Rise of Hitler :: World War II WWII WW2 Nazi Germany

Origins of the Nazi Party The Nazi Party was formed in January 1919 by Anton Drexler. Originally it was named the German Workers Party (DAP). Hitler joined in Autumn of 1919. He quickly rose to become the leader of the party. The party was transformed by Hitler and became a political party rather than the discussion group that it had been when he joined. The SA (Brownshirts) was formed to protect Hitler and other party leaders at meetings. It also disrupted the meetings of the Nazi’s political opponents. Appeal of the Nazi Party The military uniform of the SA appealed to many former soldiers. The aggressive berating of the Weimar leadership for signing the treaty of Versailles appealed to the disaffected and to former soldiers. Use of force and the parties strict discipline appealed to those who longed for a return to the old, militaristic rule that had preceded the First World War. Munich Putsch The party attempted to take control of the government by force. This failed as the Nazi’s did not enjoy widespread support at the time. The government was capable of controlling the armed forces and police. Hitler was imprisoned as a result of the Putsch (Uprising). In Prison Hitler thought about the methods he had used to try and take control. He realised that the Nazi’s would need to use legitimate, electoral means to assume power and that the appeal of his party would need to be widespread in order to achieve this. As a result he wrote â€Å"Meine Kampf†. This book outlines Hitler’s beliefs. Upon being released from prison Hitler started to reorganise the party. The SS (Blackshirts) were introduced as his own personal bodyguard: they later became a much larger organisation with many functions. People were employed within the party to work on strategy and the delivery of an aggressive advertising campaign (propaganda). This included Goebbels. Campaigning and the Rise to chancellorship The Nazi’s rise can be linked with the economic problems faced by Germany. They offered radical solutions to the economic crisis. Ignoring the treaty of Versailles and protecting the country from communism appealed to a wide range of people. Other policies included, but were not restricted to: Public works, anti-semiticism, reorganisation of the labour corps (workers), redistribution of wealth (welfare policies, how they help those in need). Economic policy was focussed on big business and manufacturing. The majority of the policies were populist (appealed to many people). The policies were advertised on the radio, at rallies, through leaflet distribution and through a show of strength. Rise of Hitler :: World War II WWII WW2 Nazi Germany Origins of the Nazi Party The Nazi Party was formed in January 1919 by Anton Drexler. Originally it was named the German Workers Party (DAP). Hitler joined in Autumn of 1919. He quickly rose to become the leader of the party. The party was transformed by Hitler and became a political party rather than the discussion group that it had been when he joined. The SA (Brownshirts) was formed to protect Hitler and other party leaders at meetings. It also disrupted the meetings of the Nazi’s political opponents. Appeal of the Nazi Party The military uniform of the SA appealed to many former soldiers. The aggressive berating of the Weimar leadership for signing the treaty of Versailles appealed to the disaffected and to former soldiers. Use of force and the parties strict discipline appealed to those who longed for a return to the old, militaristic rule that had preceded the First World War. Munich Putsch The party attempted to take control of the government by force. This failed as the Nazi’s did not enjoy widespread support at the time. The government was capable of controlling the armed forces and police. Hitler was imprisoned as a result of the Putsch (Uprising). In Prison Hitler thought about the methods he had used to try and take control. He realised that the Nazi’s would need to use legitimate, electoral means to assume power and that the appeal of his party would need to be widespread in order to achieve this. As a result he wrote â€Å"Meine Kampf†. This book outlines Hitler’s beliefs. Upon being released from prison Hitler started to reorganise the party. The SS (Blackshirts) were introduced as his own personal bodyguard: they later became a much larger organisation with many functions. People were employed within the party to work on strategy and the delivery of an aggressive advertising campaign (propaganda). This included Goebbels. Campaigning and the Rise to chancellorship The Nazi’s rise can be linked with the economic problems faced by Germany. They offered radical solutions to the economic crisis. Ignoring the treaty of Versailles and protecting the country from communism appealed to a wide range of people. Other policies included, but were not restricted to: Public works, anti-semiticism, reorganisation of the labour corps (workers), redistribution of wealth (welfare policies, how they help those in need). Economic policy was focussed on big business and manufacturing. The majority of the policies were populist (appealed to many people). The policies were advertised on the radio, at rallies, through leaflet distribution and through a show of strength.

