Why Is Homeschooling Better than Public Schools Speech Essay - 10

Why Is Homeschooling Better than Public Schools Speech - Essay Example In less than two months, all of us we will be through with our assignments and syllabus. No influence from other children and outsiders, the health of our children will be under close monitoring of the parent and every stage of the child development will be noted (Stevens, 2001). If you have not guessed of what I am touching on, I am talking about homeschooling. In 2013 alone more than 2.05 million US students were homeschooling. This was an increase of 75% from 1999. Not only in the US where homeschooling has been adopted, in Indonesia as indicated by Home School Legal Defense Association, more than 3000 families have now turned to homeschool as their best way to educate and shape their children. a. It is obvious that the major difference between homeschooling and public school is that the former is safer since the parent is with her or his child all the time. In public schools, bullying is very common, a vice affects the motivation of the children leading to poor performance. While parents who take their children to public school are not aware of what may happen to the child, parents who educate their children at home closely monitor their children and in case of any behavioural deviation, they address it on time. a. A major misconception about homeschooling is that it makes the children not to be exposed to life experiences. This is not true as far as I am concerned. Homeschooling children have adequate time to go for outing and meet their friends for example during the weekends (Welner and Kevin, 1999). Through social media, they can intermingle with their colleagues. There is no discrimination based on race, religion or nationality at home. Just by being comfortable during and after studying, the children are motivated to study the following day and they do not worry school as compared to their public school counterparts. b. More than 70% of homeschooling children take the career they choose. They are not influenced by their friends neither do the parents force them.

Week Two Discussion Questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 4

Week Two Discussion Questions - Essay Example Three types of communication tools the internet provides are emails, instant chat, and forum mechanisms. Emails are the most popular type of communication used on the internet today. Anyone can open a free email account at popular websites such as Yahoo, Google, and Windows Live. Emails are a great communication option for businesses because it is free and the message reaches the inbox of the recipient’s email account instantly. Chatting is an informal form of communication people used on the internet. Chat rooms mechanism can be used by companies to improve their customer service capabilities since chatting occurs in real time and its costs are a fraction of what it cost to set up a call center. Person to person communication is the most effective form of communication. One of the advantages of this form of communication is that people are able to utilize all senses which include vision, hearing, and body language during the communication session. Also in face to face meeting s the sender can take advantage of other technological tools such as projectors to transmit the message to a larger audience. A few years ago I worked for a company as an administrative assistant. My boss told me to take over the job duties of a certain employee during her vacation. I never spoke with the employee. When the person got back the employee was mad at me for taking over her duties. According to her my intervention with certain customers caused her a lot of inconveniences. My boss told me not to worry, but I suddenly had a person mad at me work due to a lack of communication. The proper thing would have been for a face to face meeting to have place between myself, the employee, and our boss prior to her vacation to discuss how to deal with her work area. I remember a few years ago I started a job for a company. I was the new employee there and I did not understand the corporate culture of the

Urbanism and Architecture Concepts

Urbanism and Architecture Concepts â€Å"Dwelling is the combination of architecture and urbanism† Dwelling, as a place to live, can be a house, a flat, an apartment or other place of residence. It is a place where human spent of most of their time while indoors. The concept of dwelling has been changed over the last hundreds years, in that period, the many dwelling building in different place of the world represent an unique local culture with different interior, exterior, structure, etc. However, in modern days, most of these symbols and architectural styles had already disappeared, dwelling buildings on this planet all blend into one style – Urbanism. It becomes more of an urban spaces, a place offers convenience and rest instead of an art product within its unique architectural style. Remmert Koolhaas was born in 1944 in Rotterdam, one of the greatest modernism architecture in the world. In early years he was a reporter and scriptwriter. After studying architecture between 1968 and 1972 in AASchoolArchitecture, and in Cornell University, with Zaha Hadid, Elia Zenghelis they established OMA. During his architecture life his famous works include Villa of Bordeaux, CCTV Headquarters in Beijing and Seattle Central Library in USA etc. In 2000, He acquired the Pritzker Architecture Price. His works are heavily based on surrealism combined with neoplasticism. Furthermore he adds the unique feature of the environment and society into building’s shape and structure in order to express different ideas and thoughts from human. Villa of Bordeaux is a perfect example showing Rem’s style dwelling, combining urbanism’s convenience and technology and beauties of the architecture. â€Å"Now we are left with a world without urbanism, only architecture, ever more architecture.† In the book â€Å"S, M, L, XL†, â€Å"What ever happened to urbanism†, Rem Koolhaas suggests that â€Å"Now we are left with a world without urbanism, only architecture, ever more architecture.