. If they can, then how they can go about it and if not, then what other options and alternatives they have will be considered. Private limited companies are often compared with either partnership which is one step behind or public limited companies which are a step forward. This means that if there are two or more people starting a company, they can either opt for partnership or a private limited company. They can also form a public limited company directly but it is ideal and normal to move to a plc from a private limited. Companies are usually started as private limited and then are gone public or 'floated' (Bendrey et al, 2004). A private limited company or Ltd. is a form of organization which is a legal entity. It is not only a legal entity but a separate legal entity. This means that company is separate from the shareholders. In other words, the company exists in its own rights and not through the shareholder (Carysforth, 2004). This is further explained as the concept of Limited Liability which will be discussed in detail later. Furthermore, the owners of the company are also the shareholders of the company (Carysforth, 2004). This means that in order to become owners, shares of the company need to be owned. The amount of shares held in the company can change with time and so can the number of shareholders, with no limit to them (Carysforth, 2009). Shares are sold to raise capital in a Ltd. The name suggests that shares are only sold privately and are not listed on the stock exchange. In order for a company to become a private limited company, many different legal requirements have to be met. Each of the points mentioned above will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. Legal Requirements In setting up a private limited company, Emma, Chris and David must understand that there are more legal requirements than partnership and lesser requirements and paperwork than public limited companies. In becoming a private limited company, the following legal requirements have to be met (Carysforth, 2004): A Memorandum of Association which has details about the company - its name, address, owners, liability, activities, objectives, etc - and an Articles of Associations that establishes how the company will be run by the directors must be produced before a company can become a limited one. There must be at least two people starting the company. In the case of this salon, this requirement is met because there are three partners. However, what is important to understand is that each owner must own shares. They can also add more people as owners by selling shares to them. The specifications which also include the Articles and Memorandum of Associations must be registered with the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar ensures the complete formation

Establishing a Case for Murder

Establishing a Case for Murder There is little doubt that Gharmi will be charged with Peter’s murder, unless any autopsy carried out shows that his death was completely unrelated to his ingestion of the rat poison. On the given facts this seems extremely unlikely. In order to establish a case for murder it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that Gharmi was in the correct state of mind (mens rea) when she placed the rat poison in Peter’s rice-baryani. For murder this is malice aforethought[1] either express or implied[2]. This can also be described as an intention to unlawfully kill the victim (express malice) or cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice). Grievous bodily harm is defined for these purposes as really serious harm[3]. In addition to this mental element the Crown must establish that Gharmi actually did the act which caused Peter’s death (actus reus), that is she placed the poison in the food – clearly a very simple process in this instance. Dependant upon the evidence available it may be the case that the Crown Prosecution Service does not feel that it will be possible to sustain a murder charge. In this case they may downgrade the charge to one of involuntary manslaughter. This would be the case if it was felt that Gharmi had not intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Peter[4], but had simply intended to ‘injure, aggrieve or annoy’[5] him. For a charge of involuntary manslaughter to be possible, the act which causes[6] the death must be unlawful, meaning it must constitute a criminal offence[7]. There is little doubt the poisoning of Peter’s food and tea would constitute an unlawful act[8], regardless of Gharmi’s intentions, unless it can be shown that she intended no harm, which seems unlikely. Gharmi can only be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if it is thought by a jury that it would be inevitable to the reasonable person that her actions would pose the risk of at least some h arm to Peter[9]. It is important to note that it is irrelevant whether Peter’s death was caused by Gharmi’s poisoning of his food or his tea. Since it was possible for either to cause his death it is not necessary to draw a distinction between the two[10]. Involuntary manslaughter has been described as a homicide which occupies ‘the shifting sands between the uncertain †¦ definition of murder and the unsettled boundaries of excusable or accidental death’[11] and it is this uncertainty that Gharmi would need to rely on. Is it possible for a jury to be sure that she intended to kill Peter? Clearly the facts of the case are extremely relevant here, namely the amount of rat poison used and Gharmi’s knowledge of its possible effects. If convicted of manslaughter Gharmi may, at the discretion of the court, face up to life imprisonment[12]. If the Crown Prosecution Service intends to persist with the charge of murder against her Gharmi will need to consider whether she is a position to try to defend the charge in some way. The most likely defence available to Gharmi is that of voluntary manslaughter by provocation. The jury must be satisfied that Gharmi was ‘provoked (whether by things done or by things said or both together) to lose [her] self control’[13]. It is interesting to note that despite this being a defence the onus of proof is placed on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was not any provocation. The judge must make this clear to the jury[14] and should indicate to them any evidence that might indicate that provocation took place and therefore support the defence[15]. In essence whether this defence is available is purely a decision for the jury based on the evidence. Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 raises two questions which must be considered by the jury. The first is the subjective question of whether the Gharmi was provoked to lose her self-control by the things that Peter had said or done to her. In order for provocation to be considered it must be decided that Gharmi was so affected by Peter’s words and actions that she suffered a sudden loss of self-control so that she was ‘so subject to passion as to make [her] for the moment not the master of [her] mind’[16]. Clearly the longer the time between the provocation and the actions of the defendant the less likely it is that the provocation can be said to result in a sudden loss of control[17]. This is more likely to be considered to constitute a situation where the defendant simply exacts revenge on the victim for their actions, and this level of deliberation would be inconsistent with the defence of provocation. Whilst it is essential in order for the defence of provocation to be valid that the act of the defendant follows immediately upon the provoking acts of the victim, it is not essential that the victim’s last act is the only one that triggers the defendant’s actions[18]. This is clearly hugely relevant to Gharmi, in that she has suffered a level of abuse from Peter for the last two years. Since Gharmi has been involved in a series of abusive and violent arguments with Peter over time, the jury are far more likely to be asked to consider that this, on the face of it, relatively minor argument constitutes a ‘last straw’ for Gharmi[19] and that she suffered a loss of self-control following it. It is irrelevant for the purposes of the defence of provocation that Gharmi may have at this or any point in the past induced Peter with her comments, especially regarding Dhoop, to act in the way he did. Since section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 does not expressly preclude circumstances where the defendant has induced an action or a reaction from the victim, which in return caused the defendant to lose control the defence of provocation must be put before the jury[20], as it would if the defendant had not caused any kind of provocation to the victim. It seems likely that Gharmi would meet the requirements of this subjective test, but in order to successfully plead provocation as a defence to murder she must also meet the requirements of the objective test in section 3. The jury must consider not only that the defendant lost their self-control, but also whether all of the things done or said as a provocation might have provoked the reasonable man to do as the defendant did[21]. The directions that would need to be given to a jury at this point are somewhat complex and would need very careful consideration. The jury must assess the level of provocation in relation to any particular peculiarities that the defendant might have[22]. If the defendant is of a particularly sensitive nature regarding some aspect, this must be taken into account when the jury are considering the level of provocation applied by the victim. When this has been assessed however, the jury must then weigh up the standard of the defendant’s self-control against that of the reasonable person, of the same sex and age of the defendant, exercising ordinary powers of self-control[23]. The jury can not take into account any of the defendant’s particular peculiarities when assessing whether they have exercised reasonable self-control. It is not necessary for the act which has been provoked to be in any way proportionate to the provocation, but the jury should consider this when deciding whether the reasonable man might have reacted in the same manner as the defendant[24]. What this means for Gharmi is that whilst a jury will take into account any personal traits that she might possess with regards to the level of provocation which might provoke a reaction from her, they will then need to decide whether a woman of the same age as her, with a normal level of self-control, might have acted in the same manner. They will take into consideration the level of abuse Gharmi has received from Peter and the period over which it has been received for the purposes of assessing whether it is of a serious enough nature to support the defence of provocation. Having done this they cannot take it into account further when deciding whether Gharmi acted reasonably, this must be assessed against the standard described above. There are one or two matters which may be of concern to the jury when considering provocation in relation to Gharmi’s killing of Peter. The first is that her reaction did not follow the provocation immediately. Gharmi spent time cooking Peter’s meal and, it may be considered, took time to plan her revenge in a controlled manner. The counter argument to this would of course be that Gharmi must have been aware that her actions would result in her arrest and in that circumstance it seems far more likely to have been a moment of loss of control on her part. It would seem unreasonable to think that she might prefer to kill Peter and leave her son without either parent, instead of exacting some other kind of revenge on him; such as leaving and marrying Dhoop. The other concern would be that her revenge, given the fact