Market-Based or Government Control Research Paper

Market-Based or Government Control - Research Paper Example America's diverse healthcare problems, such as a fully nationalized healthcare system and improving the current market-based healthcare system (Shi & Singh, 2007, p.ix). This paper seeks to explore the issues surrounding PPACA. A number of authors argued against PPCA because they assert that it is a socialist intervention that does not fit the market-run socio-economic model of modern society and it is a costly and unconstitutional infringement on individual choices and corporate rights. ObamaCare is fundamentally socialist and does not fit into the market-run socio-economic model of modern society. Williamson (2011) described PPACA as socialist because it is based on a ç” °entral planning model, with socialist features of Ã¥ ¦ ¬ncome-redistribution, economic leveling, the co-opting and nationalization of private enterprises, and the elevation of an elite planning class(p.237). He did not believe that a socialist model can resolve the underlying issues of high medical and insurance costs in the nation, and for him, it will only replicate the 1970s British healthcare issues of poor implementation and poor results. Sultz and Young (2008) highlighted the characteristics of American healthcare that evade an effective socialization process. First, the healthcare system is too large to be managed by the state alone: å… ¸he U.S. health care system is the worlds eight largest economies, second to that of France, and is larger than the total economy of Italy(p.xvii). Se cond, the healthcare system is too complex, because of its labor-intensive levels and the changing, varied roles of healthcare professionals and employees who interact with evolving medical technology and patient preferences (Sultz & Young, 2008, p.xvii). Sultz and Young (2008) argued that the size and complexity of the American healthcare system shaped problems of limited health care access, inconsistent quality, and increasing costs (p.xviii).

Prepare an analysis of ethics in the 21st Century Essay

Prepare an analysis of ethics in the 21st Century - Essay Example It has been viewed that majority of the organizations value ethics for the purpose of attaining several significant benefits. The benefits may include enhancing the procedure of decision-making, improving profitability in the long-run, generating credibility and most importantly accomplishing a superior competitive position (Mahdavi, n.d.). In this discussion, the perception of ethics as well as its importance in the competitive financial market will be taken into concern. Additionally, a fundamental analysis of ethics in relation to 21st century will also be described in the discussion. Role of Ethics in 21st Century Ethics is known to play a decisive part in every business organization. It can be stated that an organizational structure related to the learning of business ethics is given increased importance. This is due to the reason that different roles as well as job descriptions which exist in a particular business organization might trigger some sorts of unethical behavior. It has been viewed that ethics broadly contributes to the organizations by assisting them to make effectual decisions which in turn enhances their productivity as well as profitability by a substantial level. By considering this factor, it can be stated that ethical behavior in organizations is majorly found to be occupying a central position in this era of 21st century. It not only affects the procedure of decision-making but also aids to develop the prevailing culture of organizations (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2009). It has been observed that the aspect of ethics has become a topmost priority for the business organizations in the era of 21st century. The organizations strongly believe that their technological advancements, organizational strategies as well as goals and values are considerably related to ethics. Moreover, the interrelation between the business leaders, customers, vendors and clients are supposed to get duly affected by ethics. In this regard it can be mentioned t hat the main intention of forming an ethical organizational background relates to the actuality of incessantly developing the relationships to avail significant benefits such as increased market share, business reputation and profitability. The organizations prioritize ethics because they realize that it is quite necessary for them to safeguard their business reputation and evade any sort of unfavorable media coverage. In the recent era i.e. in the 21st century, ethics is offered prime significance as it is regarded as a â€Å"values-based culture†. It has been observed that ethics is neither considered to be an alternative nor a comfort. It is simply an approach which emphasizes upon the competencies, intelligences and experiences of the members at all levels of an organization. According to various researches, it has been noted that there exists certain vital factors which contributes towards generating a values-based culture. The important factors include shared values, mo ral courage, commitment and common language (Brimmer, 2007). In relation to the factor of shared values, there are certain core values which can be observed in all the global cultures. The core values comprise honesty, compassion, accountability, fairness and respect. These vital core values act as a driving force which ultimately supports the organizations to formulate

