Western Civ Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Western Civ - Essay Example Firstly, at the end of the British feudalism, after the 17th Century English Civil war, scientific knowledge and entrepreneurial skills quickly started growing in Britain creating an onset of the industrial revolution. Many people wanted things to change for the better. They wanted to improve efficiency and quality of activities they were doing. According to Pearson Education (2010), these people wanted improved transport; manufactured cloth to match with growing demographic needs; maximize agricultural production; agricultural produce to be preserved in the best way; trade to expand beyond the frontiers and others. As such, many people with scientific and entrepreneur skills engaged in heavy technological advancement. Scientists started inventing various technologies such as improved textile machines and the steam engine whilst entrepreneurial capitalists supported the inventions with funding. Such technologies later improved transportation, cloth manufacturing and agricultural prod uction. While this was happening in Britain, other countries had not yet started. Secondly, Britain had a very big advantage over the other countries on natural resources. She had a very big base of natural resources such as iron, copper, coal, lead, tin, limestone and water power. Such minerals were abundant in places such as the English Midlands, South Wales and Scottish Lowlands. Pearson Education (2010) agrees that advancement in technology, agriculture and abundant labor made it easy for Britain to extract the natural resources and use them to expand manufacturing. On the other hand, other countries had limited natural resources; and it was difficult to extract them because of several reasons such as insufficient capital, poor political systems and lack of labor. Such a situation gave Britain an opportunity to lead in industrial revolution. Thirdly, it should also be noted that aristocracy in continental Europe helped to

Economics Essay, applying Porter's Diamond to the construction Essay

Economics , applying Porter's Diamond to the construction industry - Essay Example The work includes building of roads, bridges and other major infrastructures. The real estate business is also urban based; so the constructions companies need to base all their business activity in urban areas in order to compliment the real estate industry. The repair and maintenance of existing buildings and other infrastructures also falls under the domain of construction industry and its major business comes from the densely populated urban areas. This is due to the fact that the more usage of infrastructure in densely populated urban areas results in higher damages and hence is subject to repair. There are mainly three categories in which the construction industry is divided. First, being the heavy constructions that require high civil engineering; in this category we have the construction of roads, bridges and other big infrastructures. In this category the big guns of construction industry come into function for all major commitments. The second category is the general constr uction of buildings of real estate; in this category the construction companies operate in housing development works. The small construction companies mainly operate in this category, as it requires small budgetary involvements. The third and final category comprise of special constructive work, which is done in small scale. Specialized areas of construction fall in this category like the construction work on wood, electric related works, etc. In this category very specific construction companies operate as it require specialization in specific field of work. (Economy watch, n.d). It is seen that the contractor may be an individual or any organization; contractors definitely fall in any of the above categories in construction business. A construction firm, of any size can fall under these three categories of the construction business. The scope of growth of construction industry is favorable in the developing countries where the trend of

Planning for Long Term Wealth Creation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Planning for Long Term Wealth Creation - Essay Example Before borrowing to invest in the stock market, Albert and Nancy should first build an investment plan that clearly documents their retirement goals of savings and income. After identifying the level of income and savings that they require for their retirement goals, the couple can then develop several investment strategies that are potentially adequate in achieving these goals over time, using the principles of risk management to differentiate the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy. In summary, the couple should schedule meetings with a number of financial professionals and discuss the investment options available for achieving their retirement goals to compare advice and strategies in different stocks, bonds, and commodity investments. Once this information has been gathered, they should study each recommendation given by the financial advisors and make a final decision on an investment plan they are comfortable with dedicating their income to over the next 20 years. One serious concern that the couple must consider when contemplating taking a home equity loan for investment in a retirement fund is the rate of interest that they will pay on the initial sum and how that rate compares to expected stock market returns. For example, HSBC and UBank are both offering home equity loans at a 6.79% interest rate in Australia currently. (InfoChoice, 2011) The consumer inflation rate has average between 3.33% and 3.6% in Australia in 2011. (RateInflation, 2011) Therefore, Albert and Nancy would have to average over 10% returns in the stock market every year just to cover the costs of the loan repayment plus inflation. While $125,000 is a strong deposit into an initial self-managed superfund account, the couple will need to understand that upon investment in a single company or diversified portfolio of stock holdings, there is no guarantee that future returns will match or exceed the rate of interest plus inflation. Nevertheless, the home equity investment can be seen as beneficial for the couple if they can easily afford the home payment over time without significant stress in the household budget. Since the couple is paying a higher rate of interest on the car, personal loan, and credit cards than on the home equity loan, at a comparison of 15.5% to 17% vs. 6.79%, the best initial use of the home equity loan would be to clear the personal debt. Then, the income that was previously being dedicated to loan and credit card payments can be set aside for investment each month in equities, bonds, and precious metals. Thus, the couple would do best by first retiring the personal debt at a sum of $32,000, and then keeping the credit card purchases at a minimal level. In this manner, the couple should be able to free up $900 to $1000 each month to invest into their self-managed super-annuity fund. In dedicating $32,000 of the $125,000 home equity loan to clearing the personal debt, the couple established a means to dedicate an extra $900 to $10 00 every month to their retirement fund. However, when compared to their retirement goals of achieving self-sufficient income in old age, even an initial investment of $93,000 in the self-managed super-annuity fund plus the monthly contributions at the rate of $900 to $1000 per month would not be sufficient to meet their goals. Part of the reason for this is inflation, which operates in the manner of compounded interest. Considering the couple has a $100,000

