Emblems of Pluralism: Cultural differences and the state by Carol Weisbrod. The question of the future of cultures as a lens for understanding The life of society is not an easy and a simple one. It is common knowledge, that people, living in society always have some problems in communication. Such problems may appear not only on the interpersonal level, but also between some big groups of people, who have different cultures, beliefs, lifestyle and thus, different views and considerations about this world and how one is to live. That is a normal thing. Among the problems which appear nowadays one can name the most common: a conflict between cultures. A culture creates the way of thinking, living and the attitude to the world and the other people in general.
It is even possible to say, that it completely creates our lives. To my mind, such cultural differences which exist today are very important for the development of the contemporary world. They are important for the state and for the society, because they play a role of a peculiar regulator of the relationship, keeps some kind of balanced multiplicity. At bottom it is simply impossible to imagine the contemporary model of some state without this. In other words, perhaps, if somewhen everybody would have the same culture the world would not be so diverse and absorbing with its raisins and differences. But that is just a simple supposition.
Talking about the question of settling down or assimilation of some culture in a state with many differing aspects of a local culture it is worth mentioning that this question is very broad and actively discussing today. A lot of literature was written and lots of investigations were made on that question. Carol Weisbrod, an expert in family law and a Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut seems to mark successfully the interesting aspects of the problem. The chapters explore common topics, but each essay concerns individual topic. So, an important thing which is being discussed is an interaction between the state and the individuals, the individuals joined in groups. Normally, the relationships between some groups and the state are to be regulated by special norms, which are established by the state. Nowadays such norms are called laws.
Culture....The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. A key point in the definition is all... products of human work and thought what is not a product of human work and thought the computer this report is being typed on the school in which the paper is being for a class what about the class itself. All of ...
The situations can be also regulated by simple roles and frames. Also normative systems exist. They are represented by group codes and rules. But still, the main relationship regulator often takes the form of law. Even a little child has today an idea about what a law is, that is why I dare say that it is absolutely impossible to imagine our up-to-date world without such kind of regulating. Talking about the social organisation, the hierarchical versions of the relationship between groups and state are sometimes being represented. People just create frameworks for their group life and as a matter of fact this is a demonstration of the presence of culture. Making laws, the state is considered to take into account the interests of the people and, of course, of the groups which also live within the bounds of the territory of the state.
Laws are to guarantee the conditions of living and to secure the citizens rights. The state also has a great responsibility a responsibility for providing the protection of rights relating to cultural difference. Somebody said: We can hardly conceive of life without the state. Living in some state and being its citizen an individual may feel itself protected. Ive found an interesting quotation with regard to the topic: A man can lead a reasonably full life without a family, a fixed local residence or a religious affirmation, but if he is stateless he is nothing Joseph Strayer. However, it is really so.
STATE SECRECY VS THE PUBLICS INTEREST The requirement of secrecy by the government is not all-inclusive nor is it sometimes in the governments best interest. However, there are overriding concerns within certain areas in which secrecy is paramount. Two examples will bear light on this. In the first example a federal judge ruled against the Federation of American Scientists in their attempt to ...
If a person comes to some state without having anything there and just hoping for some good future, he even may not understand, but he feels that he would feel worse than the citizens. It is said, that such a person practically has no rights, has no any security or protection and has little opportunity for a successful career. But as time goes by an individual may pass certain phases of the relations between individuals and the state. So I think that later, in the process of becoming a member of society man can adopt the conditions and live on level with the citizens. So, talking about that we have a controversial point. Let us remember a case with Jews in czarist Russia. They had a pariah status and actually could not exist normally on that territory.
They didnt want to create their own mini-empire, to conquer a land and to represent so to speak the triumph of their group interests. It is a typical example of life of the people without a fixed local residence. They needed, like all alive, some space to live. But the state hadnt any interest in letting some groups to live in the state and to support them. Such representations of group life were ignored by the state. Relatively to jewes coercion was also often used. Remembering the history and the features of that time and comparing the life of the citizens of the state with the jewes one can say that jewes were completely unprotected and that is one of the biggest problems. The conflicts are to be reconciled and harmonized, but in this case nobody even offered that. The state did nothing to avoid an intergroup conflict and, finally, we feel an echo of that so far.
The question of the old forms of social definition and a public judgement again. Generally, judical opinions concerning that are different, There are still many for and against. But personally I think that ethnic and religious difference must not serve as decisive factors in the life of some groups. It is inadmissible. One can put a crucial question about the independence of the groups which live on a territory of some state. Well, that is a vexed question.
