Sociology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 14

Sociology - Essay Example The link between social class and educational attainment can be proved to exist if evidence is found for the existence of a relationship between ability and social class since good abilities are very essential for sound education, since good abilities are essential for sound education and learning. A person is gifted with good abilities by nature. Though practice makes a lot of difference but a practicing person can never be as sharp as the one who is mentally smart. Therefore, good abilities are in born and can not be developed. Secondly, it needs to be evaluated whether a social class is inherited or a higher social class is attainable through hard work or not. Thirdly, it needs to be clarified whether social class is needed to ensure sound educational attainment, or vice versa. It can be observed in the society that money can not buy everything. Many rich parents fail to educate their children despite getting them admitted in expensive schools. Many schools guarantee that they can educate students the best but the fact is that it is not true unless the students themselves take interest in their studies. On the other hand, we come across many cases where poor parents have succeeded in educating their children good enough to get them high posts and good salaries, and accordingly they social class of the children gets upgraded as compared to their parents. Thus, it is proved that money can not buy learning and a higher social status is quite attainable through hard work and luck. Expensive schools are not necessary for the attainment of good education. A mentally sharp and hard working person can get the highest level of education. All he / she needs is to be at the right place and the right time and a good luck. Education is not the property of the rich. Thu s, there is no significant relationship between social class and educational

Ethnic Conflict Essay Example for Free

Ethnic Conflict Essay 2. Discuss the effect that modernization has had on ethnic identification and ethnic conflict. The effect modernization has had on ethnic identification and ethnic conflict is not a great one. Early modernization theorists, who were quite optimistic about the positive effects of literacy, urbanization, and modern values, clearly underestimated the extent to which these factors might mobilize various ethnic groups and set them against each other (Handelman, 2011, p. 113). Modernization challenged traditional religious, national, and tribal identities by undercutting traditional ethnic practices and values. A huge part of current modernization is globalization, which pose an even greater challenge. The long-term effect of the expanding â€Å"world culture† advanced by globalization are not entirely clear (Handelman, 2011, p. 114). Globalized culture can create a backlash and increase tensions between neighboring communities as not everyone can ethically identify with each other. 3. What are some reasons that might explain why major civil strife related to ethnicity has declined in the last 10-15 years? Some reasons that might explain why major civil strife related to ethnicity has declined in the last 10-15 years are statecraft, constitutional arrangements and external intervention. In addition, the transition to a democratic government has aided in the decline. Faced with common critical environmental, social and economic matters for the previous 10 to 15 years, different ethnic groups came to what socialist have called a culture of accommodation. Accommodation is the practice which contradictory groups make a mindful attempt to make working arrangements with in them which then suspend the conflict and make their relations more acceptable and reduce wasteful energy.

Doctor Manette’s Role In A Tale of Two Cities :: A Tale of Two Cities

Doctor Manette’s Role in A Tale of Two Cities Introduction- Individual characters often exist as the heart of a novel. I.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A Tale of Two Cities evolved from Doctor Manette’s story A.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doctor Manette’s story II.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Recalled to Life† A.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doctor Manette’s appearance B.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  His revival C.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  His relationship with his daughter III.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doctor Manette’s relapses A. His newfound strength IV.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Doctor Manette as a hero Conclusion- Doctor Manette as the nucleus of the novel. Individual characters often exist as the heart of the novel. They contain dynamic characteristics and occupy a central position in the novel. In A Tale of Two Cities Charles Dickens uses Doctor Manette as the core of his novel, Doctor Manette â€Å"is a worthy hero and a crucial piece in the puzzle†(Glancy 75). His personality and story thrusts him into the spotlight throughout the book. The novel revolves around his character. A Tale of Two Cities evolved from Doctor Manette’s story. He has witnessed the aftermath of a rape and assault committed by two twin nobles, the Evrà ©mondes, and is forbidden to speak of it; â€Å"†¦the things that you see here are things to be seen and not spoken of† (Dickens 325). But when Manette tries to report these crimes he is locked up in the Bastille. The novel is then built up through Doctor Manette’s cruel and unjustified imprisonment and the events following his release from prison(Lindsay 103). That is how he becomes the core of the novel. Upon the opening of the novel Dr. Manette is a weak and horrific man. He is a man â€Å"recalled to life† (Dickens 24) from an eighteen-year imprisonment and has the appearance of an aged man having white hair and a ragged face; â€Å"he is a ghost, the empty shell of a man† (Glancy 69). He is very confused, so confused he cannot recall any of his past or even remember his name. â€Å"The experience of oppressive misery has not merely twisted him†¦it has broken down the whole system of memory in his psyche† (Lindsay 104). He is a mere victim of the past. â€Å"Dr. Manette has been driven mad, broken and goaded into a destroying curse, by eighteen years of unjust imprisonment in the Bastille† (Johnson 30). He is too accustomed to imprisonment to be able to bear freedom, which was true of many prisoners during the Revolution. But he is resurrected at the sight of his daughter, who stimulates the memory of his wife with her â€Å"threads of gold†, or her golden hair.

