This raises an interesting question and an intriguing premise for the people of these countries on what sort of societies they wish to build in place of the ones they overthrew, and at what pace. This essay will primarily examine the extent to which these new societies should protect individual rights to free expression and action, especially given their uniformly volatile and unstable political situations currently. To do this, we will examine it under the premises put forth by Artistotle, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill on the
A clear similarity to Marx’s alienation and Durkhiem’s anomie is that they both critically describe states of social order from utopian standards. However one of the most notable differences between the two theories is that whilst they describe very similar behaviour and discontents, though from different perspectives, they look at different causes and different solutions. It must however be understood that these classical definitions/theories of anomie and alienation are different from contemporary definitions. In fact it can be argued that time and sociologists have changed or ‘obscured’ the classical meanings of alienation and anomie
Sovereignty in Global Criminology In the age of globalization and the emergence of new technologies, where crimes have become border-less and state actions have become far-reaching, global awareness of state-sponsored atrocities and humanitarian issues are said to have taken centre stage. It is then logical to expect sovereignty, the ability of a state to behave with immunity and act with absolute supremacy over internal affairs, to continuously be discarded little by little , in the name of human dignity and rights, However its safe to say that sovereignty and national jurisdiction lives on and continues to impede the development of global criminology and the human rights discourse. Even though principles of sovereignty or political legitimacy in theory, are only affirmed or reclaimed by the state through taking on specific right and obligations such as the protection of human rights and its citizens, these principles can nevertheless, in practice survive on their own. State crimes, which involve civil, political or gross human rights violations and corresponding moral and legal responsibilities are still not effectively conceptualised and addressed. They continue to be sent to the back burner, while political agendas brew.
Because myths are linked historically not just to literature, but also to the experience of the sacred, their use has the effect turning an experience sacrosanct (Clasby xi). The two texts, Wild Thorns and Waltz with Bashir: A Lebanon War Story are imbued with various myths, of heroism and martyrdom, nation and national identity, and the motherland and revolution. Though the myths in the story are born out of a historical and political necessity to create a unified community, the same myths are also far removed from the lived experience, often alienating characters instead, and limiting the exploration of different possibilities and interpretations of history and nation. Myths, as the chosen form of communication of “prophets, poets and rebels” (Clasby xv), offer a symbolic language for articulating experience that can be used as a narrative of the experience of a people. In the light of the fact that many scholars see “modern consciousness” as a fall grace (Clasby 1), myths elevate the ordinary experience to the sacred (Clasby xi).
In other words, truth is an illusion. Similarly ethics and morality are social constructs. In other words, faith becomes more important than science or logic. The central tenets of Postmodernism includes elevation of text and language as a fundamental phenomena of existence, questioning of reality as represented because of inherent flaws in language, and a general critique of western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar, 2008). It is evident that there is a fundamental tension between the two world views.
Many reasons of this ‘immunity’ can been seen in the challenges the Arab world faces, such as; the longstanding authoritarian regimes, the notion that the Middle East is fundamentally incompatible with democracy, and the lack of a civil society, which is needed for democracy to prevail. However, there are compelling arguments in favour of the prospect of development of democracy, most convincing of all, the recent events of the Arab Spring which prove to defy and contradict the theory that democracy is an alien concept to the Middle East. This essay will discuss whether the Middle East has the potential to develop democratically, and will look at what obstacles stand in the way of democratisation. The Arab world is in plentiful supply of obstacles which barricade its path towards democratisation. One of the colossal arguments that the Arab world can never democratise fully, is the idea that Arab and Islamic civilisations are, “uniquely exceptional in its undemocratic tendencies” (Milton-Edwards, 2007: 162).
In the pluralist model of democracy, pressure groups play an essential role. Political parties cannot provide adequate representation for the full range of diverse interests and opinions in a modern democracy because their key function is to aggregate interests into a coherent political entity capable of governing the country. Pressure groups enable particular interests and causes to be heard and to exert influence in public decision and decision-making. Yet it is precisely the representation of specialist interests and of single issues which may give cause for concern, both in terms of the methods used to achieve objectives and of the undue power and influence which particular lobbies can exert. Pluralists believe that pressure groups overcome the democratic deficit that builds up as most people’s political participation is to cast a vote every five years, this leading to people having little or no influence over decisions made between elections, and minority views not being represented.
Social constructivism is analyzed for its offerings in the study of anarchy, regimes, world polity, and as systemic level theory of international relations. Among the interesting findings is the problematic nature of this approach to understanding anarchy, the difficulty of defining constructivism as positivist social science, and the optimistic outlook for the future of international relations studies offered by the constructivist approach. Introduction It is often asked why any theory of international relations should be taken seriously. On the surface this appears to be a valid question. Theory is academically based and not part of the real world.
This paper will argue that Robert K. Merton’s theory of anomie is a good foundation for the explanation of deviance in society; it is far too general in its assumptions and much too vague in its consideration of certain circumstances. The paper will begin with a review of Merton’s theory and then point out the how his theory succeeds in providing a universal explanation of the incidence of many forms of deviance, while failing to explain the occurrence of “white collar” crime and crimes of passion, assuming a uniform culture, and ignoring other theories which state that it is in fact the structure of society that deters us from deviance. The concept of anomie was originally developed by Emile Durkheim in his 1897 book, Suicide. Durkheim used the term anomie, which he borrowed from the French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau, to describe the lack of social regulation in modern societies as one way that could raise suicide rates (Durkheim, 1897). The criminologist Robert Merton, applied Durkheim’s concept of anomie to modern industrialized societies, and redefined the term as the structure of a society in which there is a significant gap “between valued cultural ends and legitimate societal means to those ends” (Akers, 2000).
ABSTRACT: Are rights universal? This intriguing yet controversial question is discussed in terms of how rights is perceived through the works of major philosopher’s of all time; all of which perceive rights in different political spectrums. Additionally, cultural relativism is hugely discussed in this essay, with it being arguably a crucial factor in determining how universal rights can be. This essay also highlights Jeremy Bentham’s work “Anarchical Fallacies” which criticized the Declaration of Rights and Karl Marx’s ‘On the Jewish Question’. This essay weighs on both sides of the scale, and it is generally concluded that rights are not universal even though they have been efforts to promote its universality.