War & Peace (International Security) Essay Example for Free

War Peace (International Security) Essay For almost half a century humans have sought principles for the maintenance of their security and the peaceful settlement of their disputes. Each historic period has witnessed the emergence of new concepts or an instance of re-emergence of old with trust that the mistakes of the past would not be done again. After the Cold War mankind has entered again such a period of doubt and research. The framework of international relations has changed so meaningly over the last decade that it is fair to declare that a new era has begun. This era offers hope, but no condition of being certain. Some unanimity has become obvious: that this new era needs a many-sided approach to the resolution of its conflicts, some that came from the past, some generated in the chaos of adaptation to new conditions of growing freedom, of enmity reborn, and of increasing challenges to the peace required for security of people. After the Cold War, globalization increased the motives for states to pursue more cooperative security policies, in particular at the regional level. In what follows, this paper looks at the main transformations in the structure of international security over the last decade. How is one to understand the structure of security at the global level? The paper considers how globalization in general and particular aspects of it became securitized by the actors in the international arena. Main Body Any coherent regionalist approach to international security must begin by establishing clear distinctions between what constitutes the regional and global level. Distinguishing the regional from the global is not easy task. The easy part is that a region must surely be less than the whole, and of course much less. There would not be much opposition to the claim that the United States is a global level actor. But the problem emerges when one tries to determine particular actors. Should Russia be regarded as a global power or a regional one? What about China? Traditional realism does not help in this task because it usually positions states as great, middle, or small powers. Traditional realism does not regard the powers that are structurally significant at the regional level. How the structures are defined shapes the nature of international security. For this reason it is better to approach the global–regional boundary by starting from the top down. Both the neorealist and globalist theories focus on an idea of global structure. Neorealism is considers two levels, system and unit. Neorealists either underestimate or disregard all levels except the system one. Neorealism is to some extent strong on territoriality. Potential harmony between it and the regionalist perspective is possible, specifically when states are the main actors. There is room for controversy between neorealism and regionalism when the security agenda moves to issue areas other than military-political, to actors other than the state, and to theories of international security other than materialist (Wohlforth 42). In addition, the most abstract and theoretically ambitious variants of neorealism (for example, Waltzs) tend to understand system in such abstract terms that territoriality disappears. From the regionalist perspective of international security discussed in this paper, a key weakness of both the neorealist and globalist approaches to international security is that they exaggerate the role of the global level, and disregard the role of the regional one. Neorealism in a simple manner chooses not to consider much the levels below the systemic. To the degree that globalism disregards territoriality particularly and levels in general, it is not an appropriate approach for considering things still defined in territorial terms. However, the more reasonable versions of globalism do give room for a regionalist perspective. The regionalist perspective is chosen approach to analyze international security. Friedberg (2000) indicated â€Å"the regional level stands more clearly on its own as the locus of conflict and cooperation for states and as the level of analysis for scholars seeking to explore contemporary security affairs† (7). This approach can be described as a post-Cold War focus concentrating on two assumptions: 1. That the decline of superpower competition decreases the penetrative quality of global power interest in the rest of the world (Friedberg 160); and 2. That most of the great powers in the post-Cold War international system are now pulled away. The argument of this paper is that the global level of international security over the last decade can best be understood as one superpower plus four great powers. It is essential to distinguish between superpowers and great powers even though both are at the global level. Then it is necessary to differentiate that level from the one defined by regional powers and regional security complexes. Almost nobody debates that the end of the Cold War had a considerable impact on the whole organization of international security. But, more than a decade after the transformation, the character of the post-Cold War security order still remains eagerly disputed. Over the last decade the regional level of international security has become both more self-governing and more leading in international politics. Katzenstein (2000) concludes that the ending of the Cold War accelerated this process. This thought comes naturally after the ending of bipolarity. Without superpower competition intruding all-absorbing into all regions, local powers have more room for tactic. For a decade after the ending of the Cold War, both the remaining extremely powerful states and the other great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia) had