elationship between art and society :: essays research papers fc

Relationship Between Art And Society: Mimesis The relationship between art and society: Mimesis as discussed in the works of Aristotle, Plato, Horace and Longinus The relationship between art and society in the works of Plato are based upon his idea of the world of eternal Forms. He believed that there is a world of eternal, absolute and immutable Forms (the world of the Ideal) and thought that this is proven by when man is faced with the appearance of anything in the material world, his mind is moved to a remembrance of the Idea or an absolute and immutable version of the thing he sees. It is this moment of recollection that he wonders about the contrast between the world of shadows and the world of the Ideal. It is in this moment of wondering that man struggles to reach the world of Forms through the use of reason. Anything then that does not serve reason is the enemy of man. Given this, it is only but logical that poetry should be eradicated from society. Poetry shifts man’s focus away from reason by presenting man wit h imitations of objects from the concrete world. Poetry, with its focus on mimesis or imitation, has no moral value. While Plato sees reality as a shadow of a realm of pure Ideas (which in turn is copied by art), Aristotle sees reality as a process of partially realized forms moving towards their ideal realizations. Given this idea by Aristotle, the mimetic quality of art is redefined as the duplication of the living process of nature and its need to reach its potential form. Art then for Aristotle does not become the enemy of society if the artist is loyal in the representation of the process of becoming in nature. Horace, like Aristotle and Plato, also brings to view a theory of poetry as mimesis. He believes that a poet should imitate real life and real manners in a similarly real language of the times. This is because of his belief of the importance of the audience’s response to art. Horace focuses on the conventions that an artist must fulfill so that the expectations of the audience may be met. The audience of that time was composed of both the equites , who expected amusement from art, and the senatores , who expected beneficial lessons from art, and so the artist must know his craft and the conventions of his craft so that art may fulfill its ultimate role in society which is both to create pleasure and to instruct.

Wasteful :: essays research papers

Wasteful Repetition 12 years of our lives are spent learning the basics, 12 years. Yet, after those twelve years of near continuos education, colleges require us to relearn what we already know, knowledge that may be irrelevant to our chosen major. Core Curriulumn is a waste of time and money. Each year for twelve years we wake up on a day around August in order to attend required schooling. We learn english, mathematics, sciences, health, and history. School becomes our lives, almost a career that lasts approximately 120 months. For those 120 months we are taught the same subjects, not a year goes by that we were not required to take an English, Math, Science, and History courses. After successfully completing our â€Å"lower learning† studies and recieving our much awaited diplomas almost two thirds of us go on to college.1 Upon arrival at these institutions of higher learning we come to realize that our â€Å"Basic† learning is not over and we must extend our knowledge of said material before we can move on to things that more directly concern our majors. Colleges are asking us, rather, telling us to relearn the knowledge we, for the most part, already pocess. There are several things we lose when we agree to, or rather are required to retake the basics in college. Most likely foremost of what we lose,in students minds ,espeacially in todays society, is money. We spend outrageous sums of money to attend college for 4 years, individually the cost of tuition possibly ranges between 50,000 to 100,000.As a whole the nation spends in excess of $175 billion each year.2 Money wasted on learning the same material we were educated in for 12 years of our lives. Money that many of us do not have and if we are not fortunate enough to recieve a scholarship or any type, we must look towards students loans. By definition a loan is something that is lent on condition of being returned.3 Zachary Karabell,author of the book What’s College For?, wrote that: In the 1990’s alone, the average debt burden for a   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  college student grew from 8,200 to 18,800. Given that   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  these students, once they graduate, tend to earn   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, those debts are   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  heavy, and some schools have begun efforts to limit   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  borrowing by students. In addition to loans,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  three-quarters of all students work part time during   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  the school yea, and more than 15 percent work   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  full-time.* For their money, for their investment, for   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  the hours they work in order to pay for their classes,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  these students expect to be taught something they don’t   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  already know. They expect to learn. And at the end,

