Environment Essay: The evolution of the linkage between the environment and human rights

Environment Essay: The evolution of the linkage between the environment and human rights The United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, declared that: mans environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rightseven the right to life itself. Today, the relationship between the environment and human rights has long been recognised and has evolved in many ways. This essay will attempt to analyse the connection between the environment and human rights. Because of limitations on length, it will broadly place human rights within the framework of a holistic view of development (i.e., one that lends importance to more that simply economic development). It will also discuss their relationship within the discourse of Sustainable Development, a principal concept linking the environment and human rights. The UN Conference on the Human Environment was held at a time when development discourse was dominated by theories of dependency, world systems, and modes of production. The Stockholm conference importantly acknowledged that environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, and in that capacity established not just the importance of sustaining the environment because it provides for life and basic human rights, but also the importance of sustaining basic human rights in an attempt to defend the environment. Though the need to protect the environment had long been recognised, this conference paved the way for the environment and development to be discussed as a single issue something that did not occur until the Brundtland Report in 1987. The Brundtland Report launched the term Sustainable Development (SD), or development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987: 43). Although it is often regarded as a dangerously slippery concept (The Economist, 2002) the common characteristic of most definitions of the term is the emphasis on equity both across and within generations. Barrow (1995: 17) identifies ten themes that characterise conventional SD: maintenance of ecological integrity; integration of environmental care and development; adoption of an international stance; satisfaction of basic human needs for all; stress for normative planning; stress on application of science to development problems; acceptance of some economic growth; attaching a proper value to the natural and cultural environment; the adoption of a long-term view of development; and, again a call for inter- as well as intra- generational equality SD has introduced and affirmed many new concepts into the development arena including, but not limited to, a rights-based approach to development and the importance of the environment. The environment played a central role in the Brundtland Report, and it was subsequently attacked for being eco-centric. The Brundtland Report was followed up by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Though the Rio conference set in motion a trend towards human (rather than environmental) rights, it still held the environment in the limelight. Moreover, rights to information, participation and remedies in respect to environmental conditions formed the focus of the Rio declaration (Shelton, 2002: 2), thus accentuating the importance of human rights in environmental protection. Since Rio, concern for the environment has (rightly) continued to grow. However, the tendency toward concern for human rather than environmental rights within the sustainable agenda (i.e., a growing concern for the intra- (as opposed to inter-) generational equality) has continued as it is acknowledge that we cannot ignore the deprived today in trying to prevent deprivation in the future (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030). Many of the alternate definitions of SD have tried, with varying degrees, of success, to resolve the seemingly contradictory notion inherent to SD development frequently involved capitalist or industrial development, and thus the reference to sustainability is certainly then undermined by the paradox of what this type of development means for the environment (Redclift, 1987). Conventional wisdom holds that Southern nations are too preoccupied with economic survival to worry about environmental quality (Dunlap: 1994: 115), something that was, to some extent, reflected in the Rio conference. Governments of developing countries wanted to discuss the idea of development, and the governments of richer countries that of sustainability (to the neglect of development) (Dunlap: 1994: 115). Though economic development need not be unequivocally associated with environmental degradation it must also be recognised that nations (or perhaps more importantly, people within nations) will rightly put more focus on sustaining peoples well-being than the environments. In short, though some government policies in the developing world may be viewed as inconclusive because they fall short of protecting natural resources, such seemingly irrational policies may reflect economic necessity in countries that have little choice but to perpetuate practices that contribute to environme ntal degradation in the absence of alternate sources of income (Bryant and Bailey, 1997: 59). This view of environmental protection versus human rights was pertinent at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (or Rio + 10), held in Johannesburg in 1992. In the run-up to the summit African leaders made it clear that they expected to talk about jobs, not birds (The Economist, 2002b). The Economist stated that without concrete or pragmatic action to fight poverty, fine words on greenery, global warming or fish stocks will come to naught (The Economist, 2002b). In other words, sustaining deprivation cannot be our goal (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030), and whilst surely the conditions for most of the worlds poor can be sustained, the issue is that they should not be (Marcuse, 1998: 106). SD is often received with hostility in LDCs where it is seen as an attempt to challenge the developing worlds elemental right to develop: after all, grinding poverty, it turns out, is pretty sustainable (The Economist, 2002b). The achievement of environmental protection and respect for human rights can only be reached if we do not succumb to the notion that they are mutually exclusive. Human life, and human rights, cannot exist without a relatively healthy environment, and the environment cannot be protected without the acceptance and protection of basic human rights. Though aspects of each may at times need to be sacrificed for progress in the other, it remains vital to navigate the obstacles and move towards a sustainable world. Bibliography Anand, S. and Sen, A. (2000) Human Development and Economic Sustainability, World Development, 28 (12), 2029-2049.Barrow, C. J. (1995) Sustainable Development: Concept, Value and Practice, Third World Planning Review, 17(4), 369-386.Bryant, R. L. and Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology, London: Routledge.Dunlap, R. (1994) International Attitudes Towards Environment and Development, in Helge Ole Bergensen and Georg Parmann (eds.), Green Globe Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press), 115-126.Marcuse, P. (1998) Sustainability is not enough, Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 103-111.Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainability: life chances and livelihood, London: Routledge.Shelton, D. (2002) Human Rights and Environment Issues in Multilateral Treaties Adopted between 1991 and 2001, background paper for the Joint UNEP-OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment, Geneva, 14-16 January 2002.The E conomist (2002) The Johannesburg Summit: Sustaining the poors development, 29 August 2002.The Economist (2002b) Africa expects to talk about jobs, not birds, 22 August 2002.WCED (1987) Our Common Future, The Brundtland Report, Oxford: Oxford University Press. State Of Nature: Hobbes And Locke State Of Nature: Hobbes And Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke applied fundamentally similar methodologies and presuppositions to create justifications for statehood; both have a belief in a universal natural law made known to man through the exercise of reason, which leads to political theories that define the rise of states. From beginning to end, Hobbes and Locke struggle to answer the essential question: Can sovereignty be divided? Though the two authors answer this question by going through the same processes, they begin with distinct notions of the state of nature, thereby reaching divergent conclusions: two nuanced versions of the social contract. For Hobbes, sovereignty is absolutist and governance can only succeed if power is concentrated in a monarch. On the other hand, Locke envisions a radically different structure for government, with a strict division between legislative and executive forces. At a glance, it is difficult to determine which author better answers the question of sovereignty, but by compar ing the warrants beneath their claims, one comes to discover that Locke is correct. Indeed, sovereignty must be divided. To start, one must analyze the model of undivided sovereignty. Hobbess argument for the state is that at some point, constituents of society made a contract amongst themselves to surrender most of their natural right up to a single man, the monarch, establishing a sovereign power in their newly formed commonwealth (Hobbes 110). By permutation, children must obey the sovereign because they are subject to their parents by the natural law, meaning subjection to the sovereign power passes on from one generation to the next (Hobbes 127-35). What constitutes a commonwealth is a group of individuals and their progeny, who are all subject to the sovereign power. This, however, begs the question of exactly what constitutes the sovereign power, since natural right can be forfeited in both different ways and in varying degrees. Hobbes provides two answers to this question, the latter directly expanding upon the former. The first is that Hobbes defines, albeit vaguely, that sovereignty is an entity bearing the person (Hobbes 105-110) of those subject thereto. Second, he argues in a more concrete manner, that sovereignty is the extensive set of powers to make laws, reward and punish subjects arbitrarily, choose counselors and ministers, establish and enforce class distinctions, judge controversies, wage war and make peace, and so on (Hobbes 113-15). Hobbes claims that by giving up their person to the sovereign, subjects forfeit the right to make moral judgments because every act of the sovereign is ostensibly performed by the subjects. The monarch becomes the sole, absolute judge of whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehandà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and, when peace and security are lost, for the recovery of the same and what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing, to peace (Hobbes 113 ). In other words, citizens may never criticize the sovereign, since subjects surrender their very ability to judge whether the sovereign power is acting towards the goals for which they established it. This is a major contradiction in Hobbess theory, for it seems strange and inconsistent that men of the commonwealth are wise enough to establish a state for mutual benefit (Hobbes 106), but straightaway upon entering the social contract, lose the ability to accurately judge whether their condition is good or bad. Although there is such a clear inconsistency within the contract, Hobbes has a two-pronged defense ready. The first is in Chapter XVIII, where he asserts that once covenanted, men cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without permission from the sovereign (Hobbes 110-1). With the way that a Hobbesian social contract works, this claim makes perfect sense; if a covenant is formed by submitting ones person to the sovereign, men cannot form a new covenant independent of the sovereign because they have already given their single person-hood up. Following the person argument, Hobbes introduces the idea that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make sovereign by covenant only of one to anotherà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Hobbes 111). The philosophers second defense then, is the fact that the sovereign is not party to the actual contract, which means that the monarch can never breach it, no matter the consequences. For Hobbes, the contract is the permanent transfer of person from a group of people to an external man, not a retractable agreement among a group of people to obey one of their party. The agreement, strangely, is only amongst the governed their agreement is to all equally forfeit their person and aligns with Hobbess notion that there must be an external, superior enforcer to contracts. Yet, it is unclear why social contracts should be irrevocable: in Hobbess own account of contracts (Hobbes 79-88), a contract is always renounceable if the parties involved agree so, meaning there should be nothing stopping subjects from uniformly nullifying the contract. Hobbes would respond that social contracts are unique, for the subjects have given up their right to make contracts (and therefore to break them) without the sovereigns permission within the terms. This, however, begs another question: why is the ability to make epistemological and moral judgments a necessary forfeiture to establishing the commonwealth? It doesnt seem logical that the right to break contracts must be a necessary forfeiture included within the person that one gives to the sovereign. After all, it falls under a set of negative-rights that requires a negative action (IE, a violation of the terms of contract) to occur before it can be used. Hobbes simply refuses to acknowledge the binary choice he creat es between civil war and good government is specious at best. The agreement to forfeit person is made equally