less stimulus, and displayed less desire, to take a decisive role in security affairs outside their own regions. The terrorist attack on the United States on the September 11, 2001 may well give rise to some affirmation of great power interventionism. However, this is likely to be for quite narrow and particular purposes, and seems improbable to recreate the general will to step abroad that was a characteristic of Cold War superpower competition. The definite autonomy of regional security over the last decade forms a pattern of international security relations fundamentally different from the steadfast structure of superpower bipolarity that was common during the Cold War. The regional structure of international security is the relative balance of power of, and relative relationship within it between, regionalizing and globalizing trends. The central idea in the regional structure distinguishes between the system level cooperation of the global powers. Since most security threats travel undoubtedly over short distances than over long ones, international security interdependence is normally arranged into regionally based divisions: security complexes. As Friedberg (2000, 5) discuses: â€Å"most states historically have been concerned primarily with the capabilities and intentions of their neighbors†. Security complexes may well be largely penetrated by the global powers. However, their regional dynamics have a considerable degree of autonomy from the plans set by the global powers. Usually, two main levels dominate security studies: national and global. National security– for example, the security of France–is not in itself a significant level of study. Because security branches are intrinsically relational, no nations security is self-contained. At the same time, global security refers at best to a strong desire, not a reality. The globe is not tightly characterized by integration in security terms. Except for the special case of superpowers and great powers discussed above, only little can be said at this level of generalization that will reflect the real conflicts and problems in most countries. The region, in contrast, is connected with the level where states or other units cooperate together very closely and their securities cannot be analyzed separate from each other. The regional level is the space of national and global security mutual action, and where most of the operations occur. Both the security of the divided units and the process of international power intervention can be understood only through comprehension of the regional security dynamics. The best understanding of the dynamics of international security could be achieved by treating global and regional levels as distinct, and considering how they played into each other. On the basis of a distinction between superpowers and great powers international security has outlines as follows: Over the last decade the global power structure shifted to 1 + 4. The USA remained as a superpower, and China, the EU, Japan, and Russia as great powers. There was some mobility in the pattern of regional prospective. North and South America continued to be much as before. The breakdown of the Soviet Union meant that two (and for a while almost three) regional security complexes emerged in Europe. In Asia, the integration of the Northeast and Southeast Asian complexes brought the total to two. In Africa, the Southern Africa complex spread into Central Africa, and a Central African RSC came into view increasing the number to four. If to consider the Middle East as one, then the global total in 2001 was eleven. Thinking about the future, 1 + 4 remains the most probable structure for at least a couple of decades. A shift to 2 + x is connected with the possibility that either China or the EU will be elevated to superpower status. Kapstein (1999) and Hansen (2000) share the widely held view that the emergence of a second superpower within the next two decades is unlikely (79). More likely is a transformation to 0 + x. This could happen little by little if the USA experiences a long-term relative decline in its material assets in regard to other powers, or quite quickly if the USA decides to give up its superpower role and become a normal great power. Some writers, particularly Wohlforth (1999) and Krauthammer (1999), are strong supporters of an unipolarist strategy for the USA. This general course seems to have been made stronger both by the Bush administration and by the US acts in regard to 11 September. Waltz (2000) sees a multipolar world with the USA as one pole. South Asias strong regional securitization was strengthened over the last decade. Post-Cold War, South Asia was chiefly affected by the 4 element of 1 + 4. While Post-Cold War developments increased the possibility of the Asian super complex unification into a full Asian regional security complex, it was not absolutely matched by securitization of China in India. In South Asia, the strongest concern is a possible change of essential structure made up of the organization of an internal and an external change. East Asia witnessed the merger of two previously independent regional security complexes, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. In East Asia, like in South Asia, the breakdown of the Soviet Union contributed considerably to the relative empowerment of China and its movement towards the centre of the US debate about possible peer competitors (Buzan and Little 13). It also generated to the emergence of a security regime in Southeast Asia and the union of the Southeast and Northeast Asian regional security complexes. The US activities in the region contributed to the incensement of securitization between it and China. They also dampened down securitizations of China