Debates on Race and Language: Frantz Fanon

Debates on Race and Language: Frantz Fanon In no way should I dedicate myself to the revival of an unjustly unrecognised Negro civilisation Explain and assess this statement by Fanon at the end of Black Skin, White Masks Introduction We understand the world, ourselves, and other people through language (Foucault, 1977). For Foucault everything in life is determined by what he calls discourse, that is to say what we say about a subject. Thus, the language that we use defines how we see the world and how we view other people. Foucault (1977) further maintains that language is controlled by those who hold power in society. This means that everyone else’s use of language is determined by what those I power have to say about a subject. Nowadays many writers maintain that the social and linguistic construct of race has had a powerful effect on the consciousness of both black and white people. Language is real because it is inevitable acted upon (what Bordieu describes as a speech act) the language that spoke of one race as inferior to another became a justification for enslaving those people designated as inferior. Discourses of race and inferiority were central to the success of the modernist project as black p eople were seen as treacherous to the central narrative of Western personhood, that is to say they were different from what was elevated as the white norm (Fanon 1986). Frantz Fanon was a French essayist and author whose main concern was decolonisation and what he, and many other thinkers have seen as the psychopathology of colonialism. He died in 1961 at the age of 36 yet his work continues to be highly influential, particularly in the fields of cultural studies and race and ethnicity. He wrote most of his work while he lived in North Africa, by contrast, Black Skin, White Masks was written while he was still living in France. For many he is seen as the intellectual thinker on decolonisation in the twentieth century. His work has had far reaching implications over the years on a number of liberationist movements which has led some people to regard him as an advocate of violence.[1] Beginning with an introduction to modernity this assignment will discuss Fanon’s work and his statement in the context of this debate about language and the debate about black experience and black identities which, Gilroy (1993) maintains can only be understood in terms of the history of slavery. Fanon (1986) would however, dispute this notion, he believes that if it were at all possible, then colonialism should be done away with and wiped from the history books, even though he recognises that this is not possible. The period of colonialism where countries were made great on the backs of slavery separated white from black as though they were two completely different civilizations. The western world became that of the oppressor and the oppressed and Fanon sees the world in terms of this almost pathological relationship. Fanon’s work in Black Skin, White Masks (Fanon, 1986 ed.) encapsulates the sense of division that is felt by both oppressed and oppressors, black and white. Such divisions are rooted in the period that sociologists and cultural theorists now speak of as modernity. Modernity The onset of what is known as Modernity can be traced back to the Enlightenment in the late 17th to early 19th century. The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement and its primary concerns were the powers of human reason, the inevitability of human progress, and the ability of science to provide humanity with answers. Philosophers of this period were also interested in how knowledge was transmitted and how we came to know what we know. This period is renowned for the immense technological and social changes that were taking place and which eventually led to a break with traditional view of the social, of society, and of a person’s place within that society. During this period there was an intense concentration on the individual, which prompted the philosopher Hegel to develop his idea of the historical subject. This is the idea that people’s actions are what have made history what it is. In recent years many theorists have argued that the subject referred only to the white, western, middle class male (see Abbott and Wallace, 1997) and that women, children and other races were excluded from the whole project. This idea of modern society, coupled with the Enlightenment notion of human progress has been problematic for a number of reasons, not least because, as we are well aware, human beings do not always act rationally, and in this sense modernity brought out the darker side of our human nature. The events of the twentieth century have done nothing to dispel this notion, in fact there are those who would argue that modern society is now at its most irrational. Modernity gave the world the nation state, the spread of capitalism and as we shall see, western cultural imperialism and colonization. Modernity produced the conditions for slavery and its success was built upon the enslavement of people who were regarded as different from, and thus inferior to, white western males. Fanon’s Concerns Western history is not just a history of colonial oppression but it is also a history of the struggles against such oppression. Western history is about the oppression of colonialism and the struggles against that oppression, which calls into question Enlightenment notions of the subject. These problems are examined by Fanon in Black Skin, White Masks (1986) where he concentrates on black subjectivity and experience and with the problematic concept of western modernity. He was also concerned with the refutation of dualism, that philosophy apparent in the Enlightenment period which separated things into binary opposites such as male/female, white/black. Binary divisions not only separate genders and races, they objectify them because that which is other is defined only by the oppressor. Fanon’s other major concern was the dislocation that occurs when people are taken from their homelands and forced into a diasporic existence.