Impact of U. S. Federal and State Compliance Laws I would change the administrative passwords on all systems routinely, implement a firewall program with remote access control which will not allow, hackers entry to your company’s system. Without passwords being assigned to data and systems, this simply protection becomes a target for hackers. Identity theft occurs in some of the largest companies ...
I consider the groups cant be independent, because it is impossible not to communicate, to interact with the sphere they live in. And in the process of such interaction they partially become a part of the society of the country they live in. Some kind of interrelation appears. Carol Weisbrod describes an interesting aspect she writes, that groups may be internal or external to states. It shows, that it is possible for some groups to be even international! The author calls this phenomenon supranational organization. To my mind, people, who belong to such organizations must have very rich and high-developed culture.
By the way, talking about such supranational organisations it is also worth mentioning the religious groups such as phenomenal groups of Mormons and Amish. Mormons suffered from a direct intervention of a law in its life, in the life of an internal group and its inner life, practice and religion were shaped. So is an example of an interplay of a phenomenal religious group and a law and in such way the role of the state in its existence and development was shown. Someone considers that law creates the conditions for culture and the cultural development. Moreover, there is also a consideration that law is above all a cultural product. Studying and detailed examination of law in different settings and climates lets us understand that all of the considerations, given here, are in its own way full-fledged and right. The author says, that in the anthropologists definition, laws are part of culture. Well, perhaps.
However, frequently laws may be examined as a mirror of the society and the contemporary life and conditions. Talking about culture, as a lens for understanding, first of all it is worth mentioning that today more than 500 definitions of the word culture are fixed and this number is growing. It is also said, that culture is one of the most complicated words in the language. Living in a state, where many cultures are represented, the most difficult and important, what must take place is a process of creating one legal feature out of many in such way organising the so called reducing of cultural pluralism in a legal way. This process, of course, is not an easy one. I think the process lies in taking away somebody’s culture and trying to make it in a legal way.
Words: 1246International Baccalaureate English 11 Period 19 January 2006Natural Law and State Law in AntigoneIn Antigone, one of the meanings Sophocles presents is State Law versus Natural Law which do not always agree. Sophocles uses characterization to show the conflict between the two ideas. State Law is defined as a translation of Natural Law into “concrete norms governing peoples and nations” ...
If it is possible to say so, it looks as an attempt of spreading something new, equal for everyone. Such process generalizes people and, perhaps, even rubbs away the individual streaks of the people and their cultures. But, from the other side, it is impossible to change such a serious thing as culture completely. Culture is also a way of thinking of the individuals. And such things are unchangeable. Many aspects of culture go through many fields of life and many of them turn to be unchangeable too.
That is why it is possible to assume, that the complete reducing of pluralism is impossible, or it must take many ages to become noticeable. Finally, maybe the pluralistic thinking is not so bad. On the contrary, it can provide a lot of new knowledges, a number of new ideas and values. Of course, some discussions, problems and conflicts may appear, but I believe there are no conflicts which can not be resolved. But at least to minimize a risk of rise of the conflicts the pluralism must be reduced. Sure, here it is impossible not to agree with a statement, that groups are like an imperium in imperio. This statement is full of wisdom, imperium in imperio it is a threat for the political organization and clever ruler would never let such thing take place in his state.
The ideas relating to law and the state present in many scholar conversations today. The idea of culture, perhaps, is a thing, that can be discussed for ages. The state and the law are basically one thing. The State itself, as the author claims in her work, is created by the law. Many scientists and, especially, sociologists make efforts to relate law to culture. I consider they are right. At the same time the meanings we are talking about are concerned one with another closely and in a complicated manner.
Culture influence greatly on creation of the mass values, knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom. The things that Ive just enumerated are, to my mind, the most important we have in our life, that is why it is not necessary to tell once more about the importance of culture in everything that exists and that happens.
Law 598 b is discrimination against those whose culture looks highly of eating America's so called "pets." That is the point made by Michael Kingston in the short essay "Creating a Criminal" making Kingston a "do-go oder" toward those who agree with him. This law is poorly written on the writer's part, and it would be sufficient to probably rewrite it. Unfortunately for Kingston, there are some ...
Weisbrod, Carol. Emblems of Pluralism: Cultural Differences and the State. Princetown University Press, 2003..