elsewhere in the region. China is chief but possibly not in the near future powerful enough to create a centered Asian regional security complex. The Middle East is to some extent very much like Asia, a region where strong local controversy dynamics intersect with a mighty US presence and worries about the future of the US role. In this regional security complexes, the shift to a 1 + 4 structure generated a period of unipolar intervention by the USA intended at a kind of coercive desecuritisation (Friedberg 68). This made a considerable impact on the local division of power, supporting Israel and hammering Iraq. This also put all of the former clients of the Soviet Union into a weaker position. The Middle Eastern regional security complex has experienced some medium-scale transformations. Over the last decade, Africa underwent the reduction of external support for the postcolonial state structures. Since sub-Saharan Africa, similar to South America, has no neighboring great powers, it was not much influenced by the 4 element of 1 + 4 (Wohlforth 40). Dynamics of securitization were driven downward to the domestic level and upward to the international one. Africa is possibly to become the home of four regional security complexes. In Africa, the concern is about the formation and evolution of regional security complexes in a subcontinent dominated by state failure. There is the lack of much interest or intervention on behalf of the global powers, and the not absolutely strong roles of transnational organizations. In Europe, the end of overlay disclosed both the centrality of the European Union as the main international security institution, and the growing of the stakes in the global great power status, or not, of the European Union (Buzan and Little 37). It also demonstrated the difference between the international security community dynamics of Western Europe in comparison with opposition formation dynamics in the former Soviet Union and its former empire. For the Central and South-eastern European countries caught in the middle, this contrast determined their whole foreign policy problematic. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only replaced one of the superpowers, but also created a new regional security complex. In both Europe and the post-Soviet region, the regional and international levels play considerably into each other because the regional activities are responsible for the emergence and distribution of a great power. What is striking about the US power in Europe, East Asia, and South America (however, not the Middle East) is the level to which its position has become institutionalized through the creation of super regional projects including Atlanticism, Asia-Pacific, and pan-Americanism (Buzan 2000). These projects commonly involve a strong mixture of super regional economic organization, and mutual defence and security processes, the special mix varying depending on the local conditions and history. These projects enable the USA to appear to be a powerful member of these regions. Where super regional projects are present, it is quite usual for the United States to be considered, and probably to consider itself, as a member of those security regions. By putting the USA inside these regions, super regional projects make less distinct the crucial distinguishing feature between regional and international level security processes. They also make them difficult to see from within the United States. This blurring becomes a significant tool for the supporting of the USAs sole superpower position, not least in keeping from the emergence of more autonomous regional coalitions that might be a threat to its influence or its primacy. This is not to refuse to recognize that these projects have considerable and sometimes positive political effects. But they can also contribute to the problems in terms of distinguishing between being a superpower and being a great or regional power. The US security role in East Asia, South America, and Europe can be compared with its role in the Middle East. The US’ role is an outside global power penetrating into the affairs of the regions. The main point to support this theory is that there can be disputes concerning an outside power withdrawing, or being expelled, from the region concerned (Buzan and Little 69). For example, Germany cannot detach itself from Europe, nor Japan from East Asia, nor Brazil from South America. But the US can withdraw itself (or be withdrawn) from Europe, East Asia, and South America. There are numerable debates both in the USA and in those regions (and also the Middle East) regarding the desirability or not of such transformations. Conclusion The attacks of 11 September showed how much international security is produced by the specific interactions of regional and global security dynamics. It is clear that the structure of international security is defined by the interplay of regions and powers. Regional security complexes analysis offers a significant tool for analyzing and understanding not only the past and present structures and processes of international security, but also the future transformations. This paper argued that the regional level of security is significant and is a considerable part of the overall area of security in the international system. Bibliography Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little 2000. International Systems in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedberg, Aaron L. 2000. In the Shadow of the Garrison State: Americas Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hansen, B. 2000. Unipolarity and the Middle East. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. Kapstein, Ethan B. 1999. Does Unipolarity Have a Future? , in Kapstein and Mastanduno 1999.