[2] Fanon (1986) contends that the biggest weapon the coloniser’s had was their representation of those who were colonised, as different. This was done in such a way that they were no longer recognisable even to themselves. For Fanon being colonised estranges human beings from themselves so that they are no longer connected to their own human nature. He is concerned with the history as it is relates to the black experience although his work is sometimes disorganised and not always easy to follow. He writes about the black/white, self/other experience, and how colonialism results in an alienation of the person. Fanon, is against ethnic and cultural absolutism, but could see no reconciliation between the races because the white colonisers will always be waiting for the black mask to slip and reveal the whiteness beneath. Syncretism Gilroy (1993) traces the mutual influence of black and white culture in both America and Britain in an attempt to challenge notions of national and cultural purity and reveal a syncretism of the cultures. Decades before this and in his earlier work The Wretched of the Earth (1963) Fanon writes about syncretism as oppression where the black person assimilates the culture of the coloniser whether they like it or not. He maintains that such syncretism is the colonisers way or reducing black people and thus he speaks of the settler’s creation of the ‘native’ a concept which is evident in the discourses of modernity and its rational subject. This subject could only exist by excluding difference and otherness. Fanon (1986) maintains that the ‘Negro’ is only acceptable on certain terms: What is often called the black soul is a white man’s artefact . . . there is a quest for the Negro, the Negro is in demand, one cannot get along without him, he is needed, but only if he is made palatable in a certain way. (Fanon 1986, p. 114) In saying this Fanon rejects both narcissistic myths of Negritude (and) the White Cultural Supremacy (Bhabha, H. 1986:ix) which is most obvious in linguistic terms. This cultural supremacy still operates today, in most countries in the world children will learn English in school, when the English go abroad many of them do not trouble to learn the language of the country they are visiting. People assume that English will be spoken because cultural hegemony has its base in language and this language signifies power. Thus the language carries with it the power and knowledge of the nation. Hall (1992) argues that nationalism and the nation state are a direct result of capitalism. When people promote these things in a multi-cultural society it can result in people having a confused sense of national identity. Hall further maintains that identity and culture are closely linked. The cultural diaspora that was brought about by slavery has resulted in what Hall (1992) terms ‘hybrid identities’- an expression which in some ways is expressed in Fanon’s idea of black skin and white masks. Fanon (1986) argues that race has been objectified through discourses of superiority and inferiority and has thus become a fixed category which he decries. What these discourses have done is to make of the black person a divided self, a person with a ‘double consciousness.’ This is a term first used by W De Bois, who defined double consciousness as a twoness-an American, a Negro, two souls, two thoughts, two unrecognised strivings, two warring ideals in one da rk body, who dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder (Dubois 2003 quoted in Sawyer, M 2005:86). This double consciousness is demonstrated in the relationships involved in slavery. Slavery was an integral part of this double consiousness of which Du Bois wrote because it consciousness was central to Hegel’s master/slave idea, where the slave remains a slave because they are dominated by a slave mentality. Following on from this line of thought was Richard Wright who believed that the Negro was a symbol in the psychological, social and political systems of the West. The Negro spoken of in modernist discourse was once an African, along with the experiences of slavery this led black people to experience a sense of dislocation where they experienced what the philosopher Nietzsche once described as a frog’s perspective because they looked up from beneath the chains of their oppressors (Wright, 1956). The frog’s perspective lay behind Wright’s understanding of double consciousness. Wright’s work had a strong influence on the writings of Frantz Fanon. In Fanon’s work this‘double consciousness’ or divided self is not restricted to the colonised, Fanon maintains that it is also a property of the