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission Essay Example for Free

Robotic Mission vs Manned Mission Essay It is my opinion that if given a choice between a robotic and a manned space based exploration, it is better to execute a robotic mission. It is not worth the cost and risk for humans to simply explore space, except when the goal is specifically colonization. First, a manned mission would be much more technically complicated than a robotic one outweighing any incremental benefit resulting from a human presence. Second, the financial cost of manned missions to overcome the complications is not worth the projected costs. Third, funding robotic missions are indirect investments in aiding the current human condition. That is, the cost saving from robot missions could help relieve current issues here on earth. Lastly, pushing the boundaries of the unknown will always be fascinating to humans, but we would be pushing current human boundaries to explore much further past the moon, with our current technology. Advancements in robot technology can allow us to take the next step in advanced space missions. Some would argue the opposite; some would say that manned missions are essential to quench our curiosity and thirst for uncovering the unknown, our desperate search for answers about the universe, and to find life beyond our planet. There are specific advantages to robotic exploration over human space missions. Space is a dangerous place for humans in many ways; there are many factors working against long term human space travel. There is harsh radiation, zero gravity and the element of time to consider. Radiation, in form of cosmic rays (high energy particles) and other high-energy radiation emitted from our sun, breaks down DNA in our bodies (0), leads to major complications, and poses the largest threat to human space travel. Extended zero gravity exposure leads to bone destiny loss and weakened organs because our physiology evolved having gravity. Time is also a factor against human space travel; we simply cannot go fast enough and live long enough to make it. If we went 123,000 mph with current plasma engines (1) to the closest star, Proxima Centauri – 4. 22 light years away (2), it would take 23 thousands years (2. 1). We cant live that long but robots could possibly go faster and need no protection from anything except sensitive equipment. Robots don’t need to come back, they have no families and we can build new ones. As questions are asked about the cosmos we develop new detectors, telescopes, and probes to answer those questions safely, quickly, and with accuracy. Human space missions are extremely expensive, unsafe, and inefficient(3) compared to robotic ones. A manned mission would most likely involve advanced life support systems, ample social interaction that means more people, food, oxygen, radiation protection, constant exercise, etc. with all systems being mostly self-sustaining or replenishing. This is all equals to weight, cost, time, and research. Also, the effects of zero-gravity and cosmic radiation have not been studied in depth and the long term exposure, could be detrimental(4). Also, the effects on the mind, in the long term, we know little about. (5) Constant isolation and confinement could drive any crew mad. (5. 1) We currently don’t even have spacesuits that protect against radiation. (6) Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley’s chief scientist said, â€Å"What’s affordable is not safe; what’s safe is not affordable. †(7). A robotic mission would not encounter any of these problems and risks. The space shuttle had a price tag of about $450 million per mission and today unmanned payload cost about $12,000 per pound. (8) Most of this cost is associated with the fuel it takes to escape Earth’s orbit which is burned upon take off. The less weight expended the less fuel is required for takeoff, thus saving money to make it worth these endeavors. Assuming we do not colonize the location we plan on exploring, we would want our fellow space explorers to return home to their families safely. This would require a mission plan home, this is more than one mission, an increase in cost and preparation, making a returning virtually impossible. (8. 1) Robotic space missions could directly address and change human conditions on Earth. The possibilities of immediate results on Earth are enticing, new technologies found through the research of problems encountered could lead to advanced propulsion technologies that could give us more efficient methods of travel here on Earth and possibly end our use of fossil fuels. Reaching and exploring asteroids could lead the way to learning how to divert one here on Earth(9). Possible colonization of new worlds can first be explored by robots, giving us an understanding of our true environment and helps us expand, as the human race; not any specific nation or country but for humankind as a whole. Finding new resources from asteroids, moons, and worlds in our solar system could give us a new era of economic stimulus, growth, and hopefully peace. By 2030 we human on Earth will be consuming the resources of two planets annually (10), this is a scary thought and we must prepare for the possibility of expanding our horizons to the new frontier, united as one people for the common good. Some opposing cases have been argued that it is essential for manned missions to be funded. It is very possible for us to reach Mars in one month (11) with a proposed 123,000 MPH plasma engine. This makes it imperative to do so immediately. With less and less standing in our way to colonizing our solar system, we must see these new frontiers with our eyes. New technologies researched for the survival of colonies in space, could bring many positive effects on Earth, such as closed-loop sustainable habitats would give the poor around the world, enough food. 12) This would not be possible, if we sent robots, since they don’t eat. The necessity for manned missions could inadvertently allow us to discover new technologies that will, assuredly help us on Earth. There even is the possibility of a one-way journey for a single candidate to colonize Mars. (13) This would reduce risk, cost, and the lives of other potential settlers. Since, there is no longer the competition of nations to reach space, like the space-race between USA and Russia, but today we work together, â€Å"Like a club of developers. (14) In conclusion, I feel that a robotic mission is the way to explore space. The cost, risk, and benefits gained from a manned mission are just not worth it, when compared to a robotic one. Although, the possibility of many technologies arising from the research aimed toward at solving current hurdles of successful manned missions, we should not to bear the risks associated with them since, robots are extension of ourselves. Endnotes 0: http://schoolworkhelper. net/2011/02/nasa-mission-to-mars-probes-design-dangers/ 1,11,14.