†(S, M, L, XL, Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 967). Of course urbanism still exist today, but the urbanism we have is the one different to what Rem Koolhaas described, it is the one impact by the modernization, it is a failure of urbanism. Nowadays urban expanding so quick with the negative impact from 20th century’s modern movement, in the past decades global economy and financial growth are slowly destroying traditional urban and its quality. This leads to the urban today where city is the form of citizen’s present needs as Rem described as â€Å"Exile to the virtual world†. (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 967) When architects designing cities, buildings or landscapes, too many things that cannot be controlled. Therefore architectu re is necessary or even essential for new urbanism. Rem suggests several points for the ideal ‘new urbanism’ should â€Å"no longer be concerned with the arrangement†¦ no longer aim for stable configurations†¦ denying boundaries†¦ discovering hybrids†¦reinvention of psychological space†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 969-971). In Bordeaux, an old couple wanted a new house after the husband experienced a car accident and has to spend the rest of his live on the wheelchair. Rem was the designer. Considering husband’s inconvenience, an elevator was added to the house as a representation of the urbanism, and turns into his personal world where he can find the sense belonging. In the villa he made the elevator a movable floor slab. Elevator moves among underground floor, ground floor and relatively enclosed first floor, beside is a wall vertically through the entire building, with all husband’s personal stuff, the arrangement is R.Koolhaas/OMA, Lemoine house, Floirac, near Bordeaux, 1994-98, In collaboration with Ove Arup. Preliminary sketch no longer a concern. While it is moving, this elevator becomes husband’s personal place and an independent space in the building. This becomes a type of urbanism’s â€Å"reinvention of psychological space†, denying boundaries of the floor. To husband’s point of view, the building is no longer separated as three different floors but as one structural space. Furthermore, this villa feature of hybrid of new urbanism by using different sorts of material is different parts of the building. Building was located on the top of the hill, surrounded with peaceful grass land and bush. Therefore the ground floor and first floor was mainly built by glass wall so that person live inside the villa can have the great view of Bordeaux city. Above the glass wall is the bedroom made by concrete, appear as a heavy box floating in the air determining a certain solution for layout of the building and quality of the space. However, glass wall cannot afford the weight of the conc rete slab, Rem use a special structure to solve the problem: A steel portal and a hollow piloti with a large diameter in reinforced concrete, reminiscent of the ones in the project for Agadir. To introduce a further, decisive degree of visual instability. (Roberto Gargiani, 2008, pp. 212). On the top of the concrete piloti is a long shiny stainless steel structure with the large concrete box on one side, on the other side is a large over-hanged concrete block buried in the patio garden, achieving equilibrium and make the top concrete box seems to float even more vividly. This technology is connected with the tradition launched by ledoux with the house pended. The perfect combination and hybrid of glass wall and concrete wall structure again express Rem’s ideal urbanism. The over-hanged concrete block buried in the patio garden. â€Å"Instead of enforcing coexistence, Bigness depends on regimes of freedom, the assembly of maximum difference.† It sounds impossible for an architect or even architects to control a large thing like skyscraper, large landscape or even a city. When the modernized urbanism meets architecture, the problem of the large occurs. â€Å"Beyond a certain scale, architecture acquires the properties of Bigness.† (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 494-516). Nowadays, between modernizations which is what citizens need and acquire, and architecture which is the art of the building, urbanism choose what citizens need and this is when architecture start to fall. Art and beauty of architecture is useless against urbanism. However, bigness is a solution, â€Å"it is the one architecture that can survive, even exploit†. (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 494-516). Just like what Rem said, Bigness is the solution or maybe the only solution for urbanism and architecture’s assembly. â€Å"Instead of enforcing coexistence, bigness depends on regimes of freedom, the ass embly of maximum difference.† Suggests Rem’s idea: by using bigness, freedom and large space to combine architecture and urbanism. Evoke the idea of bigness is to offer everyone live under urbanism maximum space, freedom and privacy. There are several uses of the bigness and in Rem’s residential work – villa of Bordeaux, such as elevator. In the theory of bigness: â€Å"The elevator – with its potential to establish mechanical rather than architectural connection.† (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 494-516). The art of architecture become useless in the large size building. To avoid this Rem turn the traditional elevator into a movable giant floor slab. Instead creating a single room for the husband, this elevator makes the all three floor as a space for husband, remain the technology of bigness and the ‘art’ of architecture at the same time. The R.Koolhaas/OMA, villa Lemoine, Floirac, near Bordeaux, 1994-98, in collaboration with Ove Arup. Elevator-living room with the mobile platform. elevator can move from opening public living room to private bedroom, gives him enough space but at the same time – regimes of freedom. Another example is the Glass wall under the concrete box bedroom. With a brief look from outside, the building looks like typical modernised urbanism type house. However the comparison of the top concrete close up type bed room and opening ground floor with glass wall surrounded represent the assemble of two different concepts and ideas. This villa has more than 400 metre square land and three floors. The large space combined with glass wall enlarge the sense of freedom and â€Å"The seeming failure of the urban offers an exceptional opportunity† Modernization heavily impact on urbanism on the negative side. Within globalization in urbanism, dwelling building all over the world are becoming more and more similar, some unique feature are decreasing. More buildings share same structure, same shape and same style. These took the original ‘urbanism’ away from the city, instead, urban become a solemn place full of steel framed building. This is the where Rem Koolhaas pointed out that â€Å"In a landscape of increasing expediency and impermanence, urbanism no longer is or has to be the most solemn of our decision; urbanism can be lighten up, become a Gay Science – Lite Urbanism.