amongst subjects to escape the state of nature, but even if the sovereign is not a part of the contract, the fact that a citizen doesnt receive the benefits termed within the contract ought to justify breaking the contract because other citizens may be receiving those benefits. If so, wouldnt it be just for a subject to break the contract, not with the sovereign, but with other subjects? Moving on from Hobbess derivation of sovereignty, one comes upon his formulation of sovereignty, the terms of his social contract. What is most shocking is that sovereignty is indivisible (Hobbes 115): the foundational elements of rule cannot be separated. All the powers of sovereignty must reside in the same body. A division of government, to Hobbes, would be redundant at best. From a theoretical point of view, when push comes to shove, a part of government, namely whichever has control of the army, will be revealed as the real holder of sovereign power precisely because it can seize control of the other powers. However, control of the army is nonexistent without the ability to fund it, so taxing and the coining of money is also essential. Imagine a scenario of rebellion or invasion in a divided government: an external force capable of protecting the taxing/treasury department would eventually rout the branch that controls the military. In order to ensure a stable government, then, it would be necessary to concentrate power at one locus using the example of the military any division would allow for opposing factions to gut one another, albeit indecisively. Combining the fact that sovereignty is indivisible with the fact that the social contract is made amongst subjects (that there is no bond between subjects and the sovereign), one arrives at Hobbess insistence that rebellion is never justifiable. Sovereignty is located in a person and not obedience to a person, so any repudiation of that obedience cannot dissolve the bond of sovereignty, for there is no bond to begin with. Nevertheless, this descriptive account of separating sovereign powers is not a normative claim that it ought not be done. This is perhaps Hobbess biggest mistake, for he believes that when, therefore, these two powers oppose one another, the commonwealth cannot but be in great danger of civil war and dissolution, for example, that the civil authorityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and the spiritual inevitably clash if divided (Hobbes 216). That is, we ought not separate the two, for sovereignty is conceived of as something that one simply has, meaning several branches of government would constantly be in contest for possession of sovereignty. However, this is an excellent example of the is-ought fallacy, for Hobbes bases the fact that historically, a division of government has always resulted in a collapse to monarchy, and attempts to re-justify the existing norms. The fact that civil and spiritual authority have historically clashed does not mean that they cannot avoid conflict in the future. If so, then Hobbess reason that they ought be combined falls apart. In essence, his claim is not normative, but only descriptive. Locke begins his attack on Hobbess concept of sovereignty by advancing a different conception of the state of nature. For Hobbes, in the state of nature à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war (Hobbes 76), where à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦nothing can be unjust for where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice (Hobbes 78). It is in Chapter XIII that he famously notes that the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, a product of the condition of warà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦(in which case everyone is governed by his own reasonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦)à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦[where] man has a right to everything, even to one anothers body (Hobbes 80). It is from this anarchic view that Hobbes departs to create a theory of absolutist sovereignty. Individual rights, ironically, conflict to the point where there are no rights in the state of nature. To solve this proble m, Hobbess model forfeits person to an individual, because even two individuals two rulers with person will have conflicting rights claims. On the other hand, Locke paints a calmer picture of the state of nature, arguing that the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, whichà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦teaches all mankindà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke 9). Locke attack on Hobbess descriptive analysis of the state of nature is particularly damning because it has never occurred. Locke furthers that his notion of the state of nature is historical, that great societies began in the way that his theory described. He cites that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting of several free and independent of one another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection (Locke 54). This is because Locke believes that this moral nature has been instilled in humanity by an infinitely wise makerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination (Locke 9). Unlike Hobb es, who believes there is no ethical frame for punishment during the state of nature, Locke argues that transgressing the law of nature means one declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men (Locke 10). Locke believes that every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature to criminals in the face of God. From a philosophically rigorous perspective, Lockes justifications are a copout to constructing a normative frame. But at a descriptive level, he may be correct: both Hobbes and Locke agree that it is through reason that mankind transcends the state of nature and enters a state of sovereignty. An elementary comparison of these two versions of the state of nature boils down to the fact that Hobbess interpretation is one that begins with a lack of reason and Lockes starts with reason programmed into mankind by a maker. Is it not possible that the Lockes state of nature simply follows Hobbess? Indeed, in Hobbess model, man must come upon reason prior to entering the social contract, meaning as a collective, they must eventually reach some form of Lockes state of nature. Whether God exists or not, a social consciousness must develop for both authors to successfully continue their theories. This returns us to the epistemological contradiction presented earlier in the fourth paragraph: why do men lose their ability to analyze the benefits of subjugation to a sovereign, if they needed to attain this level of rational deliberation to have accepted the social contract to begin with? It is because Hobbes ignores this concern, but Locke answers it (albeit with God, rather than a development of rationality, as I suggest), that Lockes interpretation of sovereignty is far more convincing. It is easiest to discuss Locke by making a series of