Human Nature in Macbeth Essay Example for Free

Human Nature in Macbeth Essay Macbeth is a play that examines human nature. During the play there is a significant amount of emphasis on the different attributes and sides of human nature. The play demonstrates that everyone has the ability to do good or evil by what choices they make and what the ramifications of these actions are, decisions are made that affect the outcome of a person’s future. Macbeth is a prime example of the human nature in its very worst form. Throughout the play, Macbeth experience somewhat of a fall from grace. Macbeth’s greed and poor decision making caused him to lose everything he had worked so hard for. He became engulfed in greed and would stop at nothing to gain what he believed was rightly his. He went from somebody who was a strong courageous and well respected man who was an honourable warrior for Scotland. To someone who was so blinded by his hunger for power it drove him to incredible lengths such as killing his own cousin and best friend, to receive what was promised him by the witches. Macbeth’s disloyalty is a huge flaw in his character and part of his human nature. He murdered his long-time friend and king, Duncan. He had no remorse for his actions, he was only concerned for his own safety that he wouldn’t get caught. â€Å"The bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan, for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or hell. † (act 2, scene 1) Shakespeare uses the character of Macbeth to demonstrate to his audience that the decisions we make and the actions we take can easily be affected by simple aspects of human nature such as greed, this hunger for power that some people seem to possess and that we can so easily be manipulated by others to do wrong. Lady Macbeth is very manipulative towards her husband, by questioning his manhood, emotionally blackmailing him she brings out his pride to do as she desires. â€Å"When you durst do it, then you were a man; And, to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man. † (act 1, scene 7) She plays on the weakest parts of Macbeth’s character to manipulate him. â€Å"We will proceed no further in this business. † (act 1, scene 7) This shows that Macbeth was set to not kill Duncan but Lady Macbeth manipulated him to change this mindset. So if were not for Lady Macbeth’s toying and manipulation of Macbeth he would still be the honourable man he once was. Throughout Macbeth, Shakespeare uses his main Characters, particularly Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to show the very worst of human nature and tried to show his audience and anyone to read the play in the years to come that our choices and actions can be easily influenced by others and that everything we do, particularly bad things have serious ramifications, in Macbeths case, The total destruction of himself, his wife and his country.

Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography

Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography Introduction During the 25 years since the publication of Writing Culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, a great deal of discussion has accompanied it. In this essay I place this book in the context of the literary turn in anthropology, and concern with the postcolonial encounter as well. Throughout the analysis of the main themes in the book, attention is paid to the construction of ethnographic authority and two relationships of ethnographer/reader and ethnographer/informant centered in Writing Culture. The essay also provides a perspective of the influential power of the book by presenting some ethnographies conducted by Chinese anthropologists. Finally, I will argue the risks of the textualism trend and different patterns in Writing Culture approach. Background of the Book: In and Beyond Anthropology More than ten years after the publication of Writing Culture, in a review article, George Marcus (1998:5) quoted Schneiders words referring to the book: I dont think Jim Clifford is famous for his monograph on Leenhardt. I dont think that George Marcus has achieved some notoriety because he worked on Tonga. Indeed, I dont know anybody whos read the ethnography he wrote. In fact, Ive often talked to people and asked them, Hay, have you read George Marcuss ethnography? No!-but I read that other damn book. It is a very typical and interesting comment. As an anthropologist, George Marcus is best remembered for editing the collection of essays rather than his own ethnographic work; and similarly, James Clifford, a historian, is frequently regarded as an anthropologist by force of being the editor of the same book. The comment also reveals that the book is controversial, and it has witnessed harshly criticism after its appearance. However, there is no denying that Writing Culture is one of the most important books throughout the history of anthropology-the milestone of the post-modern era and the cornerstone of the experimental ethnography (Gao 2007, Scholte 1987). 1. The literary turn There is nothing outside the text. (Derrida) The book, with eleven essays in it (including the introduction and afterword), is based on a series of seminars at the School of American Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the United States of America in April 1984(Clifford and Marcus 1985). By taking the making of ethnographic text (Clifford and Marcus 1986:vii) as the focal point of their seminars, the participants not only viewed WRITING as a elementary method, but also the central issue of social cultural anthropology. Ethnographic writing is then critically examined in aspects of social context, the use of rhetoric devises, the limitations of disciplinary traditions, the definition of its genre, the political engagement, and historical transformations.