Medicalisation

Medicalisation Medicalisation Medicalisation is defined as a process by which non-medical problems become defined and treated as medical problems usually in terms of illnesses or disorders. Initially all deviant behavior were described as sin or criminal behavior and religion had full control over how to punish such deviant behavior. Later on as societies became more complex with the growth of technology and as the hold of religion diminished as a control agent, the emphasis shifted from punishment as a preferred sanction for deviance to treatment of illness. Deviance that was considered sin or bad is now considered as sickness. With increasing success biomedicine started functioning as a control agent. Review of recent research shows that now many socially unacceptable behaviors have been medicalized and assigned disease terms in the 20th century and even normal human events and common human problems are considered under medical jurisdiction. For instance, alcoholism, drug addiction, hyperactive children, suicide, obesity, mental retardation, crime, violence, child abuse, learning problems, births, aging, menopause and many social deviances are all brought under the umbrella of medicalization. Medicine is all pervasive in our daily life. At the same time some behaviors previously considered medical problems have become more acceptable and been de-medicalized ,e.g., homosexuality and masturbation. T. Moreira (2006) suggested that the process of medicalisation is insufficient to understand the social aspect of relationship between a state that is considered as medical disorder and health. One needs to also look at the dynamics of the creation, evaluation and use of biomedical knowledge. The need for these dynamics was underlined in her research on relationship between sleep and health. She explored a very common sleep disorder,viz., obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS)and shaping of continous positive airway pressure, a very common therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea(CPAP). She used the method of case study. Two case studies were scrutinized- Historical literature review of emergence and, development of OSAS and CPAP. Initially sleep apnoea was described as Pickwickian syndrome on the basis of symptoms that led to sleep disturbances. It was believed that sleep apnoea occurs among those who are overweight, lazy and snore loudly causing inconvenience to others. Extreme obesity was associated with severe daytime sleepiness. William Dement et.al. investigated this link by using sleep laboratories. But by late 1970s, obesity was no more considered the cause of sleep aponea, it was merely seen as a risk factor that may lead to disease. With laboratory observation of sleep it became clear that sleep process was responsible for OSAS and not obesity. There was a shift from Pickwickian syndrome to sleep aponea syndrome. In Pickwickian syndrome, the clinical symptoms like obesity, hypoventilation and plethoric face were highlighted while in sleep aponea syndrome Apnea/Hypoapnea Index became progressively more acceptable. The development of CPAP showed how on one hand patients actively participate in evolving health technology and on the other hand adjust and adapt to devices available according to their own needs and circumstances. In the studies of CPAP users the emphasis shifted on recognizing patients who are likely to discontinue to use these machines rather than blaming the patient for not using it. This led to looking at patient as a natural calculative subject who will do the cost-benefit analysis and decide whether to use health technology or not. This cost-benefit analysis is influenced by many psychological constructs like self identity, self- efficacy, self-confidence and social support, etc. On the basis of these calculations, by non-participation in certain health technologies, patients have created a new area of knowledge and intervention in biomedicine, health psychology, medical sociology and in sociology of science and technology. Thus medicalization of sleep has redefined the sleep as medically problematic and whole sleep industry has come up in last one decade or so. A person suffering from OSAS is no more stigmatized individual. He is no more powerless passive, dependent on medical personnel. He is a calculating independent person, an active consumer of health technology. Evolving the design of sleep machines showed that patient groups actively influence making of , evaluation and use of medical knowledge. Advantages Disadvantages of Medicalization According to Illich medicalisation has serious adverse impact on the society as the general public is made docile and reliant on the medical profession to help them cope with their life in their society. There is also structural problem as Western medicines notion of issues of healing, aging, and dying as medical illnesses. This effectively medicalises human life, rendering individuals and societies less able to deal with these natural processes. Marxists such as Vicente Navarro et.al. (1980) linked medicalization to an oppressive capitalist society. They argued that medicine makes people see health as an individual problem rather than looking at disease as a result of social inequality and poverty. It tends to strip subjects of their social context, so they come to be understood in terms of the prevailing biomedical ideology, resulting in a disregard for over-arching social causes such as unequal distribution of power and resources. Many critics believe that the term medicalization has become much more complex now as pharmaceutical companies have increasingly taken over the role of doctors, putting everyday problems into the domain of professional biomedicine. Direct to consumer advertising further undermines the role of doctors, as patients are encouraged to ask for particular drugs by name, thereby creating a conversation between consumer and drug company. Another problem with medicalization is that it puts the responsibility for the problem on individual causes and the solution to social problems on individual treatment. The psychologizing of social problems leads away from the analyses of the social structure of culture.For example, the reason for obesity is thought to be the obese person himself rather than the change in life style, socio-economic status of the person, easy availability and convenience of ready to eat junk food, etc.