Critically analyze Brandom and Haugeland’s views regarding Cartesianism

The concept of Cartesianism is that every and/or any thing that can be doubted must be discarded, and ideally formulated anew in order to be cemented in truthfulness. Doubting is the first way of determining whether something is useful, and if it isn’t, you discard what you know and basically reinvent it in such a way that is useful. We apply this Cartesianism in a social context when we look at society, politics and the interactions of people on any communicative grounds.This would include linguistics, thinking and any other forms of interaction that form any kind of groundwork for social and societal interaction. Using Cartesianism, we can draw distinctions between such things. We will look at the notions of language, reasoning and thinking, in terms of the works of two philosophers, Robert Brandom and John Haugeland, with the emphasis on comparing and contrasting their unique views. Brandom: Freedom, Norms, Reason and ThoughtRobert Brandom’s views on personal freedom were rooted in the difference between how he perceived his forerunners on the subject matter; he compared and contrasted Kant and Hegel in his work ‘Freedom and Constraint by Norms’. In this work, he critically observes the foundation from which Kant and Hegel analyzed the ideas of personal freedom, as expressed – or refuted – by norms. In order to set out these principles – freedom and norms – we must first define them. Brandom had this to say about Kant’s viewpoint:One of the most suggestive responses to the first set of concerns has been developed by the Kantian tradition: the doctrine that freedom consists precisely in being constrained by norms rather than merely by causes, answering to what ought to be as well as what is. (1979, p. 187). We assume the fact here that norms are things which become established over time by society/community, and that they determine and decide how things should be done, by the individual and by the community.Where Kant pragmatically argued that society used norms to determine the individual’s actions, Brandom also included how Hegel proposed a different approach, from a different angle: The central feature determining the character of any vision of human freedom is the account offered of positive freedom (freedom to) – those respects in which our activity should be distinguished from the mere lack of external causal constraint (freedom from) †¦ (1979, p. 187). Brandom furthers his argument by taking his proposed solution into the domain of the linguistic.He argues that the basis of norms, with regards to their use in regulating society and the individual’s role therein, requires creative expression from individuals in order to promote the Hegelian concept of idealistic, ‘positive’ freedom. Ultimately, Brandom proposes a post-Hegelian solution, one which builds on Hegel’s initial statements and ideally assists the advancement of ind ividuals within a communal setting. In ‘A Social Route from Reasoning to Representing’, Brandom further explores the generally held principles that individual beings are capable of reasoning and reasonable thought processes.Because of this inherent trait, fostered in the upbringing of each individual, truth by inference or deductive reasoning becomes a cornerstone of the thoughts and actions of every individual. The exploration of the difference between actually thinking and thinking about something is established and represented by the accepted standard that individuals move in social circles, and so influence each other’s ideas and notions of reason. Common ground is found in these motions, or as Brandom qualifies, â€Å"the representational dimension †¦ reflects the social structure †¦ in the game of giving and asking for reason.† (2000, p. 183). Haugeland: Truth, Rules and Social Cartesianism John Haugeland approaches the idea behind the soci al establishments in much the same way as Brandom. He explores the same set of topics in his work ‘Truth and Rule-following’, where he mentions the idea of norms as being bound to rules and how the social circle comprised of unique individuals see such institutes. These rules are divided into factual and governing, with factual being held as understood and upheld by all and governing as normative; â€Å"how they ought to be† (Haugeland, 1998, p. 306).Haugeland also argues that these norms are upheld by a communal motion to associate and create similarities between individuals: conformity. He further proposes that social normativity can be grounded in biological normativity – the same principles and arguments can be applied, but only insofar as human beings are capable of reason, and that a biological body by contrast follows certain predetermined, preprogrammed sets or rules, while a reasoning mind can necessarily adapt around or expand on conditions and w ork beyond them, as a biological preset cannot.This supports the idea of governing norms being changeable, separate from objective truth. Also, social norms are enacted through the input of others, in a sense promoting a system where one member of the community checks up on the others, and vice versa. Haugeland’s case is concluded with an emphatic argument for the similarity and union between norms of reason (governing norms) and objective truth (factual norms) boiling down to being the same thing: both are in fact