David Wilson’s Speech on Darwin’s Cathedral Essay

The speaker, David Sloan Wilson, believes that societies function as single organisms, and morality and religion biologically and culturally evolved adaptations that enable human groups to function as single units rather than an assortment of individual unites. His lecture was a poor attempt to explain group selection, which is selection for a characteristic specifically because the characteristics enhance the reproductive success of the group as a whole, rather than solely the individual. The beginning of his lecture was not very helpful in proving anything; he merely quoted several phrases from scientists and read them to the audience. I wasn’t really sure where he was going at this point. Then, he went on to explain examples or should I say a lack of examples, which he considered to undergo group selection. He allegedly did some sort of experiment with chickens and their eggs. He tried to say that under group selection the experiment showed that there was an increased production of all the chickens’ eggs. However, within a group selection only certain individuals benefited. There was also some weird twist in this experiment, he tried selecting for the best individuals and then put them all together in one cage, and they got violent with each other and de-feathered each other, while at the same time he used the best group of chickens together in the same cage that produced the most eggs as a group. Then, he compared the group of the best selected individuals with the best group, and somehow he tried to prove his point. I don’t really think anyone was convinced except for himself. It seemed like the only thing he tested for was who works the best in a cage, because that situation would never occur in nature. Another example of group selection according to him had to do with bees. But, once again he was most likely wrong because it appears that bee’s act according to kin selection, which is selection for characteristics that enhance the fitness of the individual indirectly by enhancing the reproductive success of the individual’s relatives, because all bees are related. There is only one female queen bee and the rest are workers who  have no choice, but to work like slaves for the benefit of the queen and its relatives. Then, at the end of the lecture someone posed a question about how could he explain the endosymbiotic theory according to group selection, I think this question may have stumped him, because whatever he said didn’t seem very convincing , but yet he tried to defend his point, even though the endosymbiotic theory seems to explained by many as a mutualistic relationship. He also tried to explain group selection in relation to religion. He attempted to demonstrate how religions have enabled people to achieve, by working as a unit, what they could have never done alone. Apparently, he examined specific examples of religious culture from Calvinism to Balinese water temples in hopes that his group selection theory would be confirmed, and somehow he supposedly did verify this. But all in all, I think he needs to attain more believable concrete research, and then present experiments that will clearly prove his point without too much doubt. If he wants people to buy into his theory of group selection he really needs more data to back his theory up with because I wasn’t really impressed with what I saw, most of it was really confusing, hard to sit through, hard to believe, and didn’t make much sense. He cant simply prove group selection through theory alone he needs more empirical data, so that he can prove to people he is right, instead of trying to convince us through babbling on and on about nothing, but I do give him credit for his speech. His answers and conclusions may not be correct, but at least he is questioning and examining things like a good scientist should do. He is obviously a firm believer in himself, and did put forth some thought and effort in trying to prove his theory and he demonstrated some real courage by trying to go outside of his own field of evolutionary biology into matters of religion and trying to connect the two. Even though his book may not prove his theory of group selection, the controversial title should make him a lot of money. Group selection is selection for a characteristic specifically because the characteristics enhances the reproductive success of the group as a whole. Kin selection is selection for characteristics that enhance the fitness of the individual indirectly by enhancing the reproductive success of the individuals relatives.