† (S, M, L, XL Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, 1995, pp. 961-971). In modern days, under the fail urbanism, the new environment of urban is no longer a series place for living but a place where people can find themselves belong to, a place that not only bring them convenience and comfort, but also a simple place where they find enjoy to s tay, where they can find happiness and care. R.Koolhaas/OMA, villa Lemoine, Flo-rac, near Bordeaux, 1994-98, in col-aboration with Ove Arup .Intermediate upper-level plans;cross section In that case, Villa of Bordeaux can be the representation of ‘Lite urbanism’, building itself was a product of urbanism, offer people who live inside a place to rest, elevator offer husband who has to spent his life on wheel chair convenience, On the wall of the floating box, several holes with different height enable people at different level to look at the view outside. Furthermore about urbanism, house was locate on the top of the hill surrounded with no other building but quite grass land and bushes, different from the normal dwelling building locate in the city. Evokes an idea of the owner of the building who wants to take root of this place and live in seclusion. Without the crowd and noise, villa of Bordeaux becomes a representation of â€Å"Lite Urbanism†. Although the failure of the urbanism brings negative effects to cities, still Rem Koolhaas treats it as an opportunity at the same time and he designed lots of amazing architectural buildings such as Vil la of Bordeaux. Rem Koolhaas, 1996. Rem Koolhaas: Conversations with Students (Architecture at Rice). 1 Edition. Princeton Architectural Press. Roberto Gargiani, 2008. Rem Koolhaas/OMA (Essays in Architecture). 1 Edition. Rouledge http://wp.architecture.com.au/venicebiennale/venice-events/

Dostoevskys The Brothers Karamazov Essay -- Brothers Karamazov Dostoe

Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov Dostoevsky first presents Smerdyakov, in The Brothers Karamazov, in Book 3 of Part 1. The author divulges details of the conception of the fourth son of Fyodor Pavovich Karamazov. Late on a September evening, a drunk Fyodor, by modern standards, "rapes" a homeless woman. Stinking Lizaveta, the victim of Fyodor's violence, was a legend in the town. Regardless of her unattractive and dirty appearance, her poverty, and homelessness, the townspeople regarded her with sympathy and compassion. Fyodor, on the other hand, treated Lizaveta as an insubordinate who was undeserving of even an ounce of respect. He and his friends mock her. He, then, rapes her. And, as if these actions are not cruel and offensive enough, he vehemently denies any of it happening. Later, when Lizaveta gives birth to Fyodor's illegitimate son, it is Grigory and Marfa who take the boy in, baptize him, and decide to raise the child. The townspeople mistakenly credit Fyodor for taking the dead woman's child into his ho use. All of these disturbing actions on the part of Fyodor are cause for his punishment. While Fyodor neglected his fatherly duties to his other three sons, to this fourth, he rejects them completely. He finds the controversy around the mystery of the boy's conception amusing. He employs his own son as one of his servants, as his "lackey." Although incredible attention to detail is paid to the story of Lizaveta, Dostoevsky waits to speak of the boy himself. It is as if the author is all ready separating this last son. Dostoevsky claims to not want to go into detail about Smerdyakov so as not to distract the reader from the story. However, it is an intention set-up on the part of the author. When we finally learn more of this mysterious character, it is not until four chapters later. Dostoevsky is oddly able to summarize the character of Smerdyakov in only five pages, whereas, with the characters of his brothers, he needs many more pages. In this way, the author is showing the mistreatment of this innocent boy by all who know him. Grigory is ashamed of him. He spreads the story of Smerdyakov's birth and ruins his reputation indefinitely. All three of the brothers treat Smerdyakov not as an equal, but as a servant. Despite his displays of intelligence, Smerdyakov is labeled and mocked by everyone. He is called a lackey, an ass, a sco... ...he destruction of his third brother a little differently. Alexei cares to an extreme extent about others. He is deeply affected by the suffering of Ilyusha and the other schoolboys. Smerdyakov knows that by simply affecting the two brothers whom Alexei loves, he is also affecting Alexei. Alexei, to no avail, attempts to save what remains of his brothers' dehumanized states. While Smerdyakov's actions are cunning and deceitful, he knows at every moment exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. He is fully aware of his own predicament. He is born into misfortune, attempts to avenge his name, and wreaks havoc upon this small Russian town. While he carefully manipulates people and skillfully executes his plans, he is aware also of the immorality of murder. Like Zisoma's "mysterious visitor," Smerdyakov commits his crimes out of passion. He does not wait for the jury to consider his case. Like the "mysterious visitor," he has convicted himself of murder and sentences himself death. Smerdyakov's vicious crime and brutal punishment complete a full life of violence starting at his conception. His passionately violent nature erupts implosively beneath a mask of implacable calm.

