The biological causes of borderline personality disorder Essays

The biological causes of borderline personality disorder Essays The biological causes of borderline personality disorder Paper The biological causes of borderline personality disorder Paper Browsing from books, journals and online sources, one will have to realize that there is actually a general consensus among experts that there no single cause of borderline personality. Although there are enumerated risk factors in their researches and discussions, there has been none of them that explicitly say that environmental, genetic, psychological or biological factors have caused such disorder. What is clear so far is that â€Å"no single factor explains its development† (Paris, Joel). This writer however finds it important to closely look into the biological risk factors or causes of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). It is to be stressed that although the discussion of this paper is focused on the biological side of the topic, it still holds that such causes work in connection with the other risk factors and causes as mentioned above rather than considering biological causes are single factor to be considered. The Mayo Clinic described BPD as a 1â€Å"mental condition that is often devastating for both the patient and the people around him.†Ã‚   This is because of the fact that it is generally characterized by the patient’s difficulty of regulating his emotions or moods and is often impulsive. They also have the tendencies of being depressed as they often see themselves as worthless and damaged. These could have been the very reason why persons with BPD are often misunderstood by the public. As been stressed in one article, persons with BPD are torn between two self-images: â€Å"either as all good or all bad† (Insight Journal Online Magazine, 2007). In America there are about 1-2 percent of its adult population who are suffering from the disorder. Mayo Clinic also reported that the occurrence of the disease in about 1 in every 33 women and one in every 100 men (The Mayo Clinic Online). Around 50% of researches on Borderline Personality Disorder that point to genetic abnormalities are one of its causes (Friedel, Robert O.). Friedel also cited some researches that accounts to the disease as occurring with related disorders such as bipolar disorder, depression and substance use disorders. For Paris, biological causes of BPD â€Å"consist of inborn temperamental abnormalities† (Paris, Joel 2005). Because temperamental abnormalities have something to do with emotions, the disorder has been linked with the human brain. Researchers suggest that there are certain areas in the brain, those areas that regulate emotion, impulsivity and aggression, have undergone or undergoing some changes. Such changes, according to 1Mayo Clinic are â€Å"associated with the decrease serotonin activity in the brain.†

Current World Population and Future Projections

Current World Population and Future Projections The world population has grown tremendously over the past 2,000 years. In 1999, the world population passed the six-billion mark. By March of 2018, the official world population had jumped over the seven-billion mark to an estimated  7.46 billion. World Population Growth Humans had been around for tens of thousands of years by the year 1 A.D. when the Earths population was an estimated 200 million. It hit the billion mark in 1804 and doubled by 1927. It doubled again in less than 50 years to four  billion in 1975. Year Population 1 200 million 1000 275 million 1500 450 million 1650 500 million 1750 700 million 1804 1 billion 1850 1.2 billion 1900 1.6 billion 1927 2 billion 1950 2.55 billion 1955 2.8 billion 1960 3 billion 1965 3.3 billion 1970 3.7 billion 1975 4 billion 1980 4.5 billion 1985 4.85 billion 1990 5.3 billion 1995 5.7 billion 1999 6 billion 2006 6.5 billion 2009 6.8 billion 2011 7 billion 2025 8 billion 2043 9 billion 2083 10 billion Concerns for an Increasing Number of People While the Earth can only support a limited number of people, the issue is not so much about space as it is a matter of resources like food and water. According to author and population expert  David Satterthwaite, the concern is about the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption. Thus, the human population can generally meet its basic needs as it grows, but not at the scale of consumption that some lifestyles and cultures currently support. While data is collected on population growth, it is difficult for even sustainability professionals to understand what will happen on a global scale when the worlds population reaches 10 or 15 billion people. Overpopulation is not the biggest concern, as enough land exists. The focus would primarily be on making use of uninhabited or underpopulated land. Regardless, birth rates have been falling around the world, which may slow down population growth in the future.  As of 2017, the total fertility rate for the world was 2.5, down from 2.8 in 2002 and 5.0 in 1965, but still at a rate that allows population growth. Growth Rates Highest in Poorest Countries According to World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, most of the worlds population growth is in poor countries. The 47 least developed countries are expected to see their collective population nearly double from 2017s one billion to 1.9 billion by 2050. Thats thanks to a fertility rate of 4.3 per woman. Some countries continue to see their populations explode, such as Niger with a 2017 fertility rate of 6.49, Angola at 6.16, and Mali at 6.01. In contrast, the fertility rate in many developed countries was below replacement value (more loss of people than those born to replace them). As of 2017, the fertility rate in the United States was 1.87. Others include Singapore at 0.83, Macau at 0.95,  Lithuania at 1.59, the Czech Republic at 1.45, Japan at 1.41, and Canada at 1.6. According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the worlds population has been rising at a rate of roughly 83 million people  every year, and the trend is expected to continue, even though fertility rates have been dropping in almost all regions of the world. Thats because the worlds overall fertility rate still exceeds the rate of zero population growth. The population-neutral fertility rate is estimated at 2.1 births per woman.

International Tourism Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

International Tourism - Assignment Example However, Pakistan, even though bestowed with vast areas of unexploited and unexplored, breathtakingly beautiful landmarks, to date has been unable to exploit the travel and tourism industry to its maximum or for that matter, even the minimum level. According to an article available at Eturbonews. "The tourism industry in southern Asia generally showed growth in 2007, except for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Political instability and a lack of security in these two countries led to a drop in arrivals from abroad: -7% for Pakistan, and -12% for Sri Lanka" The same news states further, "In general, the tourism industry in the subcontinent showed growth of 12%. In 2006."The same article further refers to Pakistan's tourism industry in the following words, " in addition to Sri Lanka, is represented by Pakistan, where tourism demand fell by 7% in 2007". Experts say this is related to the country's serious political instability and frequent terrorist attacks." There are two types of tourists' visiting Pakistan, The foreign Tourists and the domestic tourists. The domestic tourists can further be classified into up-country tourist (moving from the south of the country to the north) and down country tourists (tourists moving from North to South). Since tourism industry is a business mode... Tourist Categories: There are two types of tourists' visiting Pakistan, The foreign Tourists and the domestic tourists. The domestic tourists can further be classified into up-country tourist (moving from the south of the country to the north) and down country tourists (tourists moving from North to South). The major chunk of revenue comes form the foreign tourists who have resources available to splurge in the local markets and outing areas. Factors Impacting Foreign Tourists: Since tourism industry is a business model, the various theories that are used for external analysis apply to the tourism industry. The PESTLE Analysis identifies the external factors that impact the tourism industry of Pakistan. Political, Image of Pakistan: The image of Pakistan post 9/11 has been such that it is known as one of the most terrorist afflicted areas. It is believed that it lacks modern ways to commute and transportation networks fail. The volatile political situation makes if a very difficult choice to travel too especially when travel advisories are being issued against traveling to this country every now and then. Moreover, the frequent bombings and suicide bombings enhance this image further. The recent instances of terrorist kidnappings all paint a very deadly picture. Economic: before 2001, the economy of Pakistan was in doldrums with GDP growth rates as low as 4%. This reflected in a low level of investment in tourism and developments of infrastructure. Due to the lack of development of tourist attractions, Pakistan's tourism industry had stagnated. After 2001, there was a boom with growth reached as high as 7%, however, the wealth did not have a trickle down