The American Civil War Essay -- History USA Historic Essays

The American Civil War Works Cited Not Included Horrific! The American Civil War, also known as the War Between States and the War Of Secession, was an extremely gruesome and bloody war (World Book 614). The war, which started on April 12, 1861, when the southern troops fired on Fort Sumter, and ended 4 years later, took more American lives than any other war in history (614). This war was between a divided union in whish the southern states were trying to preserve slavery while the northern states were dedicated to a more modern way of life and were trying to end slavery (614). This war was fought in the minds of great men like Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee and the end of the war was the beginning of a slavery free nation. The American Civil War was a horrible event in the history of the world which started from three main causes: slavery, disputes over states' rights, and because of the division which existed between the South and the North. April 12, 181 was a day that would forever live in the history of the United States. On this day, the Southern troops of the Confederate States fired the first shots of the American Civil War on Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C. (World Book 614). Before this day, Americans had an abiding faith in the politics and the democratic ideals on which this new country was based. Andrew Jackson described Americans as ?guardians of freedom for the human race.? James K. Polk spoke of the American government as ?This most admirable and wisest system ever devised. Americans, north and south, regarded these statements as true. American politics was a fiercely partisan affair at first. It was all for the good of the new nation. At the close of the 1850?s, citizens wondered if their... ...uence over government policy (World Book, 634). The Northern ideals, however, helped to develop the modern United States as an industrial power (World Book, 634). Slavery was officially abolished after the Civil War in the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution (World Book, 634). The results were lasting, some severe and big, while some were small and unnoticeable. The American Civil War was a horrible event in the history of the world which started from three main causes: slavery, the dispute over state?s rights, and a division between the North and South. The war ended because of the dedication and warfare tactics of many heroes and enemies. The Civil War started on April 12, 1861 and ended four years later (World Book, 614). In the end, more Americans died than in any other war in history. But in the end good once again triumphed over evil!

Huckleberry Finn: A Trip :: essays research papers

A Trip Within’ The Heart Of A Colorless Boy   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the main characters take a trip within the heart, not just a trip down the Mississippi River. Throughout the trip down the Mississippi River, Huckleberry Finn’s, a homeless waif, thoughts about racism change from a racist unwanted boy to a true human being with a sense of his own destiny. Throughout the novel, Huck narrates his adventure and thoughts upon racism and inequality between “niggers'; and whites. Huck and “nigger'; Jim, runaway slave, float down the Mississippi River as unequal individuals, but towards the end of the novel Huck distinguishes that even African-Americans are as equal as white human beings.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Huck never respects the “niggers,'; especially Jim since Huck and Tom Sawyer, a romanticized friend, continuously play tricks on Jim so they can feel superior to the “black'; race. Even though Huck escapes society and his abusive father, Pap Finn, he continues to play tricks on Jim, since Jim ran away from slavery. For example, when Jim explains that he ran off Huck disapproves but promises not to turn him in even though “people would call [him] a low-down Abolitionist'; (50). This demonstrates that Huck is a kind trustworthy racist boy; however, Huck’s superstitious character “curled [a rattlesnake] up on the foot of Jim’s blanket'; as a joke, although in the night the rattlesnake’s mate bit Jim (59). In addition, Huck “warn’t going to let Jim find out it was [his] fault'; nor apologize because he did not want to feel low to a “nigger'; (59). This incident demonstrates that Huck still views himself as su perior to Jim because of his skin color. At this point of the novel, Huck is helping Jim escape which makes him feel low down to civilization; however, he continues to trick Jim so he can be better quality. Huck maintains to treat Jim with little respect and even though he suffers for the trick, he never apologizes to Jim.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As they progress down the river, Huck begins to realize the true character of Jim as an equal man with greatness and kindness in his heart. During their ride down the river Huck decides to play another trick on the so-called unintelligent Jim. The final trick Huck plays on Jim while they are in the fog is making Jim believe that everything that has happened in the storm after they broke-off from each other only occurred in Jim’s mind.