changeable, if in different, subjective ways.With ‘Social Cartesianism’, Haugeland explores the work of three other philosophers, objectifying the reason for his assumptions based on the use of philosophy in language, which all three works – the works of Goodman, Quine and Wittgenstein/Kripke – explore in some form. The reason for this analysis is Cartesian in origin. The first work, by Goodman, is an argument based on defining predicates – accepted rules – and testing the limits of their acceptability, in true, doubtful, Cartesian style.The work of Quine focuses on the elements of translation, of taking personally accepted norms and placing them over a culture with differing norms, thereby defining that culture according to our own way of doing things. Lastly, the debate ventured by Wittgenstein/Kripke is one of skepticism that proposes that all norms are social, not private: â€Å"In sum: if meanings must be normative, but individuals can’t impose norms on themselves, then private, individual meanings are impossible† (Haugeland, p. 219).Haugeland extrapolates that each one of these arguments is fundamentally flawed, based on the conclusion he draws regarding each of the three works’ shortcomings: they all fail to account for the real world, the world that everyone lives in and is affected by. Brandom versus Haugeland Perhaps the most obvious similarity between Brandom and Haugela nd’s individual accounts and reasoning is the fact that they approach the same kinds of topics: social situation, individuality, freedom, language and thought.Despite various approaches and held viewpoints, both are compelled to a certain Cartesian way of doing things, of discarding everything or anything that is not beyond doubt and recreating these things anew by using sound reasoning. Brandom is fond of referencing Kant and Hegel and placing them in opposition against each other, most notably in stating their viewpoints from necessity and polarity: Kant held the view that norms dictated freedom and individuality, whereas Hegel was more positive in expressing his views on freedom ultimately determining norms.In a similar fashion, Haugeland approached the subject of norms and normativity, and how they affected individuals, both linguistically and thoughtfully. We will look at the comparison of norms and normativity first, and then spread outward into linguistics and thought. The view of normativity being a deciding factor, most notably on a linguistic basis, for representing the two polarities of norms and facts, is upheld by both philosophers.Brandom sees norms as something which is instituted based on reason, on the idea that they are something that is held by a communal mindset and imposed on the individual. Facts in turn are things which are accepted as a given by not only individuals but also by the community. Focusing on linguistics, Brandom draws on translation, on the action of placing or transposing one set of accepted norms – from, say, one community’s point of view – onto another community’s point of view. Note here that Haugeland also referenced the idea of translation in his critique of Quine’s work.This poses the first real contrast between Brandom and Haugeland’s points of view: Brandom poses the idea that translation promotes assimilation: By translating, rather than causally explaining some per formance, we extend our community (the one which engages in the social practices into which we translate the stranger’s behavior) so as to include the stranger, and treat his performances as variants of our own. (1979, p. 191). The act of making something your own, drawing something or someone in from outside your boundaries, speaks of a shift of norms.Logically it can be argued that assimilating something new forces your way of thinking about something to be altered to accommodate what is new, even if what has been absorbed becomes a representation of something completely new and different. In this we see Brandom’s shift to the Hegelian idea of the novel, the new, being created in a positive sense in order to advance and enhance the communal whole. Haugeland contrasts by referencing Quine: â€Å"†¦ although the translations are different, there is no fact as to which of them is the ‘right’ one, because there is no ‘objective matter to be right or wrong about’.† (cited from Haugeland, ). Haugeland would seemingly disagree with Brandom’s use of translation as a means of successfully integrating norms, of taking norm and transforming it into fact. Translation still argues for something similar, not new: it presupposes a universal component that stretches through all languages. Judgment is another key concept, one bound to reason and thought. Brandom cites Kant once more in bringing to the fore the sense that one must act from thought, and that judging and acting requires a commitment, â€Å"staking a claim – undertaking a commitment† (1979, p. 164).Brandom repeats the basis of linguistics, of the game played between people, based on inference and the inherent ability to deduce and conclude. An individual can naturally deduce something spoken or gestured from another individual by making a commitment to do so. This commitment relies heavily on the shared understanding between individuals, th e factual norms that are referenced again and again as a means of achieving the communal awareness of similarity. Haugeland agrees