[1] Why is writing becoming a principle thing in anthropology? In order to answer this question, inevitably, we take into consideration the literary turn, or say textualism trend in anthropology in the 1980s. The literary turn, just as its name implies, by taking text, writing and literary devices as key concepts and employing textual and literary analyses, is a radical shift which provides strikingly different epistemological and methodological approaches in the discipline of anthropology (Scholte 1987). Although it is difficult to figure out whether Writing Culture is more a cause or a result of the literary turn, the book is definitely a key ingredient of it. I would further suggest that Levi-Strauss, Geertz and Writing Culture should be considered as a sequence in the context of the literary turn. What the Writing Culture authors claim, such as the diversity of representations, possibilities of interpretations, at a glance, are totally different from Levi-Strausss pure unity, reduced models and deep culture grammar. At the same time, Levi-Strausss strong sense of symbol and meaning within a symbolic language system and his linguistic analogy approach (Barrett 1996) are valuable legacies to Geertz and Writing Culture. Furthermore, his research on mythology threw fresh light on the interdisciplinary studies across anthropology and literature. Then, Geertz, who is profoundly influenced by Levi-Strauss and Weber, has a more important and complex influence on Writing Culture. Firstly, his concern of anthropological interpretations and thick descriptions, fieldwork and post fieldwork, (Geertz 19751983) provided the basis for Writing Culture explorations. Secondly, Geertzs local knowledge, natives point of view (Geertz 19751983) and assertion of an amiable and intelligible style insp ired Writing Culture authors to portray fieldwork as a dialogical approach, and consequently take the interactions of ethnographers/the indigenous people (Barrett 1996) and ethnographers/readers in to account. Thirdly, Geertzs ethnographies became important materials of Writing Culture 2. Postcolonial encounter and Cultural Representation I used to rule the world Seas would rise when I gave the word Now in the morning I sweep alone Sweep the streets I used to own One minute I held the key Next the walls were closed on me And I discovered that my castles stand Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand Lyrics of Viva la Vida (Coldplay 2009) The birth of this book is not narrowly concerned with the inheritance and development of theory and methodology within the discipline, but rather deeply rooted in the historical background and the reconstruction among the entire academic community. As an academic discipline, anthropology is developed in the context of imperialism and colonialism. The long-time contact between European conquerors and the colonists shaped forms of power and knowledge, and anthropologists at that time entered into non-European aboriginal communities as observers and describers (Asad 2002). Anthropology narrated power relations; at the same time it was also potentially counter-hegemonic (Clifford 1986:9). In 1980s, which was the postcolonial and postwar era without the umbrella of the colonial power, anthropology started to face a more complex nexus of power relations. The postcolonial situation affected the main interests of anthropology and challenged the authority of ethnography. Moreover, anthropology from then on, was not only carried out by Europeans and Americans, but also by those from the so-called Third World who were studying their own cultures; and neither Western culture nor the non-Western cultures remained the same in the ever-changi ng world (Clifford 1986, Layton 1997). In Writing Culture, the analyses of ethnographic discourses- asking who speaks? who writes? when and where? with or to whom? under what institutional and historical constrains?(Clifford 1986)-is a repercussion of the postcolonial encounter. Another important feature of the 1980s is the increasing flow of so-called postmodernism in academia-grand narrative was abandoned and details of everyday life took their place. Accordingly, singular culture was replaced by the plural one, and cultures were understood as representations and knowledge; and man with a small m took place of Man with variability. More importantly, the process of rethinking cultural representation again called into question the authenticity of representation itself and Writing Culture elegantly captured the main themes in this discussion. Three Main Themes of the Book In general, Writing Culture is an introspection, which attempts to examine anthropology traditions (especially the traditional ethnography) as well as anthropologists themselves. I will explore three main themes in the reflections. 1. Partial truth Knowledge is power,and that one must never reveal all of what one knows. Saramaka folktale, in Price (1983:14) cited in Clifford (1986:7) The most essential and fundamental point in Writing Culture is the questioning of ethnographic authenticity. In the 1920s, ethnography was defined and established not only as a genre of cultural description depending on intensive participant observation (Clifford 1983), but also a main research method internalised as a academic criterion in the field of anthropology (Gao 2006). This new style of ethnography-scientific ethnography, built by Malinowski, investigated the totality of culture with a holistic view and documented different layers of ethnographic reality(Kuper 1996). About 50 years later, the theorizing of ethnographic realism sprung up. In 1977, Paul Rabinow, who is a contributor of Writing Culture, published his book Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. His provocative descriptions of the fieldwork itself and his own feelings in the field reveal that fieldwork is a process of intersubjective construction of liminal modes of communication (1977:155) which constantly involve s valuation, and the ethnographer is not a objective observer but a real person with self-consciousness and certain cultural background who makes and remakes facts. Unlike the revelations of Malinowskis fieldwork dairy and the Mead-Freeman