Succubus Heat CHAPTER 16

â€Å"Georgina.† My name came to me from far away, from far down a tunnel without an end. It echoed off the walls of my mind, loud at first and eventually fading to nothing. â€Å"Georgina. Look at me, sweetie.† â€Å"Let her sleep, Hugh.† â€Å"No, I need to talk to her and make sure she doesn't have a concussion. Georgina, come on. Open your eyes for me.† Through a mist of black fog, my brain parsed the words and slowly found meaning in them. Some basic response in me wanted to comply, but my eyelids felt like they were stuck together. Thinking-let alone answering-was too hard, but more words came to encourage me. â€Å"There you go, sweetie. Try it again. You almost had it.† With much effort, I finally managed to open my eyes. It was excruciating. My lids felt like they were made of lead. At first, I could only perceive one thing: light. I winced, wanting to sink back into that oblivion I'd been pulled from. And with this slight stirring of consciousness, all the pain I'd escaped from before suddenly returned. My head throbbed. My back burned. The clich? ¦ about breaking every bone in the body seemed like a very real possibility all of a sudden, and I was pretty sure I'd broken a few that weren't in my body. Sure, that didn't make sense, but with as bad as I felt, little did. â€Å"Oh God.† At least, that's what I tried to say. It came out as more of an indistinct moan. â€Å"Easy there. You don't have to say anything.† I opened my eyes again, this time making out a figure leaning over me. I knew his voice so well that I didn't need to see his face, which was a blur anyway. â€Å"Hugh,† I croaked. â€Å"Hey, ask her what-â€Å" â€Å"Shut up,† Hugh snapped. The jerky movement of his head made me think he'd glanced behind him, but I couldn't be certain. He moved his face closer to mine, bringing his features into sharper relief. He was paler than I'd ever seen him, his face filled with lines of worry and fear I'd never thought him capable of. He looked even more upset than when he'd come to tell us about Jerome's summoning. Reaching out, Hugh held the lids of one of my eyes open and shone a small light into it. I squirmed at the brightness-or at least I tried-but he was fast and did it to the other eye before it caused too much discomfort. When he finished, he moved his finger around in the air and studied my eyes as I followed it. â€Å"What's your name?† he asked. The voice behind him piped up. â€Å"You already said her name.† Hugh sighed and jerked a thumb over his shoulder. â€Å"What's his name?† â€Å"Cody,† I said. It was getting easier to speak, but the pain was going up the more conscious I became. Cody's voice was as familiar to me as Hugh's, and I felt certain Peter was here too. Hugh asked me a few other factual questions, like the current year and the location, and also if I was nauseous. â€Å"It all hurts,† I said, voice still slurred. I couldn't even move, let alone distinguish nausea from the rest of my pain. â€Å"Yeah, but do you feel like you're going to throw up? Right here? Right now?† I thought about it. My stomach hurt, but it was less of a queasy discomfort and more of a someone-just-kicked-me-with-stilettos discomfort. â€Å"No,† I said. Hugh sat back, and I heard him sigh in relief. â€Å"It all hurts,† I repeated. â€Å"Can you†¦make it stop?† He hesitated, and a moment later, Cody appeared beside him. â€Å"What's the matter? You've gotta give her something. Look at her. She's suffering.† â€Å"Understatement,† I mumbled. Hugh's face was still drawn. â€Å"I'm not gonna knock her out if she's got a concussion.† â€Å"She passed your tests.† â€Å"Those are field tests. They're not one hundred percent accurate.† â€Å"Please,† I said, feeling tears well in my eyes. â€Å"Anything.† â€Å"We know it won't kill her,† I heard Peter say. I'd been right about him being here. Hugh hesitated only a little longer. â€Å"Go get some water.† Cody disappeared, and Peter replaced him by Hugh's side. Hugh's expression was still grim. â€Å"Sweetie, I've got to clean up your back, and it's going to hurt.† â€Å"Worse?† â€Å"A different kind of hurt. But this has to be cleaned up so you don't get an infection, and then I need to shift you to check out the rest of you. The drugs'll help, but it's all going to hurt at first.† â€Å"Go for it,† I said, steeling myself. At this point, I couldn't really imagine worse pain. Besides, Hugh was a doctor. Everything was going to be okay now. Cody returned with a glass of water. Hugh made me drink some first, just to make sure I could keep it down. When I did, he gave me two pills to take with the rest of the water. I nearly choked on them-my throat felt raw and swollen, maybe from screaming-but I got them down. I wanted to ask what I'd just taken, but it seemed like too much work. â€Å"Should kick in in about twenty minutes,† Hugh said. I could see him fumbling with something in his lap. Standing up, he leaned over my back. Something wet touched my skin. â€Å"Son of a bitch!† Again, my words were slightly incoherent, but I think he caught my meaning. Stinging pain-a â€Å"different† pain, indeed-raced across my skin where he'd touched it. It was electric, sharp where the rest of my body throbbed. My desire to get away from that horrible stinging was so strong that I actually managed to move a little, but all that did was trigger the hurt in the rest of my body. The world blurred once more. â€Å"You're making it worse,† he warned. â€Å"Stay still.† Easy for him to say. I bit my lip as he continued. He was using antiseptic to clean the places Nanette had cut me. Necessary, as he'd said, but God, did it hurt. â€Å"Talk to her,† Hugh said to no one in particular. â€Å"Distract her.† â€Å"What happened?† asked Peter. â€Å"Who did this to you?† â€Å"Nice distraction,† said Hugh. â€Å"Nanette,† I said. Saying her name made my stomach turn, and I hoped I wouldn't have to go back on what I'd said to Hugh about throwing up. â€Å"She was†¦mad.† â€Å"I guess,† said Peter. â€Å"Mad I told Cedric about her†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Doesn't this kind of confirm your suspicions, then?† asked Cody. Yeah, if beating up the person who'd ratted out your secret plans didn't sound suspicious, I didn't know what did. But if Nanette really was behind Jerome's summoning, why not just kill me outright and leave no witnesses? Explaining that would take too many words and too much effort, so I just said, â€Å"I don't know.