20 Years Ago India Essay

Twenty years ago this weekend, three top Indian officials burned the midnight oil tearing up old import controls and preparing a package of economic reforms that would slowly lead to the booming India that is widely admired today, with growth of 8-9%, 300-350m people enjoying the benefits of a consumer economy, and businessmen operating internationally. But India seems to be in no mood to celebrate that momentous event, just as it wasn’t at India’s 50th anniversary of independence in 1997 when the feeling was downbeat. People then were unsure of what to celebrate, since so little had been achieved in terms of economic development, care for the poor, and industrial efficiency since the British left in 1947. Ten years later, that had changed because of the economic boom of the intervening years. But the 1997 mood is now back again. People are aware that, despite all the economic and business successes, 800m people are still desperately poor and under-nourished, with poor access to clean water and health and education services. Public infrastructure and services are crumbling, national security and defence preparedness is woefully inadequate, and governance is sliding into a greedy, corrupt and inefficient abyss with no bottom in sight. Popular contrasts of India’s elephant and China’s tiger economies are being trotted out in various articles and studies, as they have been for 20 years. But the contrast is simplistic because India has its tiger industries such as information technology (IT), autos, pharma, and mobile telecoms that have been spurred by entrepreneurial drive and technological change. There are also rapidly industrializing states – notably Gujarat and Tamil Nadu (despite its political corruption). These are taking the place of India’s earlier internationally lauded cities, Bangalore and Hyderabad, the capitals of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh that have been swamped by the greed and corruption of politicians and businessmen in areas such as land acquisition, mining and real estate. (The Karnataka chief minister is this week accused of facilitating multi-million dollar illegal mining). India’s blundering elephant is the government establishment that has refused over the past 20 years to change the way that the country is run. The 1991 whittling-down of the government’s role has not been followed through. The government still controls the mostly unreformed banking and defence sectors as well as the vast array of public sector industries and, in various ways, land useage and licensing, especially in the corrupt telecom sector. Such government controls skew development. When the current United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power in 2004, led by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, reforms were initially held back by Communist-led Left Front that supported the government. Since the 2009 general election, reforms have been blocked by the disproportionate power of other coalition partners that have 20 or fewer MPs out of the coalition’s total of 262. The main problem however is that Sonia Gandhi, who heads the Congress Party, is not a firm enough believer in reforms to push Singh and his government into a tougher line, and Singh is too cautious. Consequently, a raft of reforms have been delayed including divestments of stakes in public sector businesses, increasing FDI in various sector such as defence, insurance and retail, and – most important of all – curbing subsidies. Montek Ahluwalia, whose Planning Commission is currently finalising a new five-year plan, argues that the future focus should be on three more urgent areas that would otherwise block economic progress – the use of energy and water, and urbanisation. These areas need changes of action by the central government, and even more by state governments, that has eluded India for the past 20 years. It is hard to see how India can tackle these issues, given that failure since 1991. People who are well off will of course do better, and the 300-350m people now enjoying varying levels of consumerism will increase in number and satisfaction. Companies will become more profitable and will become more internationally active. But social tensions will increase, with growing battles over the use of land and other scarce resources. Major reforms will be needed to reverse the trend of bad governance and corruption. It is an irony that, though the past 20 years began and now end with Manmohan Singh, he was neither in charge at the beginning, nor is he at the end. That is not a criticism, but in the early 1990s he could only do what he did courtesy of Narasimha Rao, and now he cannot do what he doesn’t do courtesy of Sonia Gandhi and the UPA’s coalition partners. Something surely needs to change.