controversy, anthropologists started to look at themselves consciously and pondered-what is the ethnographic truth. This issue has been argued throughout the book. Take for example Vincent Crapanzanos Hermess Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description (1986); he analyses three ethnographic texts by George Catlin, Wolfgang von Goethe and Clifford Geertz to probe how does the ethnographer make his/her work convincing. The three authors use distinctive figures, namely hypotyposis, external theatrical narrativity and interpretive virtuosity, to convince the readers of the descriptions in their texts. He argues that, as a matter of fact, their rhetoric tools make the described events devoiced from the original settings, and finally, it is the ethnographers authority which covers the subversion up. However, the ethnographers authority-his/her presence, perceptual ability, disinterested perspective, objectivity and sincerity (1986:53), is questionable. Does being there mean witnessing everything? Is the perceptual ability trained in a certain culture adequate and reliable? Is disinter ested perspective or objectivity even possible? If not, how can one reach the whole truth by selected fragmentary information? The underlying institutional system and power relations work through all these issues and enmesh in the anthropological knowledge, not to mention the cultural filtering, the information is not completed at the source. Crapanzanos essay reminds us that the ethnographer, like Hermes who decodes and interprets messages, promised to tell no lies but did not promise to tell the whole truth (1986:76). From this perspective, ethnographic truth no longer pursues the true view of the whole world, as Clifford and Rabinow point out in the book, ethnographic truths are partial, committed and incomplete (Clifford 1986:7) and in bondage to cultural settings. 2. Literary devices All constructed truths are made possible by powerful lies of exclusion and rhetoric. As I have mentioned before, Writing Culture is related to the literary turn of anthropology with the foundation of seeing ethnographies as texts. It is easy to point out that another major theme of the book is the literary devices employed in ethnographies, and in which the rhetoric issue has been mostly discussed. For instance, Renato Rosaldos From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor (1986), by comparing The Nure written by Evens Pritchard with Montaillou written by French social historian Ladurie, demonstrates how ethnographic rhetoric could assist in building authority and objectivity. Needless to repeat, The Nure is a ethnographic masterpiece, and for Montaillou, it is famous for providing an ethnographic analysis of a French community in fourteenth century by using inquisition record. Rosaldo states that, in the first place, in the introductory section, by frankly acknowledging the inequality between the inquisitor / his subjects, the fieldworker/ the Nuer, the authors both indicate the calm presence of mind(1986:89); then, they style themselves as honest men through complaining about the difficulties in gaining information in uneasy tensions between investigators and informants. After that, they claim their information is gradually collected in particles in order to construct the reliability; meanwhile, distanced normalizing mode of discourse, rhetorical absences[2], correspondences[3], etc. are used to enhance the sense of objectivity. In sum, the rhetorical work in introductory parts of the two books by means of separating the context of colonial domination from the production of ethnographic knowledge (1986:93)establish the authors innocence and the ethnographic authority as well. Furthermore, in both authors, the pastoral mode is invoked. The literary mode of pastoral is, firstly a symbol of the spiritual liberty, secondly a mobile position of speaking, and thirdly a label of courtesy and respect. Rosaldos essay interestingly illustrates that, although the power and knowledge relations have not been completely kicked off, to a great extent, they are concealed by the rhetoric tools. Ethnographic rhetoric has a strong impact on the understandings of the ethnographic texts (Scholte 1987). 3. Writing of Self Continued from the preceding paragraph, the mobility in ethnographers positions is demonstrated cumulatively in other chapters of Writing Culture as well. Fieldwork in Common Places by Mary Louis Pratt (1986) provides an illustration. Her essay focuses on the significant history of the relationship between personal narrative and impersonal description (1986:27) in ethnographies and travel writings. Pratt starts with a controversy that anthropology graduate Florinda Donners work Shabobo: A True Adventure in the Remote and Magical Heart of the South American Jungle is facing accusations of plagiarism, because there are some events in her book which are the same as others. Here, Pratt asks a very inspiring question: as ethnography demands accurate descriptions, for describing the same events at the same place, how could Donners work not resemble others? Pratt argues that the authority of ethnography, in some sense, is based on the unique and original personal experience in the field not the factual accuracy (1986:29) of a certain ethnography. From this perspective, personal narratives cannot be eliminated from ethnography, and it also explains why the subgenre of formal ethnography, such as Malinowskis diaries, has not been killed by science (1986:31), but turned into a prolonged tradition of anthropology. Even in formal ethnographies, personal narrative is an integral part. It marks the relationship among the fieldworker, indigenous people, and the audience. It also serves as a regulator, reconciling the inconsistency between the subjective engagement in fieldwork, and the detachment; the self-effacement in formal ethnographic writing. Moreover, her analysis shows that, even in the time of so-called scientific ethnography, ethnographers were writing