† â€Å"There,† said Hugh, straightening. â€Å"That wasn't so bad, was it?† I tried to glare, but I don't think he noticed. He rummaged in his kit once more and then leaned back over to start bandaging up the wounds. With as much as he was piling on me, I had the feeling I was going to look like a mummy. â€Å"Why didn't Dante stick around?† asked Cody. â€Å"Huh? Dante?† The bandage pressure wasn't as bad as the cleaning, but it was still uncomfortable. I wondered when those goddamned drugs were going to kick in. â€Å"He was here,† said Cody. â€Å"He called Hugh and told him to come over.† Some of the exact details of what had happened with Nanette were foggy, but I felt pretty confident, head trauma or no, that I would have remembered Dante being around. â€Å"Dante wasn't here,† I said. Hugh paused and looked me in the eye. â€Å"Then who called me? It was a guy, from your cell phone. Said to get over here and bring medical supplies-that you'd been hurt.† I frowned, and it came back to me, a shadow in the pain-filled haze of my memory. The strong arms and gentle voice. â€Å"There was someone here†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I began slowly. â€Å"Not Dante. Someone else. He put me to bed.† Silence fell. A slight fuzziness was starting to tingle the edges of my senses, which I took as a good sign. It was more of a pleasant, dreamlike fuzziness-not the I-can't-handle-this-pain-anymore kind. There was still a fair amount of that, though. The guys exchanged puzzled looks. â€Å"Are you sure it wasn't him?† asked Cody. â€Å"Why would Dante leave her, though?† asked Peter. Hugh snorted. â€Å"No telling with him.† â€Å"Stop,† I mumbled. â€Å"It wasn't him.† â€Å"You can't remember a face or anything?† Peter asked. â€Å"Was it even someone you knew?† I thought again, desperately trying to dig out the memory. There was nothing, though. Only that he'd been someone familiar. â€Å"I knew him†¦Ã¢â‚¬  That pleasant drowsiness was growing stronger. I wished it would hurry up. â€Å"There,† said Hugh. â€Å"All bandaged up. Help me move her so I can look at her ribs.† That was not fun, and the discomfort of the three of them turning me over-no matter how gentle they tried to be-was enough to momentarily break me out of the drug's soothing embrace. They managed to flip me over, putting moderate pressure on my back when I rested back against the bed, but allowing Hugh to examine the rest of me. He poked and prodded and had me take deep breaths. His final analysis was that I had a couple of broken ribs and a lot of bruising and pain that would just go away with time. â€Å"Great,† I said. I was so loopy by that point that I didn't even know if I was being sarcastic or not. Cody was still unable to give up my benefactor. â€Å"But who was here?† â€Å"The man†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I said. â€Å"You aren't going to get anything else out of her,† said Hugh wearily. â€Å"Not for a while. She's going to be in Dreamland any minute now.† â€Å"Dreamland. The man†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I repeated. Suddenly, I giggled. â€Å"The man in the dream†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I saw them exchange pitying looks, just before my eyelids drooped closed. They thought I was talking nonsense. None of them knew about the story of the man in the dream, of that alluring and improbable alternate life that Nyx had shown me. But as I drifted off to Dreamland, it wasn't Nyx's vision I saw. It was more of that same, painless black†¦at least, it was until I got jolted by a million volts of electricity. I let out a small cry of surprise, my eyes popping open. It felt like hundreds of icy needles were dancing along my body, piercing every nerve. The room's details, as well as my friends, came to me in sharp, crystalline detail. No more fuzziness. Turning my head slightly, I saw a fourth person. Mei. She stood beside my bed, face blank and emotionless, arms crossed across her black silk blouse. â€Å"What happened?† I asked. My words were still thick, but my speech capabilities had improved by leaps and bounds. â€Å"I healed you,† she said flatly. â€Å"Inasmuch as I can. You're still going to hurt.† Demons, though once angels, didn't possess that power to heal that their heavenly counterparts had. They could do it in small bursts, however, and in expanding my senses to assess my body, I could feel how she'd gotten rid of the worst of my pain. I still ached in some places, and even bandaged, my back still stung. I no longer wanted to die, however, so that was definitely an improvement. â€Å"Thank you,† I said. Mei didn't look particularly compassionate or benevolent. Her expression darkened. â€Å"They say Nanette did this?† I hesitated. I'd already gotten in enough trouble with the archdemoness for telling on her. Of course, my friends had undoubtedly already told Mei the truth, and anyway, she was the closest I currently had to a boss. I wasn't entirely sure if I could trust her, but if I had to place my money on the demon most likely to have my back right now (no pun intended), it was her. â€Å"Yeah,† I admitted. â€Å"I told Cedric that Nanette had met with Jerome. She'd met with Cedric too, so it seemed kind of like she was manipulating both of them.† Mei's face grew harder still. Whether she agreed with me or not, she didn't reveal. â€Å"Nanette won't bother you again.† And with no more than that, the demoness vanished. â€Å"Girl fight,† said Hugh, looking the happiest I'd seen him today. â€Å"I don't think it's going to be in creamed corn or anything like that,† I remarked dryly. â€Å"Her sense of humor returns,† said Peter. â€Å"Definitely on the road to recovery.† I tried to sit up and winced. â€Å"Or not.† â€Å"Don't push it,† warned Hugh. â€Å"Mei can only do so much-â€Å" â€Å"What the hell's going on?† We all turned. Dante stood in the doorway to my bedroom. His face was a mixture of incredulity and utter confusion. Without waiting for an answer, he hurried over to the bed and knelt down so that he was at my level. â€Å"Are you okay? What happened?