A Comparison between the Pantheon and the Coliseum Essay

A Comparison between the Pantheon and the Coliseum - Essay Example This research will begin with the statement that the Roman Empire has been credited with a lot of history regarding its people, events, and most importantly architecture. Rome’s historical credit, in terms of architecture, is partly attributed to two great buildings, which are the Pantheon and the Coliseum. Architecture in Rome was not only limited to buildings but also included roads, great walls, forts, and baths. These two buildings see to it that Rome hosts an influx of hundreds of tourists on a daily basis. The building, Pantheon, was constructed in AD 118 at a site, which two buildings built had earlier burnt down. On the other hand, Coliseum was constructed in the year AD 80, on a site that hosted an artificial lake. The building of the enormous Pantheon structure was under the orders of Emperor Hadrin. Flavian Amphitheater is a different name used to refer to the Coliseum, whose construction was under the orders of Emperor Vespasian. Looking at the time the emperors ga ve orders for constructions of the two buildings, it is evident that the Coliseum was built earlier than the Pantheon, and both buildings count over 1,900 years of their existence. Pantheon, dome-shaped, was built with the objective of being a Temple. Coliseum was built in a shape that resembles an arena, and in most instances, it served the purpose of accommodating people during public entertainments and free games. The Coliseum suffered an incident in which part of it was destroyed by an earthquake, but to this day, the two buildings are still in existence serving as historical sites. Architecturally speaking, the two buildings the Pantheon and the Coliseum, can be compared and contrasted. Culture, traditions, and religious beliefs of the Roman Empire affected the architectural construction of the Pantheon and the Coliseum. Ancient Rome’s culture, tradition and religious belief were marked with the building of structures, which were novel at that time. Ancient Rome was an architectural society as it is reflected with the numerous constructions of monuments, temples, roads, forts, markets, theatres, villas and great walls. The structures were used for entertainment and religious purposes. Culture in ancient Rome entailed entertainments and games, which featured gladiators or slaves, fighting and the only way to win was to kill the opponent while spectators watched. In ancient Rome, tradition was practiced through worshiping gods in the buildings constructed as temples. Additionally, religious belief in ancient Rome was practiced through Christians worshiping their God in temples. The Coliseum Cultural, traditional and religious influence on the Coliseum The political class of Rome took advantage of Rome’s culture to construct the Coliseum in order to distract its citizens from politics. This was due to the fact that ancient Rome’s cultural practices were marked with a lot of entertainment and games. The Coliseum, which is an enormous structure, was built with the intention of providing an entertainment zone for Rome’s citizen at that time. Its construction was also political, in that it distracted the citizen of Rome from focusing on the political struggle at that time. The arena could accommodate more than 50,000 people in its four stories during entertainment sessions. This ampitheater was commissioned by the Emperor Vespasian credited to have been the founder of the Flavian dynasty, which ruled ancient Rome the entire time the Coliseum was under construction. Rome’s architectural culture was exemplified when Emperor Vespasian annihilated an artificial lake, which was constructed during Emperor Neroâ₠¬â„¢s reign and replaced it with the Coliseum (Coarelli & Gabucci, 2001 p207). The culture in ancient Rome, all along was also practiced through having many days and nights dedicated to celebrations and festivities. The celebrations were marked with slaughtering animals, drinking and organizing games to be watched by crowds of

Bees Disappearance Essay Example for Free

Bees Disappearance Essay A new federal report blames a combination of problems for a mysterious and dramatic disappearance of U. S. honeybees since 2006. The intertwined factors cited include a parasitic mite, multiple viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and pesticides. The multiple causes make it harder to do something about whats called colony collapse disorder, experts say. The disorder has caused as much as one-third of the nations bees to just disappear each winter since 2006. Bees, especially honeybees, are needed to pollinate crops. The federal report, issued Thursday by the Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, said the biggest culprit is the parasitic mite varroa destructor, calling it the single most detrimental pest of honeybees. The problem has also hit bee colonies in Europe, where regulators are considering a ban on a type of pesticides known as neonicotinoids that some environmental groups blame for the bee collapse. The U. S. report cites pesticides, but near the bottom of the list of factors. And federal officials and researchers advising them said the science doesnt justify a ban of the pesticides yet. May Berenbaum, a top bee researcher from the University of Illinois, said in an interview that she was extremely dubious that banning the pesticide would have any effect on bee health. She participated in a large conference of scientists that the government brought together last year to figure out whats going on, and the new report is the result of that conference. Berenbaum said more than 100 different chemicals — not just the pesticides that may be banned in Europe — have been found in bee colonies. Scientists find it hard to calculate how they react in different dosages and at different combinations, she said. Some of these chemicals harm the immune systems of bees or amplify viruses, said Penn State University bee expert Diana Cox-Foster. At a news conference Thursday, Sonny Ramaswamy, a top USDA official, said the scientific consensus is that there are multiple factors and you cant parse any one out to be the smoking gun. USDA bee researcher Jeff Pettis also cited modern farming practices that often leave little forage area for bees. Dave Gaulson of the University of Stirling in Scotland, who conducted a study last year that implicated the chemical, said he cant disagree with the overall conclusions of the U.  S. government report. However, he said it could have emphasized pesticides more. The environmental group, Pesticide Action Network North America blasted the federal government for not following Europes lead in looking at a ban of certain pesticides. Pollinators, like honeybees, are crucial to the U. S. food supply. About $30 billion a year in agriculture depends on their health, said Ramaswamy. Besides making honey, honeybees pollinate more than 90 flowering crops. Among them are a variety of fruits and vegetables: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, citrus fruit and cranberries. About one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination. It affects virtually every American whether they realize it or not, said EPA acting administrator Bob Perciasepe. Zac Browning, a fourth-generation commercial beekeeper who has hives in Idaho, North Dakota and California, said the nation is on the brink of not having enough bees to pollinate its crops. University of Maryland entomologist David Inouye, who was not part of the federal report, said he agrees that there are multiple causes. Its not a simple situation. If it were one factor we would have identified it by now, he said. Inouye, president-elect of the Ecological Society of America, said the problems in Europe and United States may be slightly different. In America, bee hives are trucked from farm to farm to pollinate large tracts of land and that may help spread the parasites and disease, as well as add stress to the colonies, while in Europe they stay put so those issues may not be as big a factor. At the news conference, Berenbaum said theres no single solution to the U. S. bee problem: Were not really well equipped or even used to fighting on multiple fronts.