from multiple, constantly shifting positions, and self is never a scientist-observer (1986:39). To consider further from this point, we could identity a difference between classical ethnography and experimental ethnography. For Malinowski, and his students Firth and Evens-Prichard, the writing of self is a strategy serving for building the authority of scientific ethnography; however, for Rabinow and his contemporary anthropologists, the consciously self-realization in ethnographic writing successfully opens up a dimension for reflective thinking. The self, thus, is public, and mediates in different cultures. The appearance of the new kind of self writing is very provocative: epistemologically, in view of the production and explanation of the knowledge,it penetrates into the relationship between knowledge of self and knowledge of the Other and how knowledge is hermeneutically represented(Rapport, and Overing 2000); methodologically, it seeks for the diversity of ethnographic writing, more specifically, the expression of the subjectivity, the utilization of rhetoric, or, I would say, the writing style. 4. A summary of the three themes: one centre and two basic relationships Throughout all three themes-ethnographic truth, rhetoric in ethnography, and the writing of self, there is a central point-the construction of ethnographic authority, which cannot be comprehended without reference to the power relations. The power relations derive from the Foucaultian intertwining of knowledge and power in the academic discipline as well as the fluctuant historical and political affiliation. Here, I will not repeat these issues which I have argued in the first part, rather, I would suggest two relationships existing in the main themes of Writing Culture: a) ethnographers and the natives they studied, and b) anthropologists and their readers. Having inherited the tradition of Geertzs interpretive anthropology, Writing Culture highlights the reconstruction of the ethnographer/informant relations (Wang Gao). Indigenous people and their culture are no longer viewed as silent and uniform objects. Ethnographic knowledge, as suggested by Rabinow (1977), is built on a bilateral understanding in certain cultural contexts. At the same time, more importantly, the book pays close attention to the relationship between anthropologists and the readers. Same as the literary outputs, ethnographies shape the relations with the audiences through texts (Xu 2001). Both the completed texts and reading activities are certainly influenced by the literary processes (Clifford 1986). By scanning how ethnographies communicate with their readers, the reflexive essays[4] portray ethnography as a kind of dialogue, and the conversational readership allows, or I could say, encourages the readers to take part in the investigation of ethnographic writing. In addition, the discussions regarding the ethnographers distinguished positions in describing others and expressing Self, permit the readers to obtain the different perspectives which the ethnographers have themselves. As Spencer indicated (1989), the correspondence to multiple positions provided by a master hand is a feature of a good ethnography. Why is it important to tak e the readership of ethnography into consideration? I think it depends largely on the unique and versatile character of this readership. Marcus and Cushman (1982) present six categories of readerships of ethnography. The categories differ in purpose, positions, and some of them may merge with another (the first and second one in particular) or others: (1) the specialist readership, (2) the general anthropological readership, (3) readerships from the other social sciences (4) the student readership, (5) the action oriented readership,(6)the popular readership(1982:51-52). Ethnography, firstly, as a genre and a method as well, interposes itself between humanities (relating to category 1 and 2) and social sciences (relating to category 3); secondly, serves as a puberty rite for professional anthropologists (relating to category 4); thirdly, emerges into social and political decision-making for certain historical and institutional reasons (relating to category 5); and finally, attracts common readers thanks to its literary feature and exotic nature (relating to category 6). It is obvious that the readerships of ethnography are extremely complicated and should be carefully identified. Both ethnographers and readers must be self-conscious (Rapport 2000). Hence, the ethnographer/reader relation issue raised by Writing Culture writers, from this angle, is stimulating from the 1980s till today. The ethnographer/reader relation, together with the ethnographer/informant relation, is located in the power discourse and knowledge discourse. Once again, the two relationships echo the central idea of Writing Culture-the authority and power. In a word, although the three themes I proposed are not a very complete summary of the book, the one centre and two basic relationships they conveyed, in my opinion, have demonstrated the most insight and innovation of Writing Culture. Writing Culture: the Chinese Experience In the preliminary report of the Writing Culture seminar and papers, Clifford and Marcus state that Writing Culture is lacking the feminist point of view as well as Third World or non-European approach (Clifford and Marcus 1985). For the former omission, I agree with Schotle (1987) that, some feminist perspectives is inconspicuously harbored in Pratts essay. However, for sure, there is not a so-called Third World standpoint in Writing Culture, which I think is a significant irony for its analysis of power play in the post-colonial time. In Third World countries, anthropology is in a very different context. Their people and cultures have for a long time been discovered, observed, described, and represented by Westerners. Non-Western anthropologists and their ethnographic works are the symbols of the reconfiguration within the discipline, and most of them naturally locate their