here; linguistically, words must have a normal, generic meaning in order for the speaking individual to be understood.There must be common ground. He continues by saying that â€Å"meanings, by their very nature, are normative rules,† and emphasizes this dilemma by citing this example: And the essential problem is that individuals cannot impose norms on themselves. For that would be like taking a dictator, with absolute legal authority, to be bound by her own law. But she can’t really be bound by her own law since, given her authority, if she changes her mind and does something different, that just changes the law – which is equivalent to saying that the law did not bind her in the first place.Similarly †¦ an individual cannot, on his own authority, bind himself by his private norm. (Haugeland, , p. 219). The crux of this compar ison between Haugeland and Brandom is that both agree on the fact that law, in a sense, and rules, must be used to bind a norm, albeit a governing one – a norm based on reason. A person cannot be subject to his/her own norms, therefore the norms must be implemented from outside the individual; from the communal.Coming back to the linguistic component again, we can logically assume that language as a means of communication forms a regulating basis here. The words, actions and judgment of others forces a certain conformity, a means whereby an individual can operate and coexist within a community. Thought has always been at the core of the human need to define him/herself. The adage cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) has been advanced to more complex statements. Rene Descartes advanced dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (Latin for I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am) (Persaud, p. 259).Cartesian philosophy dwells deeply on thought processes, so it should be unsurprising t hat both Brandom and Haugeland spent some thought on the dynamics of applying Cartesian methods on the thought process. Haugeland praised Descartes’ input, going further than the original assumptions made by Descartes and stating that â€Å"The determinacy that matters here concerns not the formal reality of those ideas †¦ but rather their objective reality (roughly their intentional content as representations. ) (Haugeland, , p. 224). In other words, Haugeland implies that human individuals in isolation, as subjectively separate, is fairly unimportant.What matters ultimately is the collective, the union of all individuals in an objective community, not necessarily defined by the community but by their place in it, and their unique contributions to it. Brandom seems to agree by stating: The social dimension of inference [deduction] involved in the communication to others of claims that must be available as reasons [common ground] both to the speaker [individual] and to the audience [collective, community], in spite of differences in collateral commitments, is what underlies the representational dimension of discourse [communication]. (2000, p. 183).Summed up, the previous statement can be matched to Haugeland’s assumptions: the community is not the only important thing, but in order for norms, rules and laws to make sense regarding thought, language and freedom, the community or collective needs to operate on a standard of shared understanding, so that each unique individual can still function and interact with others despite the individuality. Conclusion Through using Cartesian principles regarding the discovery of usefulness, we have come to the conclusion that, with regards to using doubt as a means of determining an outcome or a reality, pragmatism is in fact a necessary element.Reality, as Haugeland would have us believe, is not simply determined by the individuals, communities and their norms only, but rather arises from the world we live in first, before casting a shadow of effects over the individual and the rest. We have argued that Brandom and Haugeland, though often different in their modes of expression and discourse, are nevertheless in agreement on many of the key aspects regarding norms, whether factual or governing, subjective or objective.At the end, Cartesian doubt influences thought, and thought influences language and interaction between people, yielding a collected sense of understanding and finally yielding a system of laws, rules and judgments that govern and regulate society and community. However, in conclusion it is perhaps better to emphasize Hegel’s idealism – as opposed to Kant’s pragmatism: that freedom be positive, to allow for creativity within the system and to not be bound by external causes such as rules and laws only. References Brandom, R. B. (2000). A Social Route from Reasoning to Representing.Articulating Reasons: an Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge , Harvard University Press. Brandom, R. B. (1979). Freedom and Constraint by Norms. American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 16, 13, 87-196. Haugeland, J. (). Social Cartesianism. 213-225. Haugeland, J. (1998). Truth and Rule-following. Having Thought: Essays in the metaphysics of mind. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Persaud, R. (2002) Ten Books. The British Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 181, 258-261, Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://bjp. rcpsych. org/cgi/content/full/181/3/258.