Ethnography: Ainu Essay example -- Cultural Anthropology

Ethnography: Ainu Worldview   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Ainu, Japan’s native aboriginal people, are very much an isolated people, living now only in the northern island of Japan, Hokkaido. They number, as of a 1984 survey, 24,381, continuing a rise from a low point in the mid nineteenth century due to forced labor and disease, and have largely left their old ways and integrated into standard Japanese society, though even the majority of those still reside in Hokkaido. The animistic religion of the Ainu is firmly enmeshed with every other aspect of the culture. Family and Kinship   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Most Ainu organize in groups of nuclear families, the nuclear family being the basic social unit (Encyclopedia). Some groups, however, have extended families, but are not as common. Families are both patrilineal and matrilineal, the sons inheriting the father’s clan and the daughters inheriting the mother’s clan (. Both males and females do not marry cousins, but only from their mother’s family (Encyclopedia). Also, polygyny is practiced by the higher-status males in a community (Encyclopedia). During the bear ritual, relatives of the host in other settlements usually come to participate (Encyclopedia). Marriages traditionally were either arranged or of mutual consent (Museum, Life 1). Also, as a result of the twentieth century’s attempted Japanese integration, often through exogamy, now not even a third of all Ainu have four Ainu grandparents (Bowring 244). Economics The Ainu traditionally were hunters and gatherers, but rather than wandering nomadically, they settled in one location, on one section of a river, where they could fish and hunt (Museum People). However, in more recent times, Ainu seeking to integrate into Japanese society have taken jobs in ... ... Apr. 2002.      Encyclopedia of World Cultures.   CD-ROM.   Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillian.    Forbis, William H.   Japan Today:   People, Places, Power.   New York:   Harper, 1975.    Law to preserve Ainu culture was Passed.   1 Feb. 2002.   Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute.   25 Apr. 2002.   .    Takasugi, Shinji.   Numbers in world languages.   25 Apr. 2002.   .    Thomason, Andy.   â€Å"The Ainu of Japan.†Ã‚   2 July 1999.   Suite101.com Inc.   25 Apr. 2002.   .    Wright, Mike.   â€Å"Ainu-English Word List.†Ã‚   13 Nov. 1999.   Costal Fog Net.   25 Apr. 2002.   .

