Mussolini's Ousting from Power in July 1943 Essay

Mussolini's Ousting from Power in July 1943 - Essay Example Hitler was facing a crucial strategic problem of opposing the Allies’ evident reentry in Europe – territories conquered by Germany were so immense (from France’s west coast to Greece’s east coast), that it was practically impossible for him to gauge the place the Allies were going to strike next. On the other hand, the wide choice of possible objectives and the superior sea power were the crucial strategic advantages of the Allies.Having lost its forces in Africa, only 10 Italian divisions and 2 German panzer units were available for the Axis in the middle of summer 1943. â€Å"The Allies, meanwhile, were preparing to throw some 478,000 men into the island – 150,000 of them in the first three days of the invasion.† The air superiority of the Allies in the Mediterranean theatre was also great by that time, â€Å"more than 4,000 aircraft against some 1,500 German and Italian ones† (â€Å"Sicily and the Fall of Mussolini, July-August 194 3†, 1999).So, on 10th of July 1943 Allies’ troops invaded Sicily from the sea. The coastal territories, guided mainly by Sicilians, were given up fast enough due to the unwillingness of Italians to let their motherland be turned into a battlefield to suit Germany’s interests. In only three first days of the invasion, the British forces had been able to clear the whole southeastern part of Sicily. Then the British moved toward Messina taking a circuitous route around Mount Etna while the Americans moved in an eastward direction and occupied Palermo in the west of the northern coast on 22nd of July.

Uncertainty in Modernism: Family, Identity and Work

Uncertainty in Modernism: Family, Identity and Work Life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. Discuss this claim. Introduction This assignment will investigate the claim that life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. Beginning with a brief description of the climate of the 1950s the assignment will then look at three areas, work and welfare, the family, and identity. In doing this the assignment will draw only on material supplied for the module. Post-war Britain was quite different to what we see today. In the early 1950s there was still considerable war damage and so the Government had introduced massive building programmes to make sure that people had adequate housing. The welfare state had been introduced in the years immediately following the war. Based on the notions that the (predominantly male) workforce would enjoy full employment, and that ‘traditionl’ family life would continue, the Government claimed that it would be able to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave. They were overly idealistic in their views and in the last fifty years Britain has witnessed massive changes in the areas of work and welfare. There have also been changes in family structures and this has had corresponding implications for peoples’ identities. Work and Welfare During the Second World War, and in the years after, people felt that they were secure in their employment. In industry particularly working class men had been conditioned to the view that if they worked hard then they would have a job for life.[1] This was not to say that ordinary people earned a lot of money, they didn’t. Normally sons and daughters would follow in father’s and mother’s footsteps once they left school, In the early 1950s Britain was a stratified society and people did not often move from one class to another. The class into which a person was born therefore was very often the one in which they stayed and this had implications for their life chances in other areas. People did not have the choices that they have nowadays few women went out to work and it was the father’s responsibility to go out and earn money to support his family.[2] There were some uncertainties of course for families who were reliant on one wage. Traditional areas of e mployment are being eroded as the number of industries has declined and more people are taking jobs in areas that were previously seen as women’s work. Nowadays both the man and his wife may be working. They might work full time, part-time, or rely on state benefits. In some households it is a mixture of things.[3] Hutton (1999)[4] maintains that the diverse sources of employment can in themselves be sources of uncertainty because in some areas (agency temping for example) people may not know whether they will have work from