coloniser because colonialism affects the self-understanding of both the oppressed and their oppresors. In this he demonstrates the influence that Wright (1956) had on his work because Wright thought that mental illness could result from the relationship between master and slave, between the oppressed and the oppressor. Fanon believed that racial subjectivity was determined from outside of the individual and so he sees neither a unitary black experience nor a unitary white experience. Fanon sees experience as contextual rather than historical, that is to say that the experience of the black person who remained in Africa would be very different from the black person who was made a slave – white experience is affected in a similar way. Thus Fanon says that I do not have the right to allow myself to be mired in what the past has determined. I am not the slave of the slavery that dehumanised my ancestors (Fanon, 1986:230). Conclusion When Fanon says at the end of Black Skin, White Masks that In no way should I dedicate myself to the revival of an unjustly unrecognised Negro civilisation. He is arguing against the objectification of race and the language of inferiority and superiority that are associated with the term ‘negro’. His life’s work was dedicated to decolonisation of those areas that were still part of what had been called the British Empire. The negro was a function of the coloniser’s differentiation of the slave from the white owner. Thus Fanon’s statement acts as a repudiation fo slavery and colonisation. Furthermore Fanon’s argument is important to cultural analysis and to society at large. Talking about a separate negro civilization puts us in the position of being stuck in the binary categories of a black/white cultural analysis that is the heritage of modernity and its failures. What Fanon (1986) appears to be saying is that society and its analysis needs t o go beyond ideas of nationalism and ethnic absolutism – because these things paved the way for colonialism and slavery. Fanon (1986) recognises that we have to live with the inheritance of colonialism and that things are not changed overnight. If we dispense with many of its ideas as Fanon appears to suggest then this raises the question of how we analyse race, nationalism, gender and ethnicity without the use of those categories? We have to have some way of speaking about the things that trouble our society and the best ways of dealing with them. Whatever we choose to say or feel about this as individuals the fact of the matter is that these categories are part of our consciousness and so are integral to our discourses on these subjects. Having said that, things are perhaps only this way because those who are not white, western, middle class males, will always be other – because most of the power in the world is in the hands of this group their definitions of concepts still holds. Bibliography Abbott and Wallace 1997 A Feminist Introduction to Sociology London, Routledge. Bhabha, H. 1986 â€Å"Foreward† in Fanon, F. 1986 (1967) Black Skin, White Masks London, Pluto Press Bourdieu, P. 1991 .Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. Fanon, F 1963 The Wretched of the Earth New York: Grove Press Fanon, F. 1986 (1967) Black Skin, White Masks London, Pluto Press Foucault, M. 1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison London, Allen Lane Gilroy, P 1993 The Black Atlantic London, Verso Hall, S. 1992 â€Å"Our Mongrel Selves† New Statesman and Society, 19th June 1992 Sawyer, M 2005 â€Å"DuBois’ double consciousness versus Latin American exceptionalism: Joe Wright, R 1956 The Colour Curtain Dobson. London . Wright, R. 1979 Native Son Harmondsworth, Penguin 1 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon#Work [2] The spread of groups of people (often against their wishes, and specifically black people and Jews) across different parts of the globe.

Science Inquiry Essay -- essays research papers

Inquiry 2: Force with varied mass Introduction: In this inquiry the relationship between force and mass was studied. This inquiry presents a question: when mass is increased is the force required to move it at a constant velocity increased, and how large will the increase be? It is obvious that more massive objects takes more force to move but the increase will be either linear or exponential. To hypothesize this point drawing from empirical data is necessary. When pulling an object on the ground it is discovered that to drag a four-kilogram object is not four times harder than dragging a two-kilogram object. I hypothesize that increasing the mass will increase the force needed to move the mass at a constant rate, these increases will have a liner relationship. Materials and Methods: In the experiment these materials were used in the following ways. A piece of Veneer wood was used as the surface to pull the object over. Placed on top of this was a rectangular wood block weighing 0.148-kg (1.45 N/ 9.80 m/s/s). A string was attached to the wood block and then a loop was made at the end of the string so a Newton scale could be attached to determine the force. The block was placed on the Veneer and drug for about 0.6 m at a constant speed to determine the force needed to pull the block at a constant speed. The force was read off of the Newton scale, this was difficult because the scale was in motion pulling the object. To increase the mass weights were placed on the top of the ...