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective Compare and Contrast critically evaluate in light of relevant research and theoretical reasoning A major focus of psychology is in understanding why group conflict, inequality and ethnocentrism occur. Many researchers have developed theories and presented evidence to try and explain these issues and two predominant approaches have emerged. The first approach focuses on the relatively stable personality differences that people show in their general orientation towards ethnocentrism and inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Dominance Theory (SDT) proposes that people exhibit different levels of social dominance orientation, a desire to dominate members of other groups and a desire for continued hierarchical relations between groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The alternative approach focuses on social and situational factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The dominant theory here is Social Identity Perspective (SIP), which is comprised of Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Social Identity Perspective proposes that ethnocentrism occurs when people are depersonalized: they see themselves as members of a salient group rather than unique individuals. This process leads them to adopt a social identity where their ideas, attitudes, values and behaviours tend to reflect norms of their group and their main goal is to see their group as positive and distinct (Turner, 1987). This essay will consider how these approaches define ethnocentrism and will provide an outline of how they explain ethnocentrism. It will then compare and contrast the theories, and consider the strengths and limitations of each with reference to the large body of research in this field. In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, the essay concludes that SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers need to consider whether ethnocentrism is due to an interaction of situationally dependent personality factors and social identity factors for a more comprehensive explanation of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism Sumner (1911) originally defined ethnocentrism as â€Å"†¦the sediment of cohesion, internal comradeship and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group† (p. 11). Recent research has defined ethnocentrism as ethnic group self-centeredness and identified six specific aspects that are divided between inter and intragroup expressions (Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, Dru & Krauss, 2008). Intergroup expressions of ethnocentrism include a preference for and favoritism given to the ingroup, a tendency to see the ingroup as superior and to only associate with the ingroup (purity) and the belief that exploitation of outgroups is acceptable to promote ingroup interests (Bizumic et al, 2008). Intragroup aspects include that ingroups are cohesive: integrated and cooperative, and that there is strong devotion and commitment to the ingroup (Bizumic et al, 2008). The two theories define and measure ethnocentrism in different ways. SDT emphasizes ingroup favoritism and bias in high status groups, and the allocation of negative social value to outgroups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Ethnocentrism is measured through levels of prejudice, racism, conservatism and other associated concepts, which, although distinct from ethnocentrism, are closely correlated (Bizumic et al, 2008). SIP measures ethnocentrism primarily through ingroup favoritism: the tendency to favor the ingroup in evaluations and allocation of resources (Oaks et al, 1994). Social Dominance Theory SDT was developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and focuses on personality and structural factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The theory argues that individuals differ in their level of social dominance orientation (SDO), which is the desire to oppress outgroups, have the ingroup be seen as superior and dominant, or the extent that an individual endorses group inequalities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Specifically, SDO is â€Å"a desire for and value given to ingroup dominance over outgroups and the desire for non-egalitarian, hierarchical relationships between groups within the social system† (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994 p. 9). Differences in SDO are argued to make some people more likely to show ethnocentrism and prejudice, and people who have SDO show more negative behaviours towards the outgroup. This is known as differential ingroup social allocations. Illustrating this point, Sidanius (1994) states that people’s ethnocentric orientations and attitudes are due to persona lity and consistent behavioral predispositions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT also proposes that legitimizing myths maintain ethnocentrism and inequality. These are beliefs, attitudes, values or ideologies that are circulated and justify inequality, as well as continuing the dominance of some groups over others (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For example, the myth that men have better jobs and higher incomes because they are more assertive and have better leadership skills than women. The second part of SDT is based on the assumption that intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism is due to the way society is made up of group-based hierarchies, which have a hegemonic group at the top which controls money, resources and power, and a negative reference group at the bottom (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These hierarchies are based on three stratification systems: an age system, gender system, and an arbitrary-set system, where people from high status groups have more power than people in lower status groups. Hierarchies are formed and maintained by institutional discrimination, individual discrimination and behavioural asymmetry (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Institutional discrimination is the rules and regulations of social institutions, such as schools, religions, corporations, businesses or governments, which result in lower status groups having less power, money or other resources. Institutions maintain unequal hierarchies through the use of systematic terror, which is threat or violence directed towards low status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individual discrimination is the small, daily discriminations which occur in every setting, and the way desired goods, such as health care, money or power, are allocated to members of dominant groups. These small acts add up and lead to the continued dominance of one group over another (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Behavioural asymmetry is the way people in low status groups behave differently compared to those in high status groups. Examples of this include that ethnocentrism is higher in high status groups compared to low status groups, and there is more ingroup favoritism in high status groups – what SDT calls the asymmetrical ingroup bias. Also, low status groups can show self-handicapping, which is where they perform below their abilities due to self-fulfilling stereotypes or expectations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Identity Perspective SIP is a broad theory of ethnocentrism which includes social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). Social Identity Theory SIT proposes that in different situations, people either define themselves as individuals, or as group members: they move along the interpersonal – intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). SIT argues that people have a collection of category memberships and each membership is represented in the persons mind as a social identity that describes how the person should think, feel and act as a member of that group (Turner, 1987). If a group is important people will internalize the group membership so that it becomes an important part of their self-concept, and they are then driven to achieve positive self-esteem and establish a social identity (they are motivated to establish positive distinctiveness) (Turner, 1987). This self-enhancement is achieved by comparing their group with salient outgroups along dimensions which lead to the most positive representation of their group. SIT proposes that a cognitive processing bias occurs during this process, which results in people minimizing the differences within their group, and exaggerating the differences between their group and a salient outgroup (Turner, 1987). This produces intragroup homogeneity, where behaviour becomes more group focused, attitudes in the group are consensual and people define themselves and outgroup members as â€Å"undifferentiated† members of their social category (Turner and Reynolds, 2001). SIT explains these cognitive processes of categorization and self-enhancement as due to subjective belief structures, which are people’s beliefs about the nature of relations between groups (Turner, 1987). These include the stability and legitimacy of group relations, and the possibility of social mobility psychologically passing from one group to another, or social change, changing how they feel about their group membership (Turner, 1987). Self-Categorization Theory SCT follows on from and elaborates on SIT. SCT focuses on the shift from personal to social identity which occurs when people change from defining themselves as individuals compared to other individuals (when their personal identity is salient), and start to see themselves as group members who are different from members of other groups (when their social identity is salient) (Turner et al, 1987). This social identity is thought to emerge when group categorizations are made prominent. The emergence of this social identity leads to a process called depersonalization, which is where people see increased similarity between themselves and ingroup members and differences from outgroup members, interchangeability with other ingroup members, and see themselves as representative of the group (Turner et al, 1987). The theory argues that whether depersonalization occurs depends on the accessibility and fit of social categories. Accessibility is how accessible the category is, in terms of past experiences, expectations, goals, motives and if the categorization is important for a person’s self-concept (Turner et al, 1987). Fit refers to the way people activate a category which best explains or fits the individual information and stored category information (Turner et al, 1987). Fit is determined based on whether the information fits in a normal or stereotypical direction (normative fit), and whether there is a high meta-contrast ratio: which is when the differences within a group are less than the differences between that group and others (comparative fit) (Turner et al, 1987). Overall, all group processes, including ethnocentrism, are argued to be the outcome of psychological group formation and depersonalization of self. Similarities between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Both theories agree that that group identification is needed for ethnocentrism and influences levels of ethnocentrism (Sidanius, Pratto, van Larr & Levin, 2004). SDT argues that although people with particular personalities are more likely to engage in ethnocentrism, social identification is also needed (Sidanius et al, 1994). The theories also agree that ingroup bias and favouritism can be modified under specific conditions (Sidanius, Pratto, Mitchell, 1994). Similarly, both theories recognize the importance of the salience of ingroups and outgroups (Sidanius et al, 2004). Significantly, minimal group experiments show that if intergroup distinctions are made salient, peoples SDO levels are more likely to influence whether they discriminate against outgroups, and many SIP experiments have show the importance of salience in changing group relations Sidanius et al, 2004). Both theories emphasize the â€Å"dynamic† ways people construct their social identities (Sidanius et al, 2004), based on a salient ingroup, or group distinctions based on race, nationality, class, ethnicity, or arbitrarily-set categories. Sidanius et al. , (2000) also argue that SIP finding of ingroup favoritism in minimal groups is similar to SDT assertion that people have a predisposition to form ingroup – outgroup distinct ions and to discriminate against outgroups based on these categorizations. Also, although the theories differ on the importance assigned to social and contextual factors, both agree that they can influence ethnocentrism. SIP clearly emphasizes social factors such as self-categorizations and contextual factors including the salience of groups, and the stability and legitimizing of group relations (Turner, 1987). SDT also considers social identification, contextual factors such as status differences, connections with social institutions and social roles, cultural factors and structural relations (Sidanius, 2000). Although SDT argues that SDO is a relatively stale personality variable, they do agree that levels of SDO can correspond with shifts in the intergroup context (Sidanius et al, 2004). SIP also argues that ethnocentrism can vary based on the context and structural position of groups (Turner et al, 1994). Levin (1996) found that when differences between groups of Jewish Israelis were made salient, high-status Jewish Israelis were more positively orientated toward inequality than lower status Jewish Israelis. However, when thinking about Israeli-Palestine relations, the groups did not differ in attitudes towards inequality. Further, Schmitt, Branscomb and Kappen (2003, study 3) found that the participants who believed inequality favored their university (ingroup) were much more positive towards the inequality than the other participants, showing that the social-structural position of groups influences attitudes. Differences between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Although there are some general similarities between these theories, they contrast on many specific points. Focus on Personality or Social Factors as Causing Ethnocentrism The major difference between these two theories is their focus on either personality or social factors as causing ethnocentrism. SDT argues that the personality variable SDO is the main factor predicting ethnocentric behaviour (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that identification with the ingroup and self-categorization as a group member through a process of depersonalization leads to ethnocentrism (Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, and Ryan, 2001). There is evidence for each argument. Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by levels of SDO. There is evidence that SDO scores are correlated with attitudes and beliefs related to ethnocentrism. SDO was positively correlated with racism, sexism, conservatism, ethnic prejudice, nationalism, patriotism and cultural elitism in a diverse sample of 19,000 participants from 13 samples (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994). People with higher levels of SDO also reported that they intended to work in more hierarchy-enhancing professions as opposed to hierarchy-attenuating professions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is also evidence that support for discriminatory policies, strict laws, military programs, war; the death penalty and belief in legal retribution are positively correlated with SDO (Sidaius, Lui, Pratto and Shaw, 1994). High SDO scores and dominance-oriented prejudice have also been found to be related to personality characteristics such as being disagreeable, vindictive, hostile or seeing social inequality as â€Å"they way it should be† (Lippa & Arad, 1999). However, there is no evidence that SDO causes ethnocentrism, only that some aspects of ethnocentrism are closely related to a dominance orientated personality measure. There is also evidence that SDO predicts outgroup discrimination and negativity in minimal group studies. Sidanius and Pratto (2004) found that people who scored higher on SDO had a greater desire for social distance from the outgroup, were less willing to cooperate, showed a tendency to accept group boundaries and a desire to dominate other groups. They concluded that although ingroup favoritism is important, SDO is needed to fully explain ethnocentrism. Evidence against the assertion that SDO causes ethnocentrism. Recent evidence suggests a different explanation for these results. Schmitt et al (2003) argue that the results of experiments showing SDO is related to ethnocentrism are actually due to the way specific forms of inequality are salient for participants as they fill in SDO measures. Schmitt et al (2003) tested this in study 1, and found that SDO was only correlated with racism if race was a salient social categorization at the time. Study 2 provided further support, showing that sexism scores only predicted SDO when gender was salient, and racism scores only predicted SDO when race was salient. Therefore, when people are completing a measure of SDO, they are actually expressing their attitudes towards inequality specific to salient social groups rather than pre-existing, stable individual dispositions towards inequality (Schmitt et al, 2003). Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by self-categorization. Tajfe, Billing, Bundy and Flament (1971) conducted the first minimal group studies which led to SIP. In these experiments participants were divided into one of two groups of the basis of some meaningless dimension, and then allocated resources to members of the two groups. Despite the minimal conditions, participants still acted in an ethnocentric way, showing ingroup favouritism. Additionally, when given the choice of maximising joint benefits (for the ingroup and outgroup) or maximising comparative benefits, participants tended to chose the option that gave the ingroup comparatively more than the outgroup. This discrimination in minimal groups has been found over a range of cultures and dimensions, and shows that categorization of people into groups can produce discrimination (Turner, 1986). General evidence for SIP over personality theories of ethnocentrism comes from Haslam and Wilson (2000), who found that personal beliefs were more predictive of prejudice when they reflected stereotypic beliefs shared within an in-group. Perreault and Bourhis (1999) found that ingroup identification was the only factor which predicted discrimination in minimal groups, and that a range of personality variables had no impact Role of SDO. Another key difference between the theories is that while SDT describes SDO as a relatively stable personality variable, SIP argues that it varies in different situations, in different groups, and based on identification. Reynolds, Turner, Ryan, Mavor and McKone (2006) looked at the degree that personality variables (SDO and authoritarianism) can be modified using identification with either a pro or anti-feminist source. They found significant changes in levels of feminism and SDO in the different conditions, which shows that SDO can be influenced. SDO scores of individuals did not correlate well between the two phases of the experiment if participants had seen the pro-feminist message, and measures also showed that implicit prejudice and stereotyping varied in the same way as SDO. SIP provides a clear explanation for these and other results which find SDO to be stable, by arguing that attitudes can be stable in contexts where similar self-categorizations are made salient, but can change when shifts in categorization occur (Reynolds et al, 2006). Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) made either a personal or national identity salient and looked at ingroup stereotypes of the Dutch’s treatment of minorities. They found that personality variables were correlated with prejudice in the personal identity condition, and ingroup stereotypes were correlated in the national identity condition. Also, when ingroup norms were of tolerance and equality, participants showed far lower levels of prejudice. This supports the SIP discontinuity hypothesis, showing that people’s attitudes change depending on what identity is salient, and ethnocentrism is determined by people’s salient self-categorizations. Reynolds, Turner, Haslam and Ryan (2001) conducted similar studies, testing prejudice when participants personal, gender, age, or national identity was salient. They found correlations between personality and prejudice in the age and gender conditions, but not in the personal or national conditions. They also found that the relationship was strongest when the gender identity was salient and weakest when a national identity was salient. So, the power of personality to predict ethnocentrism changed in the different conditions. Reynolds et al (2001) argue that SDO cannot be the psychological mechanism underlying ethnocentrism and inequality if it varies with group identity. In contrast to these results, Sidanius et al (1994) measured ethnocentrism with indexes of differential ingroup social allocation (DISA) in minimal groups, and found a direct relationship between SDO and three of the DISA indexes. Even after the effects of gender, self-esteem and ingroup identification were controlled for, subjects with higher levels of SDO displayed a greater desire for social distance from, and were less willing to cooperate with the outgroup. This demonstrates that, independent of the effects of group identification, people who have higher levels of SDO are more likely to show ethnocentric behaviour and attitudes. Explanations for varying levels of SDO across situations and in groups. A related difference between the two theories is their different explanations for the variability found in SDO scores. SDT has suggested that changes in SDO may be due to the fact that people with high SDO are more likely to identify with their group and be affected by group factors (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP has argued that SDO is a group attitude which varies in different situations (Reynolds & Turner, 2006). SIP argues that personality differences may be correlated with ethnocentrism when personal identity is salient, but group attitudes and beliefs will predict ethnocentrism when a social identity becomes salient (Reynolds and Turner, 2006). A number of studies have tested whether shifts in self categorization from personal to social identities affect the relationship between ethnocentrism and personality variables, and a few key experiments are outlined below. Sidanius, Pratto and Mitchell (1994) looked at minimal group members who evaluated each other on positive and negative domains and found that, in line with both theories, ingroup identification significantly predicted discrimination. However, people who identified highly with their group and had high levels of SDO showed more ingroup favouritism, suggesting that SDO is a key predictor of ethnocentrism. Buzimic et al (2007) tested whether personality factors affect discrimination directly or indirectly through influencing people who have higher levels of these personality variables to identify more strongly with their ingroup. They found that ingroup identification was a significant predictor of discrimination, and that it got stronger when the ingroup-outgroup categorization was more salient. Individual differences in levels of SDO did not predict discriminatory behaviour, and there was little evidence that some people have a preference for hierarchal relations between groups. In one condition, where discrimination would lead to an unequal hierarchy, participants actually showed fairness and cooperation. Although people with high SDO did not move as far towards equality as the other participants here, if there was a basic drive for inequality and dominance participants should have discriminated strongly in that condition. This study provides clear evidence that SDO does not influence ethnocentric behaviours. Explanations for gender differences in ethnocentrism Another important difference between SIP and SDT is their explanations for the gender differences in ethnocentrism. SDT takes an evolutionary stance, arguing that these differences are due to biological differences in the reproductive strategies of men and women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). That is, men need to have lots of economic resources to attract young, attractive women, while women are focused on attracting men with resources to support their offspring (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT sees this difference as stable, and not affected by structural or contextual factors, and predicts that men will almost always be more favorable towards inequality. A limitation of this explanation is that it does not explain the major changes in women’s roles that have occurred in developed countries over time (Reynolds et al, 2000). SIP argues that the lower levels of ethnocentrism in women are not due to gender differences in SDO, they are due to the same processes which result in all lower-status groups having lower levels of SDO – the different implications that the inequality has for each group (Schmitt et al, 2003). That is, women have lower levels of ethnocentrism because gender inequality results in disadvantage for them, and men have higher levels because this inequality is beneficial for them (Schmitt et al, 2003). As such, these differences should vary depending on the specific inequality which exists between the groups. Schmitt et al (2003) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and women did not differ in levels of SDO after they considered gender inequality in both directions, and did not differ in their overall comfort with specific forms of inequality – which contradicts SDT. Gender differences in SDO were mediated by sexism, suggesting that the difference is due to women and men’s different positions in the social structure. They also found that men felt more positively about inequality that favored men, while women felt more positively about inequality which favored women. There was no correlation between gender and other types of inequality, showing that gender differences are specific to the inequality that exists between the men and women. Causes of high SDO and ethnocentrism. In contrast to SIP, SDT argues that SDO and ethnocentrism develop