† His expression was so tender, so full of concern that I was momentarily taken aback. Dante was indeed selfish and arrogant, but he did care about me, no matter what my friends thought. And in dire situations-like now-that bitter faà §ade of his fell, revealing someone whose soul hadn't turned completely black yet. He tried hard to hide this side of himself, but I knew it was there. â€Å"I had a run-in with a demon,† I said. I gave him a brief explanation of what had happened. He grew more and more incredulous as I spoke. When I finished, he glanced around the room, studying everyone accusatorily. â€Å"How does something like this happen? I thought demons couldn't go around roughing people up. Aren't you under some kind of protection?† â€Å"Technically Jerome's,† I said. â€Å"But he's kind of busy right now.† â€Å"Maybe you're under Grace and Mei's protection now,† mused Cody. â€Å"Mei looked pissed.† â€Å"She always looks pissed,† said Hugh. â€Å"I should hope so,† snapped Dante. â€Å"Are they going to go kick this other demon's ass?† â€Å"She's not likely to smite her, if that's what you mean,† said Hugh. â€Å"Grace and Mei are under the same scrutiny as everyone else, but I bet Mei'll bitch Nanette out.† â€Å"Great,† said Dante. â€Å"A stern talking-to. That'll show her.† â€Å"It's unlikely Nanette'll do anything else. If she was going to kill Georgina, she would have already.† There was an almost gentle tone in Peter's voice. I think Dante's outrage and concern had convinced the vampire that Dante might not be the complete and total bastard he'd always believed. My immortal (or not so immortal) friends finally decided I was in reasonable enough condition to leave me in Dante's care. Hugh promised to check on me tomorrow, and I thanked him again for his help. He and the others looked like they wanted to hug me, but with my back, they knew better. When they were gone, Dante went out to the kitchen and came back with a bowl of ice cream. â€Å"Good for what ails you,† he said. I was surprised to discover I had a considerable appetite. Judging from the time, I'd been out quite awhile before Mei had shown up. It had only felt like a few seconds. â€Å"Careful,† I teased. â€Å"People are going to think you're a nice guy.† â€Å"Well, I'll have to go rob some orphans to save my reputation.† He lay in bed beside me, curled on his side so that he could gently keep his hand on my arm and talk to me. As the evening passed, our conversation mostly touched on inconsequential things, topics to distract me from Seattle's increasingly dangerous situation. Finally, when it came time for both of us to sleep, Dante brought up the attack again. â€Å"Succubus†¦who was here earlier?† I knew he didn't mean Hugh and the vampires. I frowned. Even with Mei's healing, my memories were sketchy. â€Å"I don't know. But I think†¦I think it might have been Carter.† â€Å"Really? I still can't believe that angel hangs out with you guys. But if it was him, why didn't he heal you? He could have fixed everything.† Through the fog of that ordeal, I recalled my rescuer's words. I can't heal you . â€Å"Because he's not supposed to interfere,† I said slowly, remembering my earlier rumination on whether blowing up a stove was interference. â€Å"Heaven's supposed to stay out of this. He probably shouldn't have even carried me to bed-which is why he would have then gotten out of here and left it to Hugh to patch me up.† â€Å"An angel breaking the rules and a demon healing the sick,† Dante said. â€Å"You and your associates just get more and more fucked up.† I shifted slightly, cautious of my back, and rested my head against him. â€Å"That's for damned sure.†

How are marked and unmarked identities socially produced

A simple definition of identity might be no more than â€Å"who we are†. People of the same nationality or age, for example, can be said to have an identity in common. It follows that by virtue of belonging to more than one group, or â€Å"collective identity†, we all have multiple identities. Identities can connect people; and disconnect them too. Similarities in group identities may give rise to positive connections between people, but equally connections may be negative when referring to differences. An identity created by differences can be: one that is negatively valued; one which ceases to be equal; and one where social life is maintained on an imbalance. Identities can be both individual (for example: female, Southerner) and, through referring to relationships and connections to others (whether they be similar or different), social. Furthermore, social identities can be either situated, that is given by what people are doing (shopping, working), or relational and given by the relationships between people. It is important to note this relational identity can be unequal. The concepts of marked and unmarked identities are a pairing of unequal relational identities where the unmarked identities – taken for granted – are not noticed; in contrast to the marked identities, which always are. As Taylor states, the marked identities â€Å"in most cases carry a negative value† (Taylor, 2009, p179). This essay describes the way marked and unmarked identities are created. An example of marked and unmarked identity is found in Raban’s Street People. They were the homeless living on the streets of New York; they were grouped by â€Å"others† (everyone else) as a collection of â€Å"thieves, alcoholics, the temporarily jobless† (Raban cited in Taylor p176). The identity given to the Street People is relational; it is both detailed and negative and is the marked identity of the pairing. â€Å"Everyone else†, the other half of the relationship, is of course the unmarked identity. People with unmarked identities have a â€Å"vaguely positive ‘normal’ identity which is not really described† (Taylor, 2009, p179). Moreover, the Street People were grouped together as being the â€Å"same†, because as Taylor suggests it is part of the nature of group identities that they are not seen as individuals with different life histories (2009, p177). â€Å"The social process through which the difference of other people is marked and their negatively valued identity becomes established† is known as Othering (Taylor, 2009, p179). From the articles both the Roma or â€Å"immigrants† and the â€Å"thugs† are the marked identities. The Roma immigrants have a racial and ethnic collective identity; they are Roma, from