Representation and Stuart Hall’s the Other

Representation connects meaning and language to culture. Theories about how LANGUAGE is used to represent the world: * the reflective, Does language simply reflect a meaning which already exists out there in the world of objects, people and events? * the intentional Does language express only what the speaker or writer or painter wants to say, his or her personally intended meaning? * the constructionist Or is meaning constructed in and through language? this perspective has had the most significant impact on cultural studies in recent years.Two major variants or models of the constructionist approach – the semiotic approach (Ferdinand de Saussure) and the discursive approach (Michel Foucault). It is simple enough to see how we might form concepts for things we can perceive -people or material objects, like chairs, tables and desks. But we also form concepts of rather obscure and abstract things, which we can't in any simple way see, feel or touch. Think, for example, of our c oncepts of war, or death, or friendship or love.And, as we have remarked, we also form concepts about things we never have seen, and possibly can't or won't ever see, and about people and places we have plainly made up. We may have a clear concept of, say, angels, mermaids, God, the Devil, or of Heaven and Hell. Culture Now it could be the case that the conceptual map which I carry around in my head is totally different from yours, in which case you and I would interpret or make sense of the world in totally different ways. We would be incapable of sharing our thoughts or expressing ideas about the world to each other.In fact, each of us probably does understand and interpret the world in a unique and individual way. However, we are able to communicate because we share broadly the same conceptual maps and thus make sense of or interpret the world in roughly similar ways. That is indeed what it means when we say we ‘belong to the same culture'. Because we interpret the world in roughly similar ways, we are able to build up a shared culture of meanings and thus construct a social world which we inhabit together. That is why ‘culture' is sometimes defined in terms of ‘SHARED MEANINGS/CONCEPTUAL MAPS'.However, a shared conceptual map is not enough. We must also be able to represent or exchange meanings and concepts, and we can only do that when we also have access to a shared language. LANGUAGE is therefore the second system of representation involved in the overall process of constructing meaning. At the heart of the meaning process in culture, then, are two related ‘systems of representation'. The first enables us to give meaning to the world by constructing a set of correspondences or a chain of equivalences between things -people, objects, events, abstract ideas, etc. and our system of concepts, our conceptual maps. The second depends on constructing a set of correspondences between our conceptual map and a set of signs, arranged or org anized into various languages which stand for or represent those concepts. The relation between ‘things', concepts and signs lies at the heart of the production of meaning in language. The process which links these three elements together is what we call ‘representation'. 1. 2 Language and representation Sheep, cartoon and abstract painting. Visual signs are what are called iconic signs.That is, they bear, in their form, a certain resemblance to the object, person or event to which they refer. Written or spoken signs, on the other hand, are what is called indexical. 1. 3 Sharing the codes The question, then, is: how do people who belong to the same culture, who share the same conceptual map and who speak or write the same language (English) know that the arbitrary combination of letters and sounds that makes up the word, TREE, will stand for or represent the concept ‘a large plant that grows in nature'? The meaning is not in the object or person or thing, nor is it in the word.It is we who fix the meaning so firmly that, after a while, it comes to seem natural and inevitable. It is constructed and fixed by the CODE, which sets up the correlation between our conceptual system and our language system. Codes fix the relationships between concepts and signs. They stabilize meaning within different languages and cultures. One way of thinking about ‘CULTURE' is in terms of these†¦ shared conceptual maps, shared language systems and the codes which govern the relationships of translation between them.This translatability is not given by nature or fixed by the gods. It is the result of a set of social conventions. To belong to a culture is to belong to roughly the same conceptual and linguistic universe, to know how concepts and ideas translate into different languages, and how language can be interpreted to refer to or reference the world. To share these things is to see the world from within the same conceptual map and to make sense of i t through the same language systems. [Inuit and English terms of snowy weather] Does this necessarily mean they experience the snow differently? . 