Peer review on leadership Essay

The journal article that was selected selected explored the possible influences of situational moderators on the effectiveness of Transformational Leadership. It is one of several articles found to be focused on this type of leadership and its relationship to employee motivation. By definition, transformation leadership involves the practice of altering the thoughts and attitudes of employees or subordinates to motivate them to perform beyond what is expected of them (Bass, 1985). The journal article â€Å"Follower Motive Patterns as Situational Moderators for Transformational Leadership Effectiveness† (Goodwin, Whittington, & Wofford, 2001) argued that the effects of transformational leadership outcomes could be determined by situational factors. Whereas other areas of leadership research had been explored on such situational aspects, the authors stated that there is a lack of research on situational determinants for Transformational leadership. To be specific, they identified subordinate motive factors such as growth need strength and need for autonomy as the independent factors for their study based on a brief but relevant literature review. They hypothesized that these two factors would have positive significant correlations with transformational leadership effectiveness. Their method consisted of having participants (managers and subordinates) from a U. S. government engineering services agency answer several scaled questionnaires. These included the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-5X (MLQ), a 5-point scale assessment of leader effectiveness, Job Description Index (JDI), growth need strength assessment scale developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974 in Goodwin, et al 2001) and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) by Edwards (1953 in Goodwin, et al 2001). The researches used multiple regression analyses and within-and-between analysis WABA) to generate the results of their study. The findings showed that when the growth need strength was high, groups of subordinates were assessed to be more effective by leaders who were rated as transformational. Similarly, leaders assessed as transformational appraised their groups as more effective when the need for autonomy was high. These results supported the authors’ hypothesis which led them to conclude that situational moderators such as individual motive patterns indeed have influence over the effectiveness of transformational leadership. The study was a significant contribution to the idea that transformational leadership could be integrated to other paradigms. While the study was limited to only two potential situational moderators, the researches gave strong indications that there could be other situational factors such as task, group, and organizational characteristics that could be examined in future research undertakings.

Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Essay

India is a vast country known for its diversified culture and traditions. The unique characteristic of India is its â€Å"unity in diversity†. In India Relationships and feeling plays a larger role in decisions. Indians tend to take larger risks with a person whose intentions they trust. Thus, one’s credibility and trustworthiness are critical in negotiating a deal. Indians are ‘polychronic’ people, ie they tend to deal with more than one task at the same time. Indians are cautious in accepting a new idea or proposals. The information about who has implemented it or who has proposed it has a major influence on the decision about a new idea. One of the most significant culture influences on Indian culture is that of hierarchy. For example, only the owner or the most superior person of a company will make business decision. Even if you are dealing with a manager, they will always go to the boss for a final decision. Hofstede’s Research on National culture: Power Distance (77): Power Distance describes how a society deals with the inequalities in power that exists among people. Societies characterized by high power distance are relatively indifferent to inequalities and the gap between powerful and weak is maximum. By contrast, in societies with low power distance the gaps between the powerful and weak are minimal. In India most of the people belongs to the middle class category. So the upper category people control most of the decision making and buying power. In Organizations, the degree of centralization of authority and autocratic leadership determines power distance. The social structure of organizations in India is based on superior – subordinate relationship. Once the hierarchy is establishes, juniors yield to seniors on every conceivable occasion. For example, they standup when the boss enters the office, speak humbly and politely. India has to change a lot in this dimension. Even though they are many politicians caught in scams like 2G scams, still they are not arrested beacuse of there power and corruption. I wish India will become a low power distance country very soon. Individualism/Collectivism (48): This dimension is based on the extent to which individuals value personal independence or group membership. Individualist culture values personal goals, independence and privacy. Collectivist culture is showing the loyalty to groups. Members of the collectivist society are expected to subordinate their individual interests for the benefit of their in- groups ie, family or organization. Hofstede classified India as dominant on the collectivism dimension. In Organizations, people work as a team rather than individual. Employees are seen as hard working, as loyal to the company and highly motivated to do new things. Masculinity/Femininity (56): Masculine cultures tend to value competitiveness, ambitions and accumulation of wealth. Feminine cultures emphasize nurturing roles, interdependence among people and taking care of less fortune people. Indians are more focused on career and earning money as well as they takes care for others. In workplace employees help each other’s instead of emphasize their work. Hofstede classified India as Masculinity country. However, the culture in organizations is more feminine. That means there is a slight preference for achievements and material success. Uncertainty Avoidance (40): The extent to which people can tolerate risk and uncertainty in their lives. People in India do not accept or deal with ambiguous or risky situations. Recently, with the raise of literacy rate among the people, some section of the people is taking risk by engaging in entrepreneurial activities without thinking about the job security. Gradually people will adapt or encourage new innovations and accept the different approaches in dealing with the situation. Long-term/Short-term orientation (61): It denotes the degree to which people and organizations defer gratification to achieve long-term success. In India people and organization with a long-term orientation culture tend to take the long view to planning and living. With this long-term orientation India has experienced a remarkable economic growth while most of the western countries experienced an economical downfall. Indulgence/Restraint: Indulgence denotes the society that allows the free expression of thoughts and allows the gratification of needs related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint denotes the regulation of the gratification of needs by means of strict rules or norms. In India everyone has a right to express and live freely as they like. In organizations even though employees can express their ideas or thoughts they have to be approved by top level people to bring them in to action.

Brave New World Character Analysis

Brave New World by Aloud Huxley, the reader is introduced to a very different society than the one that they currently live in. In this seemingly weird society, Huxley introduces Lenin Crowner. Lenin is Aloud Huxley femme fatal character. She works at a London Center of Hatchery. Lenin is also a very â€Å"pneumatic† woman that is the ideal Brave New World citizen and is also thoroughly conditioned to meet the expectations of the world controllers.. Although intelligent, she prefers to return to her conditioning and not cause arguments.There are moments of non-conformity in her, but she hides such tendencies, preferring to be an ideal member of the Brave New World. Since she is a true product of the Brave New World, she dislikes traditional human emotions and sees sex as only a â€Å"no strings attached† type thing. It is because of this that she doesn't understand why John the Savage is not interested in her just because of her body. The common question surrounding Len in is does she really love John, or is this simply a case of wanting what you can't have? Throughout the course of the novel, we do see an evolution in Lamina's character right around the timeJohn is introduced. We see the breaking point of Lenin when she does something at the end of the book that she's never done. She cried when seeing John isolating himself at the lighthouse thus showing that Lenin was presumably in love with John. Personally, still feel that Lenin was just infatuated of the fact that John is different from the rest of the Brave New World. Overall, we as readers saw a major change in Lamina's character throughout the course of the novel. I do feel however that Huxley could have better represented Lenin in the beginning chapters and also describe her a bit