modifications on Hobbess theory of sovereignty. Of course, the difference between the two theories is far more complicated, but in regards to the thesis, it is sufficient to identify three very closely-related, key differences. First, Locke dismisses Hobbess assertion (which I have showed to be contradictory multiple times) that subjects give up the right, in fact, the ability, to judge their sovereign when moving from the state of nature to sovereignty. Effectively, Locke makes the contract a two-way agreement instead of a one-way subjection, termed in his works as fiduciary power in Chapter XIII. Second, for Locke, ultimate sovereignty resides always in the people. One on hand, the supreme sovereign will always be God, but beneath his throne, men can delegate power to one another, but there will never be a permanent hierarchy of power. The supreme power of the legislature is amassed from a conditional grant by the people; every m an is bound by its laws, notwithstanding disagreement. By extension of this logic, Locke makes two foundational claims of his notion of sovereignty, which Hobbes does not adopt: one is that no part of the sovereign government will ever be above the law, the other is that power can be retracted from the government at any time, pending agreement of the people (these derivations are explored in detail in Chapters VIII and IX). The third and, perhaps most important, difference is that for Hobbes, sovereignty is a perpetual, indivisible power belonging to a particular individual. Indeed, this disagreement is the crux of this paper. For Locke, there are a variety of powers necessary for the protection of the public good, just as in Hobbes, but there is no need to unite them all in one body. Here Locke presents idea of the sovereignty of law itself: there is no need, that the legislative should be always in being, not having always business to do (Locke 76). The laws have a constant and lasting force, and need a perpetual execution that is provided by the executive power (Locke 76). While Hobbes agrees to the need of these aspects of sovereignty, he refuses to divide them. Locke, on the other hand, demonstrates that a division of labor can very feasibly exist, especially because he touches upon the idea of a natural power that pertains to other duties. Federative power, which relates to the power of war and pe ace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions (Locke 76), could easily be invested in entirely separate bodies from both the executive and legislative powers. The last question to answer, then, is whether the division of power is good. Luckily, Locke tackles this issue, arguing that the inconveniences of absolute power, which monarchy in succession was apt to lay claim to could never compete with balancing the power of government, by placing several parts of it in different hands for in doing so, citizens neither felt the oppression of tyrannical dominion, nor did the fashion of the age, nor their possessions, or way of livingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it (Locke 57). For Locke sovereignty is the supreme power on loan from the people to the legislative to set laws that look after the public good by dividing duties amongst the executive and other governmental agencies. Power is easily, helpfully, and safely split up into different bodies: easily due to Lockes dismissal of Hobbess contradictory objection to doing so, helpfully because the division of labor allows for increased efficiency and greater pr oductivity, and safely because the division of powers acts as a set of checks and balances to protect the people from arbitrary abuse. Just as it seems that the question Can sovereignty be divided? is answered, a concession of sorts to Hobbes appears with the concept of prerogative, a powerful modification of the way Lockes theory functions in practice. Locke concedes in Chapter XIV that the natural generality of law makes it inapplicable to certain cases and unable to cover every eventuality. The executive is therefore invested with prerogative, the power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it (Locke 84). It is possible that Hobbes would see this as an admission that Lockes legislative theory is flawed, that the executive does indeed hold supreme power, as both creator and enforcer of laws. This, however, would be a serious misinterpretation. In many ways, Locke disagrees with Hobbes most sharply on this point. Lockes emphasis on the need of governance to provide for the public good is so strong that he argues any violation of the social contract, by the sovereignty, would be grounds for the dissolution of government. He notes that citizens will be willing to cope with the application of prerogative as long as it aligns with the public good, even if they recognize that there is no legal precedence for the actions. While Lockes discussion of prerogative initially appears to be a return to Hobbesian absolutism, it is their most essential disagreement. In Hobbess theory, prerogative is sovereign authority, with no external check. When the sovereigns prerogative fails to lead towards the public good, subjects have no recourse but simply accept things. For Locke, prerogative is a minor modification of the authority delegated from the people to the legislative and thence to the executive. It is not crucial to the existence of g overnment because should subjects find that the executives application of prerogative does not lead to the public good, they can simply retract authority from the sovereignty. When compared with the work of Thomas Hobbes, John Lockes social contract theory comprehensively proves that government can be separated into several branches. By comparing the steps in their methodologies, along with analyzing their different starting points, one arrives at the conclusion that Locke is right. As this paper progressed, it was revealed that Hobbes made two main objections to a divided sovereignty: first, his notion of the forfeiture of person and second, his negative view of human behavior in the state of nature. Hobbess latter objection was easily answered back by comparing Lockes interpretation of the state of nature and demonstrating that the standard of reason created a double bind for Hobbes. Either his state of nature transitioned into a Lockean state of nature, which would then progress to sovereignty, or, a jump must occur from a Hobbesian state of nature straight into absolute sovereignty, which creates a number of contradictions. The former objection was ans wered on multiple levels, ranging from the is-ought fallacy to Lockes strong defense of a system of sovereign checks-and-balances. By juxtaposing Hobbes and Lockes social contract theories, one can decisively conclude that sovereignty can be divided, not only to two branches, but to as many as necessary for the public good. The version of Leviathan cited in this work is the Edwin Curley edited edition. The version of Second Treatise is the same as the one noted on the syllabus.