from three major influences: socialization factors, situational contingencies and temperament (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994). The main socialization factor is group status. SDT argues that because group superiority seems compatible with hierarchy-legitimizing myths, it seems appropriate for people in high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is substantial evidence that group status is related to SDO. Pratto and Choudhury (Pratto, 1999) found that people in higher status groups had higher levels of SDO, whether group status was based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. SDO has also been found to increase with the status of the major racial groups in America (Sidanius et al, 1999). Other factors which lead to SDO and ethnocentrism include gender, and temperament or personality factors. Evidence for this shows SDO declines with empathy and increases with aggression. Education is also thought to be involved, with higher levels of education correlating with lower SDO and prejudice generally. However, this seems to contradict other SDT predictions, as you would expect that people with higher levels of education would be in higher status groups. Finally, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religiosity and employment status are also thought to be involved. Sidanius and Pratto (1994) found that these demographic variables accounted for 21% of the variance in SDO scores. However, across samples and nations, only gender and group status were reliably related to SDO. Explanations for differences in ethnocentrism in different status groups Although both SDT and SIP agree that group status effects ethnocentrism, they differ in their explanations of why this is so. SDT argues that group status directly effects people’s SDO, and group differences in acceptance of legitimizing myths account for group differences in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that SDO scores reflect attitudes towards the specific types of inequality that are salient (Schmitt et al, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 4) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and Whites were more pro-inequality than women and ethnic minorities. However, they found that gender differences in SDO were totally mediated by sexism, but not by racism, and racial differences in SDO were mediated by racism, but not by sexism. So, group differences in SDO are not indicative of group differences in a general orientation towards inequality, but are reflective of group differences in attitudes relevant to the specific inequality existing between groups. Explanations for outgroup favoritism Another important difference between the two theories is their explanations for outgroup favoritism, and their predictions of when outgroup favoritism will occur. Many studies illustrate that low-status group’s show outgroup favoritism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT developed the asymmetrical ingroup bias hypothesis, which states that high-status groups will show more ingroup favoritism because it is easier and more valuable for them, and that low-status groups should show outgroup favoritism to support the social hierarchy (especially people with high SDO) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that the legitimacy and stability of intergroup relations determines when people will show outgroup favoritism (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). If group boundaries are permeable and inequalities secure (stable or legitimate), people will identify with, favor and seek to move into the high status group (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and secure, low status group members will accept their status and try to seek positive distinctiveness along other dimensions (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and insecure (that is, unstable or illegitimate), the low status group will seek to change the inequality and will show ingroup bias (Turner, 1986). There is a lot of evidence supporting these three predictions, including a meta-analysis of ingroup bias conducted by Mullen, Brown and Smith (1992) which found that while high status groups evaluated their group on dimensions relevant to the inequality, low-status groups tended to show greater ingroup favoritism on less relevant attitudes – finding alternative means of achieving positive distinctiveness. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) tested group asymmetry in ingroup favoritism and found that Blacks had higher levels of ingroup bias than Whites, consistent with SIP. Also, the SDT prediction that low-status group members will act against their own interests and show outgroup favoritism to support the unequal social system has been disconfirmed by much SIP research which shows that low-status groups will only favor high-status groups if they either identify with the group or see the inequality as stable and legitimate (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Finally, the SDT prediction that all high-status group members will show ethnocentrism and support for inequality is problematic: ethnocentrism has been found in many different groups, of both high and low status (Reynolds & Turner, 2000). Comfort with inequality in the direction it exists in society. SDT argues that people are more comfortable with inequality as it exists in society than in the opposite direction because it is justified by hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths; and that people high in SDO are even more likely to accept inequality it its general direction (Sidanius and Pratto, 1994). In contrast, SIP argues that people’s social identities affect comfort with inequality – people are more likely to be comfortable with inequality which favors their ingroup rather than the outgroup (Schmitt, Branscomb & Kappen, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 3) tested these contrasting predictions by asking participants to report on how comfortable they would be with four different types of inequality in both possible directions. They found that SDO did not influence participants comfort with inequality, and could not account for comfort with inequality as it exists compared to the opposite direction. These findings support SIP, showing that attitudes toward inequality depend on the type and direction of inequality being considered. The importance of ingroup favoritism or outgroup degradation in ethnocentrism. The theories also differ in the importance they assign to different aspects of ethnocentrism; SIP focuses on ingroup favoritism in producing cohesion, devotion and discrimination (Turner, 1986). In contrast, SDT focuses on personality variables which lead to outgroup negativity (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT argues that SIP is limited in the scope of behaviours it can explain: ingroup favoritism and a desire for positive distinctiveness cannot explain the way some people or groups strive to dominate and oppress outgroups, and cannot explain the occurrence of oppression, ethnic wars, slavery and other such events (Sidanius, Pratto & Mitchell, 1994). A number of studies support SDT in their criticism of SIP. Brewer (1979) found that most intergroup discrimination in minimal groups was bias in favor of the ingroup rather than denigration of the outgroup. Hewstone, Fincham and Jaspars (1981) investigated when people will take money away from ingroup and outgroup members in minimal groups, and found less ingroup favoritism and that the predominant strategy used was fairness. Mummendey et al (1992) investigated allocation of negative outcomes to the ingroup and outgroup and did not find any evidence of ingroup favoritism and that fairness was the main strategy used. However, when group size and status were manipulated in this experiment more negative allocations were made to the outgroup when the ingroup was a minority or of low status, and ingroup favoritism was the most used strategy in low status groups (Mummendey et al, 1992). These results support SIP, showing that ingroup favoritism occurs in negative domains when the ingroup is particularly motivated to achieve a positive social identity. Reynolds, Turner and Haslam (2000) also found that ingroup favoritism is not restricted to the positive domain; that participants allocated negative resources to outgroups when traits fit the ingroup-outgroup categorizations. Conclusion After considering similarities and differences in two major theories of ethnocentrism, and highlighting strengths and weakness of each, a clear conclusion emerges. SDT proposes an explanation of ethnocentrism at the individual, group and societal level, and is very good at highlighting individual differences in the desire to dominance others (Huddy, 2004). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) also provide clear evidence for how minority members are discriminated against and the way individual, institutional and other structural factors maintain inequality in numerous studies. Although it cannot explain ethnocentrism, SDT predicts and demonstrates that people high in SDO show more prejudice and endorse measures which maintain inequality. In contrast, SIP argues that ethnocentrism emerges from social attitudes which are group specific, as shifts in self-categorization from an individual to a group member which produce shifts in attitudes and behaviour (Reynolds & Turner). In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers do need to consider the value of a situationally dependent personality factor as well as social identity processes as producing ethnocentrism. References Reynolds, K. , Turner, J. , Haslam, R. , Bizumic, B. , and Subasic, E. (2007). Does personality explain ingroup identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 517-539 Perreault, S and Bourhis, R. Y. (1998). Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1,49-66 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , van Larr, C. , and Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 6 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , and Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 2, 151-162 Wilson Haslam and Wilson (2000). In what sense are prejudiced beliefs personal? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1 Rubin, M. and Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: commentary on Reicher, Jost et al. , and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 823-844 Schmitt, M. T. , Branscomb, N. R. , and Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes towards group based inequality: social dominance or social identity. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186 Hogg, M. A. , Terry , D. J. , and White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-270 Negy, C. , Shreve, T. L. , Jensen, B. J. , and Uddin, N. Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Ethnocentrism: A Study of Social Identity Versus Multicultural Theory of Development. Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , and Haslam, S. A. (2000) When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64-80. Pratto, J. , Sidanius, F. , Stallworth and Malle. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67, 4 Lippa and Arad. (1999). Gender, personality and prejudice: the display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463-493 Turner, J. C. and Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199-206 Sidanius, J. , and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press: New York Oaks, P. J. , Haslam, S. A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality: Blackwell Publishers: Oxford Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 947-967 Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Haslam, A. , and Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427-434 Pratto, F. , Sidanius, J. , Stallworth, L. M. , and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67 4, 741-763 Bizumic, B. , Duckitt, J. , Popadic, D. , Dru, V. , and Drauss, S. (2008). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology Verkuyten, M. , and Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: the variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99-110 Bizumic, B. , Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Subasic, E. , and Johnson, S. C. How stable are prejudice and ideology? Evidence of variability as a function of motivational orientation. Presentation given Bizumic, B et al serials article. Mummendy, A. Simon, B. , Dietze, C. , Grunert, M. Haeger, G. , Kessler, S. , Lettgen, S. & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 28 (2): 125-144 Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology, 31, 191-263. NY: Academic Press When Are We Better Than Them and They Worse Than Us? A Closer Look at Social Discrimination in Positive and Negative Domains Katherine J. Reynolds, John C. Turner, and S. Alexander Haslam 2000, journal of personality and social psychology, 78, p. 64 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds. ), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Tajfel, H. , Billing, M. , Bundy, R. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-43 Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell: Oxford