Philosphy and Science :: essays research papers

It is sometimes maintained that the conflicts of the twentieth century (war and international contests in general) might best be characterized as between the left and right political persuasions (e.g., â€Å"communism† against â€Å"fascism† or â€Å"democracy† against â€Å"fascism†). Defend or dispute such a characterization using the two socioeconomic and political systems that have been the central concerns of our readings and discussion: that of Sun Yat-sen (The Kuomintang on the Chinese mainland and on Taiwan) and that of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (the Chinese Communist Party) in the People’s Republic of China. Your answer should include (1) ideological components (both domestically and internationally relevant), (2) structural features (leadership and political party properties), (3) economic strategies (both domestically and internationally relevant) and (4) general consequences. What are you prepared to argue are the major differences betwee n the two systems here discussed? Now, answer that question in a coherent fashion. Don’t try to answer each question in particular, except where the questions are numbered, for example, #1 ideological components, #2 structural features, #3 economic strategies, make sure that is clear so the readers understand that’s what you are answering. For example you say, as for ideological components, so something to indicate that you are answering that specific part of the question. Now, I think the question is relatively clear. It is a complex, but relatively clear question. I don’t know exactly what experience you have. You know again, as I told you, I am sort of visiting the planet sodospeak. I mean you are completely outside the range of my comprehension. I don’t know what you know, what you don’t know. Education nowadays has become so impoverished, I’m not even sure that you have the prejudices that we used to have. So right on this campus, my sense is, the world is divided between the left and the right. And so when they look back on the past experience of the preceding century, they think that the conflicts of the preceding century were on the left and the right, you see? And somehow the world is divided into the left and the right. Now, part of this, and if you read any of the material, again I am being very generous in my expectations, but if you read any of the material, for years, the second World War was characterized as a conflict between the left and the right. That carried over into Asia. Philosphy and Science :: essays research papers It is sometimes maintained that the conflicts of the twentieth century (war and international contests in general) might best be characterized as between the left and right political persuasions (e.g., â€Å"communism† against â€Å"fascism† or â€Å"democracy† against â€Å"fascism†). Defend or dispute such a characterization using the two socioeconomic and political systems that have been the central concerns of our readings and discussion: that of Sun Yat-sen (The Kuomintang on the Chinese mainland and on Taiwan) and that of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (the Chinese Communist Party) in the People’s Republic of China. Your answer should include (1) ideological components (both domestically and internationally relevant), (2) structural features (leadership and political party properties), (3) economic strategies (both domestically and internationally relevant) and (4) general consequences. What are you prepared to argue are the major differences betwee n the two systems here discussed? Now, answer that question in a coherent fashion. Don’t try to answer each question in particular, except where the questions are numbered, for example, #1 ideological components, #2 structural features, #3 economic strategies, make sure that is clear so the readers understand that’s what you are answering. For example you say, as for ideological components, so something to indicate that you are answering that specific part of the question. Now, I think the question is relatively clear. It is a complex, but relatively clear question. I don’t know exactly what experience you have. You know again, as I told you, I am sort of visiting the planet sodospeak. I mean you are completely outside the range of my comprehension. I don’t know what you know, what you don’t know. Education nowadays has become so impoverished, I’m not even sure that you have the prejudices that we used to have. So right on this campus, my sense is, the world is divided between the left and the right. And so when they look back on the past experience of the preceding century, they think that the conflicts of the preceding century were on the left and the right, you see? And somehow the world is divided into the left and the right. Now, part of this, and if you read any of the material, again I am being very generous in my expectations, but if you read any of the material, for years, the second World War was characterized as a conflict between the left and the right. That carried over into Asia.

Multiple Intelligences

Most of the greatest intellectual figures of our time were not really achievers in their classes. Winston Churchill was doing poorly with his school assignments, and he always stuttered during recitations. Albert Einstein was told to quit school because he was often caught daydreaming. Thomas Edison was always punished at school because he was asking too much questions. However, they turned out to be the people who have changed the history of humanity. In some ways, this is also the case of high school drop outs. Not all of the students leave school because of domestic problems, alcoholism, drug addiction or any other reason. In fact, there are students who quit school because they feel that school is not supporting their learning abilities. They believe that they are too much for school, or they learn better in the outside world. This notion somehow affects the students’ self-esteem. In an article online, the authors stated that self-esteem has to be grounded in positive achievement. If self-esteem is impaired, students will lose the eagerness to acquire formal education. Learning should always come with positive attitude a well as reinforcement. As Henry Ford would say it, â€Å"If you think you can, or think you can’t, you’re right.