4 Theories of representation Reflective approach meaning is thought to lie in the object, person, idea or event in the real world, and language functions like a mirror, to reflect the true meaning as it already exists in the world. As the poet Gertrude Stein once said, ‘A rose is a rose is a rose'. In the fourth century BC, the Greeks used the notion of mimesis to explain how language, even drawing and painting, mirrored or imitated Nature; they thought of Homer's great poem, The Iliad, as ‘imitating' a heroic series of events.So the theory which says that language works by simply reflecting or imitating the truth that is already there and fixed in the world, is sometimes called ‘mimetic'. And if someone says to me that there is no such word as ‘rose' for a plant in her culture, the actual plant in the garden canno t resolve the failure of communication between us. Within the conventions of the different language codes we are using, we are both right -and for us to understand each other, one of us must learn the code linking the flower with the word for it in the other's culture.Intentional approach. (the opposite case. ) It holds that it is the speaker, the author, who imposes his or her unique meaning on the world through language. Words mean what the author intends they should mean. Again, there is some point to this argument since we all, as individuals, do use language to convey or communicate things which are special or unique to us, to our way of seeing the world. However, as a general theory of representation through language, the intentional approach is also flawed.We cannot be the sole or unique source of meanings in language, since that would mean that we could express ourselves in entirely private languages. But the essence of language is communication and that, in turn, depends on shared linguistic conventions and shared codes. Language can never be wholly a private game. Our private intended meanings, however personal to us, have to enter into the rules, codes and conventions of language to be shared and understood. Language is a social system through and through.This means that our private thoughts have to negotiate with all the other meanings for words or images which have been stored in language which our use of the language system will inevitably trigger into action. Constructivist approach The third approach recognizes this public, social character of language. It acknowledges that neither things in themselves nor the individual users of language can fix meaning in language. Things don't mean: we construct meaning, using representational systems – concepts and signs.We must not confuse the material world, where things and people exist, and the symbolic practices and processes through which representation, meaning and language operate. Constructi vists do not deny the existence of the material world. However, it is not the material world which conveys meaning: it is the language system or whatever system we are using to represent our concepts. It is social actors who use the conceptual systems of their culture and the linguistic and other representational systems to construct meaning, to make the world meaningful and to communicate about that world meaningfully to others.Representation is a practice, a kind of ‘work', which uses material objects and effects. But the meaning depends, not on the material quality of the sign, but on its symbolic function. It is because a particular sound or word stands for, symbolizes or represents a concept that it can function, in language, as a sign and convey meaning – or, as the constructionists say, signify (sign-i-fy) 1. 5 The language of traffic lights We represent or symbolize the different colours and classify them according to different colour-concepts.This is the concep tual colour system of our culture. We say ‘our culture' because, of course, other cultures may divide the colour spectrum differently. What's more, they certainly use different actual words or letters to identify different colours: what we call ‘red', the French call ‘rouge' and so on. This is the linguistic code -the one which correlates certain words (signs) with certain colours (concepts), and thus enables us to communicate about colours to other people, using ‘the language of colours'.But how do we use this representational or symbolic system to regulate the traffic? Colours do not have any ‘true' or fixed meaning in that sense. Red does not mean ‘Stop' in nature, any more than Green means ‘Go'. In other settings, Red may stand for, symbolize or represent ‘Blood' or ‘Danger' or ‘Communism'; and Green may represent ‘Ireland' or ‘The Countryside' or ‘Environmentalism'. Even these meanings can change. In the ‘language of electric plugs', Red used to mean ‘the connection with the positive charge’ but this was arbitrarily and without explanation changed to Brown!But then for many years the producers of plugs had to attach a s1ip:of paper telling