Romania, living in Northern Ireland, some of whom are English-speaking. The attacks against them (by the thugs) are racially motivated, and in racist rhetoric a frequent insistence is that immigrants should ‘go back to where they come from’. As Taylor observes, a racial and ethnic identity, like the Roma, often positions people â€Å"as recent immigrants to the country in which they were born and grew up† (2009, p182). Although the article doesn’t say how long the immigrant Roma people have been living in Belfast, the mention of a baby indicates that in this community there is at least a second generation. The other marked identity is that of the thugs. They are described with labels such as, â€Å"gang†, â€Å"neo-Nazi†, â€Å"racist criminals† and â€Å"far-right faction† whose actions were â€Å"illegal†; although unlike the Street People they may be comfortable claiming at least part of that identity. In both articles figures of authority use powerful language to condemn the behaviour of the thugs and unconditionally support the Roma. The Roma are recognised as making a contribution to the community where they were living, presumably side by side with their assailants, in a cosmopolitan district of Belfast. Despite this, however, they remain marked; their identity is further reinforced and re-created by the negative effect of the rhetoric of persecution and discrimination in both the articles. In contrast, the unmarked identity are the Western, white, Irish who are also given a situational identity by association with their â€Å"cosmopolitan and affluent† place of residence – a strong impression is given of a â€Å"nice† (not a â€Å"working-class†) place to live. In the article the journalist makes a particular point of mentioning that the attacks did not happen in a working-class, Protestant neighbourhood, where perhaps it would be less surprising to see this behaviour? In a modern society it is no longer possible to divide up a community into Karl Marx’s neat groups of capitalists and workers. A more complex picture exists in the contemporary UK of â€Å"middle-class† and â€Å"working-class† groups. Both terms refer to characteristics such as affluence, education, background and even accent, furthermore terms, such as â€Å"chav†, â€Å"posh† or â€Å"yummy mummy† can add further detail. In the article the description of Lisburn Road with â€Å"coffee shops full of affluent young mothers† is describing a comfortable, middle-class district which confers an identity just on the unmarked. As with Raban’s Street People, the Roma and the thugs have been grouped into an â€Å"imagined community†. ’Imagined’ refers to the importance of our ideas and beliefs about the world† (Taylor, 2009, p178). Typically, members of an imagined community are too numerous to be personally acquainted, however, as both the Roma and thugs were relatively small groups it is probable that members were acquainted. The negative collective identity, again as with the Street People, was given by others. Taylor suggests that at some level the experience of being homeless in a modern society in some way constituted the Street People as a group, as the experience of persecution helped constitute the Roma as a group (2009, p178). Finally, the story of the Roma people here is an example of how established differences and inequalities are reinforced. The attacks by the thugs were â€Å"part of a trend of growing abuses against the Roma across Europe† (www. amnestry. org. uk accessed December 2010) they were challenging and contesting the right of the Roma to live in their community. In turn their persecution of the Roma was challenged by residents of the community and figures of authority in an attempt to repair and improve society. Taylor, S (2009) ‘Who do we think we are? Identities in everyday life’ in Taylor, S. Hinchliffe, S. , Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Amnesty International accessed 4th December 2010 http://www. amnesty. org. uk/news_details. asp? NewID=18258 Order and predictability are important if society is to exist therefore it is inherent that social order is maintained. Social order can be referred to as a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which act to conserve, maintain and enforce an orderly way of relating and behaving within society. There are various views and theories of how social order is created within society two such views come from Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault. The difference between theories such as those of Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault is primarily one of focus. Goffman analysed social rules governing nonverbal interactions by individual people to develop his theories using the metaphor of a theatre. Goffman demonstrated that the most casual actions, such as posture, body and eye movements that people make are performances aimed toward communicating a positive impression for an audience. Goffman focused on the self and self-presentation he preferred to study individuals. Goffman’s descriptions of individual’s face-to-face interactions formed the large body of his work through this he noted that social interactions could be reworked by changing interactions. In contrast, Michael Foucault preferred to analyse the entire society. He examined the ways in which societies function and the principles of exclusion societies developed to define their differing forms of order throughout different historical times. Foucault did not conduct the type of first hand and intensive field work characteristic of the development of Goffman's theories. Foucault's theories on history and the self were more impersonal and global in focus. They centred on how societies interpreted and implemented their definitions of sane and insane, innocent and criminal and insider and outsider and how with each differing discourse social change emerged creating a new and greater power than the last. Goffman looks at the way individuals present themselves and their activities to others using the theatre as a framework. In his theory of impression management Goffman saw that through interaction with others in society an impression of the subject is given off to others. This is automatic and inevitable. The way people perceive others is through this social interaction. This means that