† Aside from thinking that these students might have behavioral issues or learning disabilities, should the same thought be directed to the education system which overlooks the individuality of students in terms of their learning? Indeed, there are several types of high school curriculum. However, if a particular high school adapts a certain curriculum, it does not guarantee that every student will successfully learn because of the program. The failure of some students may be actually a good thing. It could be a sign that they are better off in other educational programs, or they might even be exceptionally intelligent. Hence, the popularly known academic excellence does not really mean a summary of References Chapter 8 – the secret heart of learning. The Learning Web. Retrieved December 18, 2007 Chapter 10 – do it in style. The Learning Web. Retrieved December 18, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thelearningweb.net/chapter10/learning_styles_page341.html â€Å"Multiple Intelligences† as Howard Gardner proposed. According to Gardner, there are seven kinds of intelligences: linguistic intelligence (self-expression through words), logical-mathematical (ability on reasoning and numbers), visual-spatial intelligence (ability on recognition and transformation of spaces), body-kinesthetic intelligence (self-expression using one’s body), musical intelligence (involves skill on perception, creation and performance of musical patterns), interpersonal intelligence (capacity to recognize and comprehend other people’s feelings, motivations, intentions and desires), and intrapersonal intelligence (ability to understand oneself). Thus, every student has its own strengths and weaknesses in relation with such intelligences. Consequently, if Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences could be applied, the recognition of individual learning abilities would be fostered. Students will have the opportunity to develop and maximize their skills with the appropriate curricula. Students will likely stay in school, because they are encouraged to learn and improve themselves according to their capacities. For instance, students who cut classes and eventually drop out because they want to pursue their rock band could be educated in a musically-directed program. In this way, they will have the chance to be enhanced musically at an advance level rather than just learning the basics in a music class or by being a member of the marching band. As a result, high school kids will enjoy and even love school because their self-esteem is grounded in what they are best doing. Their attention will even be diverted from entertaining external factors that eventually discourage them from going to school. Teenage problems will potentially drop. Intelligence mostly involves focus. If high school students are educated according to their intelligences, they will have more focus in school. Their concern will be primarily excelling and achieving their future goals. References HOWARD GARDNER: Multiple Intelligence Theory Proponent. Retrieved December 18, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm Smith, Mark. (2002). Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education. Infed. Retrieved    December 18, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm   

Interpersonal Communication Essay

In the healthiest of environments, people advance from ‘relationship’ to ‘engaged’ status because two people have mutually acknowledged each other, have common understandings, and act with the other person’s concerns in mind. A relationship, be it for marriage, friends or business, requires a domain of actions and an assessment that your partner is worth trust because they act with the intention to take care and not betray shared concerns. One of those elements is the interpersonal communication between the people in the relationship. When communicating effectively, there is a behavioral coordination that results from the coupling between two people in such a way that the relationship can limit the drift of day-to-day life, and move with effective communication practices that will address fundamental concerns. The bedrock of effective interpersonal communication is to first know who ‘you’ are. Review and understanding of your self-concept, self-image, self-esteem, and personality will allow for greater spaces for possibility to understand the same elements of your partner. Interpersonal communication involves both verbal and nonverbal communication and both of these communication types can be expressed in a variety of different ways. One aspect to clearly understand is that communication is complex because it involves two or more people to be in a dance of coordinated action that will take care of concerns and/or fulfill the narrative of the future. Communication is also continuous; to be most effective in the domain of interpersonal communication there is a requirement of recurrence, recursion  and reciprocation. Communication is also dynamic in that the action requires the embodiment of practices that allow you to transform between public, private and behavioral queues with your significant other. Equally important to remember is the misconception that communication cannot transform interpretation. Languaging is a linguistic coordination of linguistic coordination’s, a domain of descriptions of descriptions that refer back to themselves for meaning. Our classroom text asserts that we cannot exactly repeat something we have said in the past. Even if our words are the same – the tome of voice and other characteristics such as posturing and tone will differ- and the listener will also have a different impression (sole, K. 2011). Communication is also irreversible in that we cannot take back our words once spoken. This is why it is very important to be conscious of what you are saying in moments of anger when you might say something that you may later regret. The harmonious combination of two different points of view can certainly be viewed as a barrier to effective interpersonal communication because balance between the two is not always achieved. Common communication problems in relationships are assessed as: 1) Silence or refusal to speak; 2) giving into the other person at a cost of self or the relationship (also known as placating); and 3) psychological requests or reports – which is essentially the announcement of a feeling, emotion, or state of being without any commitment to act from the assessment produced an/or speaking without regard for the truth to fulfill a concealed agenda. Let’s face it – the silent treatment is more often than not a way of inflicting pain on the other person, or to get them as angry or disappointed as you are. Either way, there are no good outcomes possible for effectiveness to be achieved. Giving in to your significant others demands can defuse a negative