Worldwide Impact Of Magical Realism English Literature Essay

Worldwide Impact Of Magical Realism English Literature Essay Imagine a world where flowers rain from the sky and people can transform into animals at will, a place in which time flows unpredictably and the fantastic seems unremarkable to observers. This is the chimeric, phantasmagorial realm of the magical realist genre of literature. Magical realism, as seen in the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, is a reflection of the Latin American postcolonial culture and has greatly influenced world literature for the last century, despite a complicated history and chronic nominal confusion. The history of magical realism is complex and multinational. To understand it, one must understand the history of the term itself. The phrase magic realism was coined by Franz Roh, a German art critic, in his 1925 book Post-Expressionism, Magic Realism: Problems of the Most Recent European Painting (Bowers 9) to describe the post-expressionist art of certain contemporary German painters (Bowers 9-10). This original magical realist movement featured a detailed, clear depiction (Bowers 9; Zamora 24) of, in Rohs words, the strange, the uncanny, the eerieaspects of everyday reality (Baker). In 1949, a second, similar term, marvelous realism, first appeared in Cuban author Alejo Carpentiers seminal essay On the Marvelous Real in America, describing the extraordinary idiosyncrasies that make up the everyday reality of Latin American life (Bowers 14-16; Feinstein). Finally, the more familiar term magical realism was first used by Angel Flores in his 1955 essay, Magical Realism in Spanish American Fiction, in which Flores contends that the genre has its roots in the romantic realism of Spanish-language literature (Bowers 17-18). Soon after this essay was published, the 1960s saw the beginning of a decades-long flowering of Latin American literature and of magical realism. During this Latin American Boom, an emerging continent-wide desire to develop a distinctly Latin American culture catalyzed a creative explosion led by Garcia Marquez of Colombia, Carlos Fuentes of Mexico, Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru, Jose Donoso of Chile, and Julio Cortazar of Argentina that perfected the genre (Bowers 17-18; Feinstein). Neither magical realisms authors nor its origins are confined to Latin America, however. It was largely influenced by the Romantic and Surrealist movements in Europe, and important precursors include quasi-surrealist German writer Franz Kafka, sixteenth-century Spanish author Miguel de Cervantes, and Italian surrealist painter Giorgio de Chirico (Bowers 18). Among the first genuine magical realists was German author G ¨unter Grass, author of The Tin Drum (Bowers 19). Modern magical realists hail from such nations as the United States, India, Japan, Canada, Nigeria, and Italy, including noted authors Toni Morrison and Salman Rushdie (Bowers 18; Cowan 4). Perhaps because of this complicated history, there is a general consensus that there is no general consensus on how to precisely define magical realism (Baker). This can be attributed in part to confusion over the precise meanings of and distinctions between the terms magic realism, magical realism, and marvelous realism (Bowers 2). However, the styles features are less nebulous and readily identifiable. According to Flores, the essence of magical realist fiction is that, time exists in a kind of fluidity and the unreal happens as part of reality. Wendy B. Faris gives an irreducible element of magic as its most important criterion (Faris, The Question 102), in addition to a strong presence of the world we know (Faris, Ordinary Enchantments 7). This corresponds to the realism portion of magical realisms name.In general, the supernatur al coexists with the mundane, and neither character nor narrator express any feeling that such fantastic occurrences are out of place (Baker). This all creates what Adam Feinstein eloquently calls a rich, often disturbing world that is both familiar and dreamlike(Feinstein 15). Briefly, magical realist fiction presents magical events in a realistic manner. Magical realism can best be understood through examples from its authors. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Colombian author of the novels, One Hundred Years of Solitude and Love in the Time of Cholera, and winner of the 1982 Nobel Prize in Literature, has come to typify the genre, and even all of modern Latin American literature (Bowers 3). Fuentes calls magical realism the personal stamp of only one: Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Faris, The Question 108), and Michael Wood refers to him as the undisputed master of the magical realist voice that tells of fantasies in deadpan prose (Wood 10). Garcia Marquezs work is full of examples of magical realism. For instance, in his short story, Light is Like Water, the light from a common house fixture acts in such a way that children can sail boats on it (Faris, The Question 114), and household objects [] [fly] with their own wings through the kitchen sky (Faris, Ordinary Enchantments 12). But all subsequent examples will be taken from what is arguably his most famous work, One Hundred Years of Solitude, the story of the Buendia family. The erraticism and ambiguity of time can be seen in the example of Pilar Ternera, who, upon turning 145, [gives] up the pernicious custom of keeping track of her age and [] [goes] on living in the static and marginal time of memories, in a future perfectly revealed and established, beyond the futures, disturbed by the insidious snares and suppositions of her cards. (Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a M ´arquez 394) Similarly, a rain shower lasts for nearly five years; insomnia can erase the past; a room exists where it is always a Monday in the month of March (Faris, Ordinary Enchantments 23); and, after he dies, Melqu ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±ades Buend ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a begins to chronicle the history of the town of Macondo, both recording and predicting the towns events (Faris, Ordinary Encantments 10). In another example of magical realism, yellow butterflies, relentlessly swarming and invasive, accompany Mauricio Babilonia to his trysts with Meme Buend ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a (Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a M ´arquez 285-287); despite being magical, they are vulnerable to an insecticide bomb, demonstrating the realist component (Faris, Ordinary Enchantments 18-19). And, during the funeral of Jos ´e Arcadio Buend ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a, tiny yellow flowers rain from the sky, carpeting the streets (Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a M ´arquez 144). The fantastical elements of magical realism can be explained in part by the cultural situation that existed at the time of the genres nascence. Magical realisms duality might be considered to be a residue from the colonial occupation of the Latin American continent. The European conquerors imposed their own culture on that of the conquered, resulting in the coexistence of two conflicting world views-European rationalism and ancient native spiritualism (Baker). In the words of Stephen Slemon, the two oppositional systems [] each [work] toward the creation of a different kind of fictional world from the other (Faris, The Question 102). Magical realism can also be seen as a form of resistance to colonial ideologies, a discursive system that challenge[s] the restrictions of a circumscribed colonial space (Baker). It honors native tradition by frequently giv[ing] voice [] to indigenous myths, legends, and cultural practices and simultaneously serve[s] a decolonizing role, one in which new voices have emerged, an alternative to European realism (Faris, The Question 103). The fact that magical realist authors often hail from transitional, third-world countries supports this hypothesis (Cowan 6). But now the magical realist tradition appears to be dying. Magical realism has been victimized by modernization and unification in Latin America, and the need to develop a distinct Latin American writing style no longer persists (Feinstein). Only a few writers like Isabel Allende still practice it (Cowan 6; Feinstein). Also, recent magical realist work is a testament to the change in the landscape of the continent, infused with urban elements and modern issues. (Feinstein). And, unfortunately, the magic is increasingly being used as an instrument of lazy deus ex machina instead of an element in an alternate world, resolving plot conflicts rather than creating them (Khair). Thus, the future of magical realism looks dim. Even if the magical realist movement has lost its  ´elan vital, it has been an important player in the history of twentieth-century literature, spearheaded by fountainheads of creativity like Gabriel Garc ´Ãƒâ€žÃ‚ ±a M ´arquez. Although the remnants of European hegemony led to it being most prominent in Latin America, over the course of its rich history, magical realism has left a permanent impact on worldwide literature.