fieldwork sites in their own cultures to study their own people. Generally speaking, anthropology[5] of the Third World witnesses a fruitful period in the postwar era, which is also the golden age of experimental ethnography, and to some extent, it could be taken as anthropology at home which employs the self-reflexive approach mentioned in Writing Culture. I will then, taking China as an example, look at some ethnographic cases conducted by Chinese anthropologists relating to Writing Culture. I assume it a good perspective to explore the influential power of Writing Culture and its echoes. The first case is Huang Shumins ethnography The Spiral Road:Change In A Chinese Village Through The Eyes Of A Communist Party Leader(1998). Depending on his one-year fieldwork (first ten chapters) and a revisit (chapter 1112) in a village in Fujian province, China, Huang provides a picture of the huge political and economic change and development in a Chinese village from the founding of Peoples Republic of China to the 1990s as well as the impact on the personal and pubic life of a peasant, who is the a political leader in the community. The political struggles, the hardship of raising a family, and the peasants life wisdom are vividly described through a first-person narrative life history approach. Although his novel-like ethnography is first published in English, Huang is regarded as one of the best Chinese anthropologists for his proficient writing skills and great success in narrating the complexity of historical events in rural China in a lighter tone. The second case is drawn from Li Chunxias PhD dissertation Television and the Life of Yi People in China (2005)[6]. As a Yi[7] anthropologist, her ethnography explores how television profoundly incorporated into the fabric (2005: 5) of local peoples daily life. In the text, Lis fieldwork notes collected during her three-year fieldwork at her own village give expression to her close emotional ties with native people, and deliver her concerns and worries of the ethnic minorities living circumstances in contemporary China. Meanwhile, as a scholar, she keenly captures the metaphorical meaning of modernization, development and prosperity by television. Her analysis penetrates into the relations of Yi people/Han people, and pre-modern/modern. The reflexivity about the periphery/centre relations is a main steam in contemporary anthropology of China. The third case is Zhuang Kongshaos ethnographic research on a hot topic in Chinese culture and society: the family education (Zhuang and Feng 2006). He describes the communications and conflicts between a mother and her seven years old daughter and the relations among school education, family education and social education. Zhuang is a pioneer in anthropology of China, not only because he introduces a new approach called educational anthropology, most importantly, the final production of Zhuangs fieldwork is an ethnographic film named My Wife, My Daughter. It is actually beyond the scope of Writing Culture, because it is no longer about the writing and the text. I adopt this case here, trying to argue that, Writing Culture highlights the diversity of ethnography, and now, facing the radical form of ethnography, can the arguments in Writing Culture on ethnographic texts fit in ethnographic films? What is the same and the difference between the grammars of ethnographic writing and seei ng? Are pictures more worthy than words in constructing ethnographic authority? Can texts and films be combined in ethnographic enterprise? Why and how? The book it self is an open ended text, and constantly simulates new questions for anthropologists in the post Writing Culture era, and that also explains why Writing Culture, after more than twenty years, is still being quoted and debated all over the world. It is true, as Schotle harshly points out (1987), that lots of questions in this book remains unclear and unsettled. However, I appreciate the original questions it raised and the appeal to dialogue. Rethinking Writing Culture Following the reflexive direction, I have three points to make on rethinking the book. Before that, I present a brief schema of the three-stage ethnographic research as follows. There is nothing new, however, my questions are based on it. First, with the text-orientation, has the importance of writing been stressed over that of doing ethnography in the book? The potential risk in the textualism emphasized in Writing Culture is that fieldwork retires from the leading position, it has provided a context for substituting the empirical research. As we can see from the schema, fieldwork is the centre of ethnographic research in time and space, and it is also the foundation of anthropology. In this experimental moment, we should not only look at the outcome of fieldwork, but also reflect upon the limitations and new characteristics in fieldwork processes in this Writing Culture or post Writing Culture era. Second, going back to the very first stage, I would argue, different backgrounds of Western and non-Western ethnographers shape two distinguished patterns of reflexive thinking. First, the Western pattern could be called coming home, after studying the Other, from outside in, anthropologists return to the Self, their reflexive thinking is about their own tradition in their own cultural institutions. Second, the non-Western pattern could be named as being home, they do not have a return perspective, their reflexive thinking is still deeply in relation to the West. I fear, in reflexive anthropology, which is greatly established by Writing Culture, anthropologists in the Third World would be more marginalized through their resistance in this centre-periphery discourse. My final thought is on rhetoric issue, which is still an incomprehensible question to me. If rhetoric is an integral component of ethnographic writing, as Rosaldo (1986) argued, there are using and abusing of descriptive rhetoric, then, the next obvious question is: what is the boundary