How firmly was the Tsar in control of Russia before 1905? Essay

Russia was an Autocracy before 1905 and the Tsar was Nicholas 2nd. Many people dispute over whether he was in control or not, the main factors being: The Tsar’s leadership, Opposition to the Tsar, Social and Economic conditions and finally means of control. It can be argued that some factors are more important than others, but they are all significant in how I believe the Tsar was losing control. The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure. The Tsar had a lot of opponents within Russia and he did not deal with them to the best of his abilities. This meant he was not firmly in control of Russia at all. The 4 main opposing groups were: The Liberals (Cadets), The Social Revolutionaries (SRs) and The Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks) Although the different groups were all angry at different things, the one thing they had in common was that they were all unhappy about Russia’s Social and Economic Situation. In my opinion the Bolsheviks were the most dangerous group towards Tsar and the government, followed by the SRs then the Mensheviks finally the Liberals. Even though the Liberals had the most supporters, they were a peaceful group; they were not doing any damage to Russia. The Tsar did not believe they were a threat so chose to ignore them. However with the Bolsheviks they had a huge following (the working class.) Their approach to change was violence as was the SRs. The SRs managed to get close enough to the government to kill 2 of their officials. The Tsar dealt with the Bolsheviks and the SRs by killing them or exiling them. By exiling them he showed a lot of inexperience with how he dealt with these groups .All he did was send them away; this did not stop them from coming back! Siberia is in the east of the country (the opposite side as to where the Tsar was), but it is also a desert. This meant that the people the Tsar exiled became resentful towards him, as they had to live in a desert. An advantage to being exiled was that it was in the middle of nowhere. The organisations could discuss ideas and produce plans of future rebellions without the Tsar knowing what was going on. By not knowing this he lost an element of control because he did not know what his most violent organisations were doing. Every group in the Feudal system (except the aristocrats) had an organisation to rival the Tsar. This was bad because that meant at the very least only 1.5% of the population (aristocrats) were in full support of him. By not having the full support of his people the Tsar lost a lot of control because as a leader your people need to respect you but also have faith that you will do the right thing for the country in general (not just a specific group.) The monarchy was mostly made up of aristocrats, so was the government and army officials. By having only aristocrats in important positions the Tsar was not being fair, the 80% of the population that were peasants had a lot of reasons to despise the Tsar. This further allowed his control on Russia to loosen, it lost him support of people and the public started to realise that the Tsar was not the leader they needed to help them receive a better way of living. They needed someone that was not desperate for the power and someone who could hold control. Finally the fact the organizations even existed meant that he had lost some control already. If people respected him they would no t have started oppositions and formed plans. The groups all had plans. Whether they would work or not was a different issue. His weak leadership meant that he would not let anyone help him, he had resorted to last attempts by exiling people and had become desperate this shows how out of control he was and he knew it, because no one helped him he did not have a well thought out plan as to how to deal with the groups. The social and economic conditions in Russia would have made it hard for any leader to keep control, never mind the Tsar (a poor leader who had a lot of opposition.) 80% of Russia were peasants where as the aristocracy who owned 25% of the land and were only 1.5% of the population. This suggests that the gap between the rich and the poor was extreme. As the number of peasants moving to the city increased, more and more people started to realise how big this gap truly was and did not like it. Having to walk past lavish mansions on their way home, to rooms they probably shared with at least 1 other family created tension between the two social groups. The rich were getting richer and the poor poorer and nobody could move up the system. To make matters worse Russia spans 12 time zones and 60% of the population did not speak Russian. The Tsar lived in the far west so if a problem occurred in the east he would not be able to deal with it for days which meant his control of the situation decreased. If only 40% of you population speaks the national language it makes it harder for internal communication. The laws in Russia may have been harder to understand and those who did not speak the Tsar’s language would not have been as easy to control. The Tsar did not have as much domination as he thought he did because he could not control what was happening with some of the people and circumstances in the other end of his country. The Tsar used a lot of resources to try and keep his people under control, but to me it became apparent that the more resources he used the more the people refused to submit to his rules. One of his many means of control was the religious persecution of the Jews. All throughout history dictators have used specific groups of people (mostly the Jews) as scapegoats. Trying to pass the blame of the country onto someone else showed that the Tsar feared he would lose all of his control over the people if they thought it was his entire fault. Other means of control the Tsar used were: Secret police, regular police, prisons, and the army. In Leo Tolstoy’s letter to the Tsar in 1902 he says, â€Å"The numbers of regular police and of the secret police are continually growing.† This shows that the Tsar had started these policies but they were not working. People refused to be led by a man that was not objective to all groups in society and did not have the leadership required to be a successful Tsar. Overall I think that in the long-term it weakens his control but in the short term in strengthens his control. Showing the force he has the power to use might scare some of the population into behaving (but not for very long, I think they will see right through him.) However, having to rely on force (only at the point of a gun) shows his concern of the control he has over his country. The fact that the severity of the situation ended in armed forces patrolling the people, carrying live ammunition also shows his concern and ever shrinking clasp of control. After reviewing all of the evidence I believe that the Tsar was not in control of Russia before 1905. The Tsar’s poor qualities as a leader lost him respect from the people, as did the organizations opposing him. His desperation showed a lot in the decisions he made. If you are in control you are not desperate, you believe in the decisions you make, and the Tsar did not. Almost all of his forms of control failed in the long-term. The opposing groups managed to create plans and had a substantial number of followers. The social and economic situation made it ever harder to control Russia and his flaws isolated him from help and minimized the 1.5% of people that believed in him. The strongest evidence in my opinion is the opposition to the Tsar. All of the other facts contributed to the main point that he had opposition. If a leader has friction between him and his people he will always struggle to have control but the Tsar just had to many recurring problems to have control.