Kindred :: essays research papers

Kindred Writing Activity The fire, page 36: â€Å"I could literally smell his sweat, hear every ragged breath, every cry, every cut of the whip. I could see his body jerking, convulsing, straining against the rope as his screaming went on and on. My stomach heaved, and I had to force myself to stay where I was and keep quiet.Why didn’t they stop!† In the middle of the night, four white men storm into a cabin in the woods while four others wait outside. The cabin belongs to Alice and her mom. The four men pull out Alice’s father along with her mom, both are naked. Alice manages to scramble away. The men question Alice’s father about a pass, which allows him to visit his wife. Her father tries to explain the men about the loss of the pass but the men do not pay any attention to him. Instead they tie him to a tree and one of the white man starts to whip him for visiting his wife without the permission of Tom Weylin, the â€Å"owner† of Alice’s father. Tom Weylin forbid him to see his wife, he ordered him to choose a new wife at the plantation, so he could own their children. Since Alice’s mother is a free woman, her babies would be free as well and would be save from slavery. But her freedom â€Å"status† does not stop one of the patroller to punch her in the face and cause her to collaps e to the ground. Meanwhile, you can hear the noise of the whip clutching against the back of Alice’s father. He forces himself to stay quiet under this unbelievable pain and humiliation in front of his family. His face shows the pain and he is sweating but still no sound, until he breaks down and starts to beg for forgiveness. After a while, the white man who happens to be a patroller stops whipping him and with the help of the other patrollers he unties him from the tree and turns him around and ties his hands in front of him.

Pornography and Feminism :: Feminism Feminist Women Criticism

Pornography and Feminism    It is constantly surrounding us. It cannot be evaded. Pornography is an initial part of the entertainment mainstream. Whether it is in magazines, or in music, pornography is gender-prejudiced. The word pornography can be defined as the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement.    Degrasion towards women is its only accomplishment. The poses they take and the acts they perform are all part of the discrimination that women face . The only thing pornography offers is negative effects on women. Pornography, whether on a page, in music, or on screen, is degrading to all females. Magazines, posters, and other materials portray women as something less than human. A women in Florida argued that she was harassed by her male co-workers who put up graphically sexual posters and calendars, some showing women being abused. Among the offensive materials was a poster with a frontal view of a nude women with a dehumanizing USDA choice printed on it. Also , a teacher in Canada asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission to order the removal of pornographic magazines from convenience stores on the grounds that they create a hostile environment for women. Even Playboy and Penthouse , two of the more popular menà ¾s magazines that actually contain insightful articles on current i ssues or events, degrade women. Psychologist Marty Mckay says that the only way to protect womenà ¾s rights is to prohibit the sale of skin magazines in corner stores. Men are not put into the same portion, and there in lies the discrimination. When speaking of pornography in action, X- rated videos are the first thing that comes to mind. A shop in downtown Toronto that sells dirty movies and frightening looking sex toys has Ultra Great Sex tapes for less than $25.30. One scene contains two men performing simultaneous anal and vaginal intercourse on one women. The obscenity law found in subsection 8 of section 163 in Canadaà ¾s Criminal Code says that a work is absence and illegal if one of its dominant characteristics involves the undue exploitation of sex. A Canada court created three rankings for obscenity. The first, any materials that mixes explicit sex and violence , or include children. The second, works that involves explicit sex and degradation that encourage violence or harm toward women. Finally, other sexual explicit materials is permissible because the obscenity law cannot à ¾inhibit the celebration of human sexuality.

IP addressing scenario Essay

When is it worth setting up a DHCP server for your office and how many computers would you say is the minimum amount that really justifies the work of setting up the server? Let’s first explore what DHCP is so we can understand what it does and can accurately answer the question at hand. DHCP stands for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and provides a mechanism for conveniently assigning network addresses and other network configuration parameters to a system upon request, usually when it is first bootstrapped or attached to the network. This is what allows you to manage the IP address of any given computer on your network from one location. Being that we ran out of addresses for IPv4 and are now basically only using borrowed addresses Maintaining the IP address for a network individually would be a huge chore for any network professional. Thankfully DHCP was invented making our job a little easier. Now the question is when is it worth setting up a DHCP server? In my opinion that would be, with anything larger than 2 computers. I am going to want to be able to manage the computers on my network from one location, my location. I am not going to want to have to get up from my desk, interrupting my current task to configure your IP address while making sure the IP address I am assigning isn’t a duplicate. This basically comes down to how much work you want to do as a network manager. Do you want to continually update and configure computers, at each individual desk, every time their IP address is released, or anytime you need to add computers to your office, or do you want to be able to do it from the comfort of your own computer? For me, I would be ok with 2 computers to maintain but any more then that and I am going to want the DHCP server set up.