that the relationship was a tempestuous one, was not proportionate to the provocation. It has been mentioned that this does not need to be the case, but it is s omething that would be considered by a jury when deciding whether Gharmi’s reasonable counterpart would have acted in the same manner she did[25]. At this stage of their deliberations the jury cannot take into account any of Gharmi’s personal characteristics, such as the possibility that she might be more sensitive to Peter’s comments as a result of the length of time the abuse has continued for. They must simply say that if provoked would the reasonable woman of Gharmi’s age have reacted as she did. It is far less likely that a person who has not suffered sustained abuse would have reacted by killing Peter, but this is how Gharmi must be judged. If found guilty of murder Gharmi will face a mandatory life sentence, which means, for the type of murder she has committed, she will face a prison sentence of not less that fifteen years[26]. It has already been stated that if convicted of involuntary manslaughter she could also face a life sentence[27] there is however some discretion in sentencing. The same applies if Gharmi successfully pleads voluntary manslaughter through provocation[28]. The court will take into account the level of provocation, the time span between the provocation and the unlawful killing and the length of time that the provocation has taken place for. Clearly the less the provocation and the shorter its duration the longer the sentence that will be issued to the defendant, providing there are no other mitigating circumstances. The sentence range is from life imprisonment to no custodial sentence at all. It seems likely on the facts that Gharmi would face some kind of custodial sentence, but given the length of time the provocation continued for it, would be lessened from life, however it is recognised that actual physical violence or anticipated violence are considered a greater provocation than verbal abuse alone. On the given facts Gharmi did unlawfully kill Peter. If this was not intentional she may face a charge of manslaughter. In 1989, the last year for which figures are available, the number of indictments for homicide was 371 of which there were only 28 convictions for involuntary manslaughter as opposed to 131 for murder and 110 for other types of manslaughter[29]. With this in mind it seems, on the facts, that Gharmi is far more likely to be successful in a plea of manslaughter through provocation in order to reduce her conviction from murder than have it reduced to involuntary manslaughter by claiming that she did not intend to kill Peter. 2000 words Table of Cases A-G’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 617 A-G for Jersey v. Holley [2005] UKPC 23 DPP v. Camplin [1978] AC 705 Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 R v. Ahluwia [1993] Crim. LR 63 R v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All ER 833 R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59 R v. Dias [2001] EWCA Crim 2986, R v. Kennedy [2005] 1 WLR 2159 et al R v. Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 R v. Humphries [1994] 4 All ER 1009 R v. Inner South London Coroner, ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 R v. Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740 DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290 R v. Stewart (Benjamin James) [1995] 4 All ER 999 R v. Taylor (1834) 2 Lew CC 215 R v. Thornton (Sara Elizabeth) (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 Table of Legislation Criminal Justice Act 2003 Homicide Act 1957 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Bibliography Allen, M. J., Elliott and Wood’s Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 8th Edition (2001), London: Sweet Maxwell Halsbury’s Laws of England, Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure (Volume 11(1)) (2006 Reissue) Paragraphs – 92 – 101: Web Version Holton, R. and Shute, S., Self Control in the Modern Provocation Defence (2007), Oxford: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (27(1), 49 – 73) Office for National Statistics, Criminal Statistics for England and Wales (1998), Cm 4649 Ormerod, D., Smith and Hogan Criminal Law 12th Revised Edition, (2008), Oxford: Oxford University Press Ormerod, D., Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials 9th Revised Edition, (2005), Oxford: Oxford University Press Reed, A., Jury Directions on Provocation (2006), Criminal Lawyer (158, 1 – 3) Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline: Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation (2005) Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., The English Legal System 7th Edition (2004), London: Cavendish 1 Footnotes [1] Homicide Act 1957, s.1 [2] Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 [3] DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290 [4] R v. Taylor (1834) 2 Lew CC 215 [5] Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.24 [6] R v. Inner South London Coroner, ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 [7] R v. Dias [2001] EWCA Crim 2986, R v. Kennedy [2005] 1 WLR 2159 et al [8] Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.24 [9] R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59 [10] A-G’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 617 [11] Hogan, ‘The Killing Ground: 1964 – 73’ [1974] Crim. L.R. 387,391 [12] Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.5 [13] Homicide Act 1957 s.3 [14] R v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All ER 833 [15] R v. Stewart (Benjamin James) [1995] 4 All ER 999 [16] R v. Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 [17] R v. Ahluwia [1993] Crim. LR 63 [18] R v. Humphries [1994] 4 All ER 1009 [19] R v. Thornton (Sara Elizabeth) (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 [20] R v. Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740 [21] Homicide Act 1957 s.3 [22] DPP v. Camplin [1978] AC 705 [23] A-G for Jersey v. Holley [2005] UKPC 23 [24] Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 [25] Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 [26] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.269 [27] Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.5 [28] Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline: Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation (2005) [29] Criminal Statistics for England and Wales Cm 4649 (1998)