Hitler - loser essays

Hitler - loser essays History only remembers the winners. Losers like Hitler deserve to be forgotten. The above statement blatantly refers to Hitler as a loser, who deserves to be forgotten. The statement was correct; Hitler was eventually a loser, but it was not for his suicide marking the end of the war in 1945 that he was remembered Hitler was the epitome of vile, and people remember him for all the vicious things Hitler did throughout his life. However, qualities that were positive about at least his mind, unfocused on personality, are predominant in this essay, because Hitler did great things. Terrible, but great. In 1913 Adolf Hitler, a penniless vagrant, moved to Munich in southern Germany. At the outbreak of the First World War, in 1914, he volunteered for service in the German army and was accepted into the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment . Hitler fought bravely in the war and was promoted to corporal and decorated with both the Iron Cross Second Class and First Class, the latter of which he wore until his dying day [ironically the regimental captain who recommended him for the award was Jewish]. The day of the announcement of the armistice in 1918, Hitler was in hospital recovering from temporary blindness caused by a British gas attack in the Ypres Salient. In December 1918 he returned to his regiment back in Munich, having achieved a great amount from joining as a hobo in a few short years, but the glory he would receive would be short-lived. Asked to spy on certain local political groups, during a meeting of the German Workers' Party he became so incensed by one of the speeches that he delivered a fierce harangue to the speaker. The founder of the party, Anion Drexler, was so impressed by Hitler's tirade that he asked him to join their organization. Hitler, after some thought, finally agreed to join the committee and became their seventh official in September 1919. Up to November 1923 Hitler continued to b...

Sentence Adverbs

Sentence Adverbs Sentence Adverbs Sentence Adverbs By Maeve Maddox Not all adverbs end in -ly, but many do. Like all adverbs, -ly adverbs are used to add meaning to verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. For example: Jones deals honestly with all his customers. (adverb modifying the verb deals) The lecture on adiabatic and isochoric kinetics was mercifully brief. (adverb modifying the adjective brief) The concert is over. You have arrived unfortunately late. (adverb modifying the adverb late) Some -ly adverbs can also be used to modify an entire sentence. For example: Honestly, most television comedies are unbearably vulgar. (adverb modifying entire sentence) Mercifully, the blast was prevented by the swift arrival of the fire brigade. (adverb modifying entire sentence) Fortunately, the ship stayed afloat long enough for all the passengers to be rescued. (adverb modifying entire sentence) In each of these examples, the adverb at the beginning of the sentence is set off by a comma and conveys the attitude of the speaker toward the entire thought being expressed. Generally speaking (as opposed to more precise classifications in linguistics) adverbs used in this way are called â€Å"sentence adverbs.† Here is a list of other adverbs that may be used as sentence adverbs: actually apparently basically briefly certainly clearly conceivably confidentially curiously evidently hopefully ideally incidentally interestingly ironically naturally presumably regrettably seriously surprisingly thankfully truthfully Note: Some last-ditch language sticklers reject the right of hopefully to be included in this list. According to these cranky holdouts, the only meaning for hopefully that â€Å"careful writers† should recognize is â€Å"with hope,† as in â€Å"My dog Cash stared hopefully at the treat jar.† They reject the notion that hopefully can also be used to introduce a sentence with the sense of â€Å"I hope† or â€Å"it is to be hoped,† as in this sentence: â€Å"Hopefully, the new millage will pass, and we can expand the library.† English speakers have been using hopefully as a sentence adverb for eighty years at least- possibly longer. â€Å"Careful writers† may continue to avoid its use as they wish, but ridiculing its use by others is bad form. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:15 Terms for Those Who Tell the Future25 Russian Words Used in English (and 25 More That Should Be)Epidemic vs. Pandemic vs. Endemic

The Women of the Qing Dynasty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Women of the Qing Dynasty - Essay Example Many women were abused verbally and physically by their in-laws and spouses. Women were expected to be obedient toward men in their birth and marriage families. Ethnic Han Chinese women belonging to the upper and middle classes would have their feet bound. This practice was implemented as a way of ensuring that their mobility is limited and they remain close to home. Besides, bound feet were also considered as a symbol of beauty and femininity particularly among the elite class. This is the reason why poor families often felt tempted to bind the feet of their daughters. They thought that doing so, their daughters would be identified with rich families and the chances of her getting married into a rich family would be optimized. The practice of foot binding was very painful as the girls had to go through a series of painful developments. First, foot binding broke their arch bones. Their feet were tied into the lotus position with a long cloth strip. Bound feet deterred these women fro m working in the fields, so the families used this practice to symbolize that they were too rich to have their daughters work in the fields. Many women painters and poets emerged during the early Qing dynasty. However, it was not until the 17th century that women were identified as professionals and their artwork’s sale was considered a respectful means of livelihood (Yuho, 1993). He Shuangqing was a famous poet of the Qing dynasty. Ropp (2002) describes her background, talents, and features in the book in these words, â€Å"He Shuangqing, style name Qiubi, came from Danyang (in the southwestern part of today’s Jiangsu Province) in the Qing dynasty. Born into a peasant family, she lived in the vicinity of Siping Shan. Very beautiful, multitalented, and a lover of literacy works, she was married in 1732 into a poor family of woodcutters surnamed Zhou† (Ropp, 2002, p. 219). Having a