Eating the Right Food

â€Å"You are what you eat† said for the first time Anthelme Brillat-Savarin back in 1826 and since then this phrase is being used a lot by nutritionists. If this is really true, then a lot of Americans would appear to be unhealthy, treated with chemicals and, commercially raised animal flesh. While this does not sound very nice, it is nonetheless a description of the typical Americans who survive on the consumption of big macs and greasy French fries. â€Å"Unfortunately, studies show that over eighty five percent of Americans no longer eat even one meal at home together every day† (Bond, 4). It is true, and what should the average Americans do about this problem? They should better choose what they eat. Eating the right food is like getting an A at school. If you eat right food you will most likely be healthy. If you are getting A’s at school, you will most likely be successful. Eating the right food will contribute to your healthy living. By making the right choices, you will help yourself avoid some very serious problems. Making poor choices like eating too much wrong food, increases your chances of developing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders and aging related loss of vision. An example for that is the obesity, which is a major health concern in the United States. â€Å"Obesity can be linked to some 300,000 deaths and $117 billion in health care costs a year† (Espejo, 11). This statistics is very scary and it shows us how serious can be the wrong choice of our food. If we want to live healthy, we have to eat right. Eating the right food is not a hard thing to do. We just have to know some basic rules. One way to choose the right food is to follow the Food Guide Pyramid, developed by The Ivanova 2 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). More than one hundred years ago in 1894, the USDA published its first food guide, where the author, a nutritionist, introduced the idea of food groups. The five food groups defined in the food guide were milk and meat, cereals, fruits and vegetables, fats and fatty foods, and sugars and sugary foods. The guide made recommendations about eating food from each food group to remain healthy. MyPyramid is the most recent food guide, designed to provide Americans with a wide variety of food recommendations that will promote their health. MyPyramid was a major revision of the Food Guide Pyramid. It was designed to illustrate recommendations found in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 released by the USDA in January 2005. MyPyramid is intended to help Americans choose the right food to eat. It is designed to help people learn how to eat a healthy diet and live an active lifestyle. The latest food pyramid makes recommendations in seven categories: grains, vegetables, fruits, milk, meat and beans, oils, discretionary calories, and Ivanova 3 physical activity. Each food category is a different color in the pyramid with different recommendations. The highest recommendation according to the pyramid is for grains, milk and vegetables. The lowest recommendation is for oils and meat. MyPyramid assumes that people will eat from all food categories. I have found that following MyPyramid is the simplest way of balancing my meals. It separates foods into groups and graphs the amount of each group needed in an average person’s diet. The second way to choose the right food is to eat local and seasonal food. Eating local food has a lot of advantages. The shorter the distance that food travels from farm to table, the better. The long-distance transport of food requires more preservatives, packaging, refrigeration and fuel. By purchasing local foods in-season, you eliminate the environmental damage caused by shipping foods thousands of miles, your money spent on food goes directly to the farmer, and your family will be able to enjoy the health benefits of eating fresh, unprocessed fruits and vegetables. Eating locally does not mean to give up products like coffee and tea, which are grown only in certain regions. But it does mean to make choices when possible in favor of those foods that are produces near you. â€Å"Get out of the supermarket whenever you can† (Pollan, 33) is one of the Michael Pollan’s food rules. This rule implies the importance of going to the local farmer’s market. In the farmer’s market you will find fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. You will find food that â€Å"your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food† (Pollan, 7). There are a lot of programs that try to promote growing fresh produce. South Central Los Angeles’ â€Å"Food from the Hood† program has brought ttention to the potential of its embattled Crenshaw district, while providing with Ivanova 4 college funds for the high school students who maintain organic gardens. San Francisco’s Fresh Start Farms employs homeless families to grow produce forthe city’s many restaurants. And U. S. prisons have taken to garden ing projects in a big way, like San Francisco County Jail’s Garden Project, which has prisoners growing food for local soup kitchens† (Motavalli, 17). These programs are great examples of promoting growing fresh and organic food. But that should embrace a larger number of people engaged with growing fresh produce. Not only homeless people, prisoners and students. Different programs should be developed in larger areas, where people can join and help grow fresh and organic food. Try to eat most foods only when they are in season, or can seasonal food in order to eat and enjoy it all year round. Buying seasonal produce also provides an opportunity to try new foods and to experiment with seasonal recipes. And it simply tastes better! Every region of the world has its harvest seasons. In order to eat locally, we have to be familiar with what is local and seasonal in the area we live. For example, in my country Bulgaria in winter time there is not a big variety of local foods that you can buy, because of the severe weather conditions. So we usually buy bananas and oranges, that are imported. But in spring, where everything comes to life, we start buying strawberries and cherries. I was not used to eat strawberries all over the year before, because in my country we grow strawberries only in spring and this is the only time of the year that you can buy and eat strawberries. Here you can buy strawberries any time of the year, but I do not do that, because they do not taste good. In summer time in Bulgaria we buy peaches, apricots, tomatoes, corn and a lot more. In California on the other hand, in winter we can enjoy grapefruits, lemons, oranges, lettuce, mushrooms, and potatoes. An important part of buying local is making an effort to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables when they are in season in your area. Although today's global marketplace allows us to buy foods grown virtually anywhere in the world all year round, these options are not the most sustainable. Even if you do not want to change any of your eating habits, you can at least make sure to buy local produce when it's available, rather than purchase the same type of food from three thousand miles away! The third way to choose the right food is to eat fresh food and a lot of fruits and vegetables. Fresh food comes out of the ground and comes to your plate with as little interference as possible. The freshest produce is what you grow