situation, however, over the long term you can loose who your ‘self’ is and the foundation of the relationship can begin to become eroded. Visions of virtues, what is a good life, beliefs, and what is important for being taken care of can be lost subconsciously without you even knowing it when you give into placating. The last of the three barriers mentioned is psychological warfare. This could be sabotage born out of feelings of resignation, despair, boredom, resentment, distrust, confusion, being overwhelmed, and skepticism. It is important to try and be a third party observer of your moods because they color your outlook about your relationship and the world over extended periods of time. Moments of perturbation should be discussed with your partner in the moment or soon after so that bottled up aggression does not have the opportunity to morph into something much worse in the future such as ‘playing games’. As reviewed in chapter three of our classroom text, what you perceive in the world depends on what you pay attention to (Sole, K. 2011). With acceptance of this assertion then it is easier to understand how you organize and interpret what you perceive, and the framework of your emotions take place. Always remember that emotions are specific ungrounded assessments that live in our bodies for only a short period of time as feelings and thoughts. The perception of your partner may differ from your own; in fact, it most likely does because you both have had two different journeys throughout life from birth to the present moment. It is important to remember that emotions are the result of perturbations of our nervous system and provide automatic and ungrounded assessments about the world because as reviewed earlier, our individual ‘worlds’ are made up of only what we are paying attention to. Some emotions are inherited genetically and some are learned. Emotions though, only tell us how we ‘feel’; not the ‘truth’. With this in mind we can begin to understand then to be careful to know the difference between stating a ‘truth’ to our partner and making an ‘assertion’. With interpersonal relationships it is important to be aware of our emotions and how they affect the people around us, including our significant others. Non-verbal communication is defined as communication of a message without words, which means that it encompasses a wide range of vocal and visual signs and behaviors (Sole, K. 2011). Throughout your relationship you will  express yourself not only with your voice or with a pen, but also with eyes, facial expressions and body posturing. When listening to your significant other it is recommended to be aware of your body posture; the technical term for this is called kinesics. For example, sometimes there is no greater expression of affection for someone than the embrace of a hug or putting your arm around them (Burgoon, Buller, Woodall, 1996). As time goes on most partners begin to pick up on what the other is thinking without even speaking through non-verbal communication habits. For example, my fiancà ©e figured out that whenever I rub my eye with my index finger by putting pressure in corner of eye, I am in a mood of frustration or anger; and I never realized I did that till she pointed it out to me! Emotional Intelligence, also known as EI, is a reference to the capacity that someone has to understand, communicate, and manage emotions; and further the ability to understand and respond to the feelings of others (Sole, K. 2011). This is an especially powerful element to successful relationships because it expands the different possibilities for thinking and actions that a couple can take throughout a lifetime together. EI is a reference that someone has a background of listening taking place where future possibilities are being listened to, even while declarations for thinking or acting have taken, or are taking place. Take the various moods of yourself and your significant other for example. The understanding of moods can help in managing conflicts with one another. Moods color a persons point of view about life for periods of time and have body postures associated with it. If you see your significant other standing with their arms crossed and eyebrows bent while eyes are starring at you like daggers, then you may not need them to say that they are frustrated because you can interpret that with your level of emotional intelligence. A submission from my own meandering experience on like is to recognize the difference between the things you can, and the things you cannot change in life. Do your best to let go of negative thoughts and change negative interpretations. If your significant other is not able to spend a lot of time with you because of the amount of time you work for example, then  instead of ‘getting down’ on it be thankful that you get to end the day with him or her, and that they are ambitious instead of lazy. Another broad suggestion that does not encompass a specific situation would be to stay away from â€Å"I† statements. Our text for the class uses a great example for this. Instead of â€Å"you make me so angry sometimes† TRY: â€Å"I am so angry with you sometimes†. It shows that you are taking ownership for your own emotions and are describing a behavior instead of simply acting on it without thinking the situation through. CLOSING: The bedrock of effective interpersonal communication is to first know who ‘you’ are. Review and understanding of your self-concept, self-image, self-esteem, and personality will allow for greater spaces for possibility to understand the same elements of your partner. References Bower, B. (2010, November). Shared talking styles herald new and lasting romance. U.S. News & World Report, 1. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global on July 22, 2011. Document ID:2223940991 NARA SCHOENBERG. (2011, February 6). Can we talk? Researcher talks about the role of communication in marriages. Houston Chronicle,p. 7. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 2260839481). Nathan Miczo, Chris Segrin, & Lisa E Allspach. (2001). Relationship between nonverbal sensitivity, encoding, and relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 14(1), 39-48. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 72022836). Preston, P. (2005). Nonverbal communication: Do you reallynsay what you mean? Journal of Healthcare Management, 50(2), 83-6. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. Document ID: 814698921 Sole, K. (2011). Making connections: Understanding interpersonal communication. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (https://content.ashford.edu)