Essay on Corruption of the Family and Society in Kafkas Metamorphosis

Corruption of the Family and Society Exposed in Metamorphosis Franz Kafka's existentialistic perspective on the meaning of life (or rather, the lack thereof), is clearly portrayed through Gregor Samsa in Metamorphosis. Kafka's belief that there is no meaning to life nor any reason to hold an optimistic outlook towards life, is a dominant force in the story. The author is able to create conflict by portraying Gregor as being the complete opposite of his own personal beliefs: Kafka's almost paradoxical belief that, though there is no meaning to life, the individual can create one for himself, is entirely missed by Gregor. Kafka's weighty emphasis on individualism and the corruption that society and the familial infrastructure represent is demonstrated through Gregor's interactions with the members of his own family and those of society. This leads to the development of Gregor Samsa as more than a sympathetic character, and makes Metamorphosis a novella of fantastical, fable-like proportions, complete with a moral and a superficially happy ending. Kafka's Metamorphosis was written in 1912, in the midst of a German cultural, social, and economic metamorphosis. Industrialization had reached Germany, and changed the mindset of the people. The increasing number of factorial jobs available, the numbing shifts and schedules, . . . - all this came with industrialization, and it was to this that Kafka was writing in protest. Through Gregor, Kafka demonstrates the dehumanization that industrialization was bringing to Germany, to the extent that there was little to no difference between humans and animals. By turning Gregor's physical being into an unnamed and abhorrent bug, Kafka emphasizes the similarities between th... ... followed by a period of "vacant and peaceful meditation" (Kafka, 127), in which he reflects with new insight his past life, and, while in the process of making tentative plans for the future, dies a peaceful death. Gregor's death, followed so closely by his dawning comprehension of individuality, closes the story to a full and complete circle, which began with his physical transformation into a bug and ended with his humanization. Kafka uses Gregor Samsa as almost a fable-istic character, as if to warn his reader "Don't be like Gregor! Follow your own paths or die a death like a dung bug!" Kafka's emphasis on individualism and how the corruption that society and familial infrastructure affects a human being develops this story into one with moralistic consequences for the reader, persuading him to review his own priorities and to reset them accordingly.

Could or should psychology be called a science? Essay

The advantages of calling psychology a science are huge. It allows us to state that it contains objective facts, correct our mistakes and build on previous discoveries. However many refute giving psychology the tile of ‘a science’ believing that humans are far too complex in their processes to be explained in generalised terms. The key assumptions of ‘science’ are; Invariance, in science a set of laws don’t change, Determinism, meaning that everything can be explained using these laws and that there is a reason for everything and finally Operationalism, trusting in an objective and accurate set of measured variables. Many psychologists believe that these key principals conflict with those of human cognitions; which are often complex and seem to fail to follow any set rules of nature. People inevitably change over time; this fact challenges the principal of ‘Invariance’ from the scientific point of view. However there is a difference in changes found on behaviour and those found in ‘laws’. For example trends of music have changed with time and culture, but the underlying psychological cognitions behind those changes haven’t been altered; group pressure still remains. Science asserts that one set of rules can apply for everyone; determinism. However a psychologist would state that its very founding principals of the ‘psyche’ means that people follow many different sets of rules and cannot be forced into one category due to differing levels of cognitions. This might be challenged be saying that science chooses to follow a set of rules that are as simple as they can be, but that psychology might have to have a more complex set of rules in order to appreciate human differences. An analogy used to support this is that, â€Å"In spelling ‘I’ before ‘E’ doesn’t always work, but the more complex rule of ‘I’ before ‘E’ except after ‘C’ does. † Finally the challenge to the idea of ‘operationalism’ comes form the fact that many psychologists believe that you can’t observe and measure thoughts and feelings directly, as they are internal. However science might say that you can infer the thoughts and feelings of a person from their external behaviour. Many psychologists would state that ‘psychologies inability to predict human behaviour could be taken as proof that psychology isn’t a science because science works on the principals that if you observe something enough times you will be able to understand it and predict what will happen in the future. ‘ Science however, began like psychology; without all the answers and indeed even modern medical science cannot predict all the answers