through messages that are given off whether intended or unintended they are the judgments by which people will hold their opinion of others they come into contact with. According to Goffman impression management is fundamentally about expressive responsibility it is about self-consciously crafting an exterior appearance that will not offend the audience. In other words social interaction is an act of dramatization in which people perform in accordance with the social order or environment expected of them the nature of the environment and with the goal of manufacturing performances that are acceptable keeps social order constant but if these interactions are changed or reworked the result will be different disrupting the social norms within society (Silva, 2009, p. 16). In contrast to Goffmans research Foucault dismisses the view that individuals have any power or control over society looking instead at historical evidence and exploring how social order is written and talked about differently depending on what is deemed appropriate by the organisations which govern society at the time which he is studying he called these discourses the way different frameworks guide what is acceptable within these periods of time whether it be the way people are talking or acting at any given point in history. So as well as looking at how these subjects act within the larger society he is looking at society itself as a larger organism this allows him to explore micro as well as macro rather than Goffmans studies of only the micro or the individual. (Silva, 2009, p. 319) There are however similarities between the two in that they are both concerned with the bigger picture of understanding how society and social order is formed, maintained, changed and rebuilt over time the differences only become visible when their methods and theories are broken down. A good way to explore both the similarities and differences in these theories is to look at the case studies by Buchanan and Monderman In these instances the focus is the relationship between traffic and pedestrians and how the governance of these variables act as agents in the conception of social order. Buchanan and Monderman explored how the relationship between traffic and pedestrians makes and remakes social order. Traffic congestion in Britain’s towns and cities increased in correlation with the rise in car ownership following the conclusion of the Second World War. Buchanan was commissioned in 1961 by the UK Government to deliver the report ‘Traffic in Towns’. This report was deemed necessary to avoid demand for road space being greater than that available. The recommendation of the Buchanan report was that traffic and pedestrians should be segregated. Buchanan’s principle was to isolate areas for working, shopping and leisure, separate to ‘corridors’ where traffic could move freely without disruption, regulating the movements of both traffic and pedestrians. The isolated areas were described as ‘environmental units’ (Silva, 2009, p. 328). Monderman’s view directly contradicted the ideas presented by Buchanan. Monderman challenged the principle of segregation as well as other factors associated with traffic calming such as warning signs and speed humps. This philosophy of shared space takes a different approach to public spaces and highways in that segregation are almost exclusive to highways. Monderman’s thesis uses psychological traffic calming to improve road safety using measures such as abolishing roadside markings and Signposting. Monderman pioneered the idea of the ‘naked street’ the removal of what he viewed as unnecessary ‘street furniture’ within this model which promotes the idea of social order being maintained and balanced by the interaction between drivers and pedestrians (Silva, 2009, p. 333). Monderman displays awareness and understanding of the driver of the vehicle in contrast to Buchanan, Monderman implies that the driver rather than the vehicle is the true cause of potential danger on the road. Both of these studies can be used and compared to those of Foucault and Goffman both have differing views centred on the same big issue for example Michel Foucault theorised that we behave according to what he refers to as discourse. In this instance discourse is what is in everyday talking, thinking and reading, but it has come down from people and institutions invested with authority. In his view we think we are free to act but in reality we are obeying authority figures this can applied to the report by Colin Buchanan When people drive they automatically obey road signs and physical features Foucault proposes that discourses are replaced as the need arises but that they are always cascaded down from authority figures. These figures change through time from the organisations in charge of social order and so on. So as we had more cars on the road we had new rules around their use. Monderman’s approach had the street furniture and segregation and claimed that pedestrians going through what became known as shared spaces instinctively knew to be aware of other road users and pedestrians and negotiated their way by making eye contact with each other. Erving Goffman's theory can be compared to this as he believed that people interact with each other in daily life to make things work better so that they can make changes in social order which they can claim as their own rather controlled governing bodies. n conclusion both have many similarities such as their desire to understand social life and order, they are both rational in their ideas of authority although neither claims to have a definitive theory of social order both believe it is made up of sequences whether it be small individual pieces or discourses that creates power and organisation however they differ in their approaches to what components make up society one taking the individual and one taking society as a whole. One believing that the way individuals act towards one another directly affects how social order is made and remade one believing that this is only influenced by larger organisms such as government as a whole not as individual entities. Both views have merit and are not without fault but are in their own ways directly concerned with the bigger picture that is social order within society.