people that the code or convention had changed, otherwise how would they know? Red and Green work in the language of traffic lights because ‘Stop' and ‘Go' are the meanings which have been assigned to them in our culture by the code or conventions governing this language, and this code is widely known and almost universally obeyed in our culture and ‘cultures like ours –though we can well imagine other cultures which did not possess the code, in which this language would be a complete mystery.Does it matter which colours we use? No, the constructivists argue. This is because what signifies is not the colours themselves but (a) the fact that they are different and can be distinguished from one another ; and (b) the fact that they are organized into a particular sequence. What signifies, what carries meaning is not each colour in itself nor even the concept or word for it. It is the difference between Red and Green which signifies. If you couldn't differentiate between Red and Green, you couldn't use one to mean ‘Stop' and the other to mean ‘Go'. The simplest way of marking difference is, of course, by means of a binary opposition. Saussure’s revolutionary proposition =: a language consists of signifiers, but in order to produce meaning, the signifiers have to be organized into ‘a system of differences'. It is the differences between signifiers which signify. ) In principle, any combination of colours – like any collection of letters in written language or of sounds in spoken language – would do, provided they are sufficiently different not to be confused.Constructionists express this idea by saying that all signs are ‘arbitrary'. †˜Arbitrary' means that there is no natural relationship between the sign and its meaning or concept. Signs are arbitrary. Their meanings are fixed by codes. Since Red only means ‘Stop' because that is how the code works, in principle any colour would do, including Green. It is the code that fixes the meaning, not the colour itself. This also has wider implications for the theory of representation and meaning in language. It means that signs themselves cannot fix meaning.Instead, meaning depends on the relation between a sign and a concept which is fixed by a code. Meaning is ‘relational'. 1. 6 Summary Representation is the production of meaning through language. Constructionists argue we use signs, organized into languages of different kinds, to communicate meaningfully with others. Languages can use signs to symbolize, stand for or reference objects, people and events in the so-called ‘real' world. But they can also reference imaginary things and fantasy worlds o r abstract ideas which are not in any obvious sense part of our material world.There is no simple relationship of reflection, imitation or one-to-one correspondence between language and the real world. The world is not accurately or otherwise reflected in the mirror of language. Language does not work like a mirror. Meaning is produced within language, in and through various representational systems which, for convenience, we call ‘languages'. Meaning is produced by the practice of representation. It is constructed through signifying – i. e. meaning-producing- practices. How does this take place? In fact, it depends on two different but related systems of representation.First, the concepts which are formed in the mind function as a system of mental representation which classifies and organizes the world into meaningful categories. If we have a concept for something, we can say we know its ‘meaning'. But we cannot communicate this meaning without a second system of representation, a language. Language consists of signs organized into various relationships. But signs can only convey meaning if we possess CODES which allow us to translate our concepts into language -and vice versa. These codes are crucial for meaning and representation.They do not exist in nature but are the result of social conventions. They are a crucial part of our culture – our shared ‘maps of meaning' -which we learn and unconsciously internalize as we become members of our culture. Meaning is not fixed. For many centuries, western societies have associated the word BLACK with everything that is dark, evil, forbidding, devilish, dangerous and sinful. Yet perception of black people in America in the 1960s changed after the phrase ‘Black is Beautiful' became a popular slogan -where the signifier, BLACK, was made to signify the exact opposite meaning (signified) to its previous associations.In Saussure's terms, ‘Language sets up an arbitrary relation between signifiers of its own choosing on the one hand, and signifieds of its own choosing on the other. Not only does each language produce a different set of signifiers, articulating and dividing the continuum of sound (or writing or drawing or photography) in a distinctive way; each language produces a different set of signifieds; it has a distinctive and thus arbitrary way of organizing the world into concepts and categories' (Culler, 1976, p. 23).