e. g. Modern medicinal science doesn’t know how to cure cancer because they don’t know how it will react to different drugs. We would demand a far more complex analysis from a psychologist than we would from other scientists. We might ask a psychologist what a human will do, this question could be considered as broad as asking a physicist what will happen to a specific drop of water in the ocean. There are a great deal of variables influencing human behaviour, therefore making it unrealistic to expect that people’s behaviour could be predicted from observing just one or two variables, similarly in physics; the behaviour of particles can’t be predicted due to the fact that not all of the determinants of the particles behaviour can be observed at once. Psychology cannot be discounted as a science just due to the fact that we don’t know the cause of something. As a psychologist you should appreciate the fact that humans have an inability to know everything and just because we don’t know the cause it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. If psychology were a science there would be some key issues that would need sorting before people accepted its status. The knowledge gained through psychological research might be mis-used. Given to those in political or economic power psychological research could mean that humans have an inability to defend themselves against certain ideas that were being forced upon them. If psychology became a science then humans would have to be tested upon to gain more accurate results and to create complex laws about them. These experiments might be unethical, for example we have seen the research that Milgram did, however even though it was controversial the participants agreed that they were unharmed and that they were glad to have participated. There would also be strict ethical guidelines should humans be tested on. Many psychologists believe that the reason psychology shouldn’t be a science is due to the mysterious and uncertain nature of it. The fact that we don’t understand ‘love’ might make it seem more magical and exciting, something that appeals to human nature. The advantages to understanding something like love would mean that we could prevent areas such as divorce, break up and heartbreak, causing a less painful world for humans. The complexity of areas of psychology, such as love and hate, means that inevitably the mystery and human mis-understanding surrounding such phenomena would be unlikely to be removed.

Globalisation Leads to the Homogenization of Cultures

After World War II, some ambitious leaders advocated the establishment of an effective mechanism to stabilize the world order. One of the ways to maintain the international order is to prevent the disintegration of the world economy (Seitz, 1995, p. 26). Under such a background, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was founded, and then accelerated the development of economic globalization. As there is an inseparable relationship between economy and culture, the more the trend of economic globalization accelerates, the faster the trend of various culture globalization blends (Seitz, 1995, p. 7). Collisions between various cultures may have different consequences. Some scholars think that the long-term results of culture clash might lead to homogenization of cultures, which means people become the same as the dominant culture, such as sharing the same education structures, music, beliefs, and consumer values (Berry, 2008, p. 328). This essay will examine the degree to which globalizatio n assimilates the cultures in different ethnical groups. Culture is constantly changing and developmental, which is influenced by two factors, the natural environment and the social environment.The natural environment with a limited and gradual impact on culture is relatively stable. Social changes are the most direct and frequent factor leading to the changes in trends or conditions. For example, the West Indies, which under the colonial rule of European for a long time, and the religions and values were both effected by dominative groups that means mainstream cultures (Berry, 2008, p. 330). In the time of peace, investing or trading with different countries, touring or studying in various places, can manifest the phenomenon of cultural transmission.With the deepening of economic globalization, these activities become more frequent, different cultures also have a higher and deeper level of mutual contacts. Therefore, a complex situation might be formed, which means there is likely to form four possible consequences, assimilation, integration, separation and marginalization (Berry, 2008, p. 332). One of the possibilities is that the cultural homogenization might be formed owing to the expansion of globalization (Berry, 2008, p. 332).The phenomenon refers to one culture, which is under the penetration of another culture, and then gradually lost its original characteristics to assimilate to the dominant culture. Assimilative culture often seems as an advanced culture or a strong culture; conversely, another culture that is assimilated by the advantaged one might be called a backward culture or a weak culture. An example can be seen in this case, the Soviet Union, which was one of the largest and most powerful nation states, and played a significant role in the movement of globalization.The language, social structure, religious values and economic policies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (which were merged by Soviet Union) were highly influenced and dominated by Russian cultural features. However, nearly 15 years later, the politics, culture and economy of Estonia resurged (Berry, 2008, pp. 332-333). It can be said that globalization leads to the cultural homogenization to some extent. Even if under the rule of the powerful nation, the indigenous culture might still be back after the independence.Another