yourself and pick just before you eat it. Eating fresh food is as simple as it sounds. It does not mean avoiding frozen or canned food, but it rather means to eat food as close to its natural state as possible. Frozen foods and vegetables are nearly as good as fresh ones and they may even be more nutritious than fresh fruits and vegetables that have been stored for weeks or months under conditions that prevent ripening. Canned fruits and vegetables are usually fine, though many come loaded with salt and added sugar. (Willet, 126). â€Å"Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables† (Willet, 114). As child you hated to hear it. As a teenager, you promised yourself you would never say it to your children. This wisdom however is passed from generation to generation. This is a timeless advice, simple and easy to remember. The National Cancer Institute recommends that each of us eats at least five servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, since they play a very beneficial role in protecting against cancer, heart disease and other health problems. But what exactly are fruits and vegetables? â€Å"To a botanist, a fruit is any plant part that contains seeds, any by process of elimination, a vegetable is everything else: leaves, stems, flowers, roots and bulbs† (Willet, 115). The reason experts recommend so many servings of fruits and vegetables is that they offer the best way to prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer. We should simply â€Å"Eat food† (Pollan, 5). It is easy to say, but hard to do, especially with all the new food products that are introduced annually to the market. Most of these items do not even deserve to be call food. They consist mostly of ingredients derived from corn and soy that no normal person keeps in their pantry. Lastly, the right food to eat will be anything, but fast food. Most people choose fast food because it is convenient, fast, and cheap. Fast restaurants are everywhere, on every corner. They always have the best deals for food. Everything seems so delicious and in most of the times it is really delicious. But the problem is that is not healthy and this is absolutely the worse choice of food that we can make. â€Å"It’s not food if it arrived through the window of your car† (Pollan, 43). Fast food cannot be called food. We should avoid fast food restaurants if we care at least a little bit about ourselves. There is almost always a healthier choice. It may not be the cheapest or the fastest route, but I think that overall nutrition is more important than the thickness of our wallet. Cost, convenience, and lack of time all contribute to the bad eating habits most people have. Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can. â€Å"Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation†(The New York Times, January, 28, 2007). And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for the right food will contribute not only to your health also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it in the farms. Planning what to eat can eliminate impulse and over eating. In conclusion, choosing the right food to eat is not always easy. These are different ways to choose better our food. Choosing the right food to eat is choosing a better life. When we choose better our food we contribute actively to our health and to our life. MyPyramide is one way to choose the right food to eat. It gives us an idea how to balance the food we eat and what food to eat more and what to eat less. Another way to make a better food choice is eating a local and seasonal food. This is also not a very hard thing to do. We just have to make a little research on the local farmer’s markets and what kind of produce is grown seasonally in the area we live. The third way is to eat fresh produce and as many fruits and vegetables as possible. The last and maybe the most important thing to eat right is to avoid fast food. These are easy steps to living a happy, healthy and right life.

Break even

Breakeven is the point at which the company is not generating either profits or losses. This is the point at which the company is generating just the level of revenue which compensates for both the variable costs and the fixed costs. Variable costs fluctuate with the level of patients arriving for the scans. The greater the number of incoming patients for MRI scans, the greater the variable costs. However the fixed costs, which involve the lease payments, which are periodic, will not vary regardless of the number of patients coming in for the scan.Therefore, while greater number of patients means greater variable costs, it also means that there will be greater scope for the company to cover the fixed costs. That is of course given the fact that the price is higher than per unit variable cost. That is the case under the present scenario. The price that each customer pays for an MRI scan is $2100 while the cost that the company has to incur for each scan is $1200. The difference betwee n the price and the variable cost goes towards covering the fixed costs. That is why the breakeven equation stands as it does.As mentioned before, breakeven is the point at which there are neither profits nor loses for the company. As a result profit at this point can be considered as zero. The level of sales at which profit is zero means that under the present circumstances, the number of MRI scans that the hospital has performed cover for not only the variable costs but fixed costs as well. In the present scenario the payment that the hospital receives in return for performing the MRI scan is $2100 which is much higher than the cost of performing that scan which is $1200. Therefore, the company will have no problem in covering for the variable costs.What the hospital has to worry about is covering the fixed cost. Therefore the objective here is to determine the number of patients at which the difference between total revenue and total variable costs equals the fixed costs. The equ ation generates the 100 patients that R Squared must scan each month to cover not only the variable costs of performing each scan but also the fixed costs of operating the MRI scan equipment. 100 patients indicate the minimum number of patients that R Squared must scan each month in order to be able to stay in business, i.e. get back both the variable cost and the fixed costs. However General Hospital is ensuring 125 patients each month. This is very good for R Squared because at that number of patients, the hospital will be generating a level of profit that is higher than the $10000 calculated in question 2. Therefore R Squared will accept this contract. Question 4 If R Squared does not accept this contract it could reach an agreement with General Hospital whereby part of the costs for operating the equipment could be borne by General Hospital.This will reduce both the variables costs and the fixed costs for R Squared. In that scenario the management of the company could afford to accommodate a lower number of patients as it has to cover for a lower level of costs. Of course since 125 patients on a monthly basis means nearly $22500 of profits, there is no reason for the management not to accept this contract. However the management could be targeting a higher level of profits from its MRI division. In that case, a strategic alliance in the form of cost sharing as mentioned before could help both parties reach an agreement.