between use and abuse of rhetoric? It seems to me that, use, is a kind of abuse in itself, if so, how can one control it? Epilogue In the final part of my essay, I would like to do an experiment. I will write about my reading experience instead of the conclusion of the whole passage. I originally read this book in Chinese in my junior year at college. As a literature student, I found the book interesting and inspiring, and it positively influenced me in the choosing of anthropology for graduate study. Later, I reread the book both in English and Chinese, and accessed some related articles written by Writing Culture writers. Surprisingly, I found several articles written in collaboration with Clifford and Marcus. Other than this landmark book, Marcus, together with Cushman, wrote Ethnographies as Texts (1982), which is a harbinger of Writing Culture; and he, later, with Fischer, produced the companion volume of Writing Culture-Anthropology as Cultural Critique (1986). Behind these collaborations, I can imagine the interactions of sparkling thoughts as well as understandings and communications. They are spirits of academic research, and also the anthropological endeavor. References Archetti, E.P. (ed.) (1994) Exploring the written: anthropology and the multiplicity of writing. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Asad, T. (1986) The concept of cultural translation in British social anthropology, in Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds.) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Asad, T. (2002) From the history of colonial anthropology to the anthropology of Western hegemony, in Vincent, J. (ed.) InThe Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnography, Theory and Critique, Oxford: Blackwell. Barrett, S.R. (1996) Anthropology: a students guide to theory and method. Toronto. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Clifford, J. (1983) On ethnographic authority, Representations, 2, pp. 118-146. JSTOR[Online]. Available at:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2928386 (Accessed: 13 March 2010) Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (1985) The making of ethnographic texts: a preliminary report, Current Anthropology, 26(2), pp. 267-271. JSTOR[Online].Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743141 (Accessed: 13 March 2010) Clifford, J. (1986) Introduction: partial truth, in Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds.) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clifford, J. and Marcus (1986) Preface, in Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds.) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Crapanzano, V. (1986) Hermess Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description, in Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds.) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fabian, J. (1990) Presence and representation: the Other and anthropological writing, Critical Inquiry, 16(4), pp. 753-772, SAGE[Online].Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343766 (Accessed: 13 December 2009) Gao, BZ. (2006) The three periods in the development of ethnography-translators preface to Writing Culture, Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 28(3), pp 58-63. CNKI[Online]. DOI: cnki:ISSN:1002-3887.0.2006-03-012 (Accessed: 10 November 2009) Gao, BZ. et al.(2007) On Writing Culture, Reading, 2007(4), CNKI[Online]. DOI: CNKI:ISSN:0257-0270.0.2007-04-026 (Accessed: 10 November 2009) Geertz, G. (1975) The interpretation of cultures. London: Hutchinson. Geertz, G. (1983) Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, G. (1988) Worksandlives: the anthropologist as author. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Harrell, S. (2001) The anthropology of reform and the reform of anthropology: anthropological narratives of recovery and progress in China, Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, pp. 139-161. JSTOR[Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069212 (Accessed: 03 March 2010) Huang, JB. (2004) The contending of Writing Culture-Post-modern discourse in anthropology and the change in the sudies, Thinking, 30 (4), pp. 39-43. CNKI[Online]. Available at: cnki:ISSN:1001-778X.0.2004-04-009 (Accessed: 10 November 2009) Huang, SM. (1998) The Spiral Road: Change in a Chinese Village Through theEyes of a Communist Party Leader. 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview Press. James, A. Hockey, J. and Dawson, A. (eds.) (1997) After writing culture: epistemology and praxis in contemporary anthropolog

Chistopher Reeves Essay -- essays research papers

What it means to be a Superman Born on September 25, 1952, native New Yorker Christopher Reeve has lead a life of stardom, coupled with a life of tragedy. Leading a very successful film career, Reeves was on top of the world, until the fifth day of May of nineteen ninety-five. On this day, Reeves life would change forever. However, no tragedy could stop a true Superman. Attending Princeton day academy Reeves was a success from the beginning. His natural talent and charisma made him a shoe-in for the lead in many school plays. Says Reeves "I never once asked my self, who am I, or what am I doing here...right from the beginning the theater was like a home to me." At the age of 16, Reeves already had an agent. While touring the country, Chris decided to pursue a college education. And, thanks to an understanding agent was able to continue his work as a professional actor. "Scheduling gigs around my classes." By nineteen-seventy-six he was starring with Katherine Hepurn on Broadway, and had become in such demand that he gave up his last year at Julliard. After screen testing for the nineteen seventy-eight movie Superman, he was given the lead role as Clark Kent/Superman. Reeve was an outstanding Superman both on and off the screen. He made Clark Kent/Superman a believable character, says Reeves "somebody you can take home and introduce to your parents". This part was just like Reeve, A d...