possibility is the integration of different cultures, which is a diversified phenomenon by participating fully into the dominant society that may lead to some shared values and features, while keeping their own distinctive cultures (Berry, 2008, p. 332). For example, McDonald's, which is one of the most successful international food service organizations, has fully realized that it is essential to adapt to the local cultures and obtain understanding and recognition of local consumers to survive in foreign markets (Peng, 2009, p. 19).In particular, McDonald’s in China has promoted special Chicken Nuggets and Chinese rice catering to local dietary habits of consumers. It seems that the taste of the food in McDonald’s is nearly the same around the world, no matter in America, Spain or China. The difference is the various cultures in different countries. McDonald's will introduce new products in some certain areas according to different national consumer taste, preference and legal, religious and local habits of customs (Watson, 2000, p. 125-132). What is more, this phenomenon enriches the connotation of the culture, and increases the diversity of people's consumer choice.Integration of cultures might be the most beneficial to the improvement of countries. The combination of two different societies is likely to create a new culture, which may absorb the advantages of traditional culture and foreign cultures, thus it will bring the innovation and development of societies. The last two possibilities that exist in the process of globalization are called separation and marginalization. Separation means that the non-dominant groups retain their original conditions and refuse to converge with other dominant cultures.Marginalization refers to a process of being outside the dominant society and meanwhile losing their own cultures (Berry, 2008, p. 332). There is an example that comes from a survey about immigrant youth, which was conducted by Berry, Phinney, Sam and Veder in 2006. There is 7997 adolescents (5366 immigrant youth and 2631 national youth respectively) in this survey, the statistics indicated that 975 adolescents showed a strong sense of consciousness to support their own ethnic group by using their own ethnic language fluently, keeping in touch with ethnic peers, and holding a high ethnic identity.These behaviours reflect that the adolescents are not likely to involve into the major society, as they hold an attitude separate to the dominant culture (Berry, 2008, p. 334). On the contrary, the other 973 youth who were in the status of marginalization showed low ethnic identity, low fluency in ethnic language, and fewer contacts with the national peers. However, they endorsed the acculturation attitudes of assimilation, marginalization and separation, which were contradictory.Although these youth tend to join into the dominant society, they lack some necessary abilities to communicate with dominative people (Berry, 2008, p. 335). It might be said that they are lost in the two or more different societies, a certain direction could be effective so that they can feel a sense of presence. In conclusion, according to Berry (2008), globalization may have four possible consequences: assimilation, integration, separation and marginalization. These four outcomes are likely to influence the process of societies between different countries.Social change and development may not lead to the destruction of ethnic or local culture completely. Even when the different cultures integrate, new culture also can retain features of traditional or ethnic culture to a certain degree. But, these changes do not imply the assimilation of cultures influenced by globalization to a great extent. Conversely, as time goes on, cultural differences between various ethnic groups will be gradually reduced, but will not disappear. Therefore, globalization may bring homogenization to cultures to a small extent, but the non-dominative cultures still might be preserved.

First cause essays

First cause essays There are many different Cosmological arguments for the existence of God. People for many years now have been trying to distinguish if God was a matter of faith or if there are reasons to back up his existence. I have looked at all four Cosmological arguments and the argument that best fit my beliefs and reasoning was the first cause argument. The First cause argument not only has reasons to back up it opinions but also has traditional faith in it, which I believe is why it is the most well known argument. Our society at the present is filled with mostly the baby-boomer generation which are set in there ways and do not want to be told to think differently. Our textbook elucidates what most people who believe in God articulate when asked how they believe the world/god was created, Well, things just didnt pop up out of nothing. Someone, a pretty powerful Someone, had to cause the universe to come into existence. You just cant have causes going back forever. God must have made the world. Nothing else makes sense (Pojman, 101). The quote that was just presented sums up how people that believe in God believe in faith, and how first cause argument takes peoples faiths and is putting reason to it. The first cause argument gives explanation to how humans are not self-caused, only others cause change so something else (God) caused me. Since there cannot be an infinite number of causes something had to be the first (i.e. God). With this being said God then has to be the only uncaused first cause. (Pojman 102) Something has to be the cause of everything, which means God, is unchallengeable. The most plausible objection to the first cause argument is that if God was self-caused then he goes against the first cause theory that someone else has to cause something in order for change. By needing someone else to cause me or others around me we have to look back at our ...