My Life Unleashed Essay

Life is all but a matter of constancy, with the altering seasons and the varying tides vigorously wavering the enduring days of the lives of men. The evolution of the life of being a student remains a noteworthy space in my thoughts as my memories as a child will always be learned by heart, if not by everybody else, at least by myself. Or so I think at least by myself, lest I fail to remember that I had the companionship of good friends along the way, by no means abandoning me in times when I need them most. To be there for them when they, too, need someone to be with is only a portion of what sum of good deeds I must or feel to give them in return. And this is what I liked by being a child, apart from everything else that contributed to my identity to who I am today. It is my friends—my real friends that make me strong. College has been tough on me. I had to weigh several options as to what field to take—those were the nights where I could barely sleep thinking if I am to make the right decision. It was my friends who helped me decide. The primary reason why I chose [insert course here] is because the course in itself is competitive in today’s world. The course, moreover, reflects the scholastic principles of providing a major benefit to students in the [insert field of study] by putting a premium emphasis on the recent trends and advancements in today’s world of global competitiveness. The course is also one that seeks to refine the skills and knowledge of the students through a competition in [insert field of study] among its students just to name one. Moreover, the course is well-handled by faculty members who are very much qualified and are very much capable of instilling the necessary knowledge to the students inasmuch as the faculty as a whole is composed of teachers with reputations well beyond what one might expect. I am a flexible person, a jack-of-all-trades if you may consider. I love joining competitions. I love being challenged though I know for a fact that in every contest there is always a winner and a loser. I am a sport. I rise when I fall. But to tell you, losing for me is a hard thing—hence, it was through these unfortunate experiences that I was able to know myself. Not only did my refined skills and attitude became useful to us during times of dilemmas and crucial moments of getting into a halt on my fulfilling my dreams, but these factors also became a part of what I was able to impart to my friends. In a way, I have inspired them to do the same thing, to acquire the enhancements in their positive characteristics, and to use their meaningful experiences to have full control of their abilities and gifts—to encourage them to move forward after a downfall. I am fortunate to have friends who I can lean on. Part of my career thinking and objectives is that, after obtaining my degree I will bring forth the knowledge and skills that I have acquired into the far more practical planes in the world of [insert field of study]. However, prior to achieving such an end, I will put my best efforts in refining my comprehension on the field that I have chosen to pursue and in expanding my thoughts that revolve around the [field of study] arena. Apart from all these, I also intend to employ the vital information that I will learn through the course to the society at large. That is, I intend to contribute to a deeper understanding not only to the course but also to the generation that we have today and the generations to come through my scholarly contributions. All of these experiences and aspirations that I have shared a great fraction in my life in the sense that these served as the factors upon which I was able to steward my gifts and talents, refining these two along the way as my level of experience proportionally increase day after day. With the daily encounters that come across my way, I am able to contemplate on my personality and realign myself with these meaningful experiences so that I become guided as to what decisions I ought to pursue in my life. Such an understanding is of great use and help, as it has been back in the days when I was just starting in the science and math club, and, as far as I see it, nothing is as potent and as equally practical than having a wide range of experiences upon which one can be able to base his or her crucial decisions in life. These meaningful experiences have taught me a lot in my existence in the society at large and in stewarding my abilities and gifts. The Essence of Values The daily life experiences that every individual in this world comes across with contribute to the development of the self (Achebe, 1994). These experiences do not only come in a single strand nor pattern. Quite on the contrary, what makes these experiences contributive to the welfare of humanity is because these encounters come in various forms and in differing content. A well-rounded personality, then, can be achieved, though strictly limited, to the variety in the experiences that individuals get to have in their lives (Miedaner, 2000). Determination and decisiveness I believe, craft a person to become successful in one’s ordeals. A person who is determined builds confidence within. Believing that a person can do anything and surpass everything is a guarantee towards success as fear is out of the picture. Most people have fear and fail because they are indecisive. Being able to know what you want is a good start of taking challenges. Life is full of choices—and to reach a goal is to decide which path to take (Friedman, 2005). As much as I strongly believe in the idea that experiences shape the personality of a person in many different ways, these experiences can serve as a meaningful chapter in our lives as much as they have been significant to on my part. As far as my memory would not fail me, I do attest to the idea that experiences teach the individual person about being a steward of the gifts and talents that the self possesses. By having the full knowledge that these experiences contribute in a large part in the molding of the ability of the individual in bringing forth a rather full control or, at least, a strong grasp on one’s abilities to his or her advantage, their meanings would be far clear enough. References Achebe, C. (1994). Things Fall Apart: Anchor. Berger, K. S. (2005). The Developing Person, Through Childhood and Adolescence (7th ed. ). New York: Worth. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (1st ed. ). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Miedaner, T. (2000). Coach Yourself to Success : 101 Tips from a Personal Coach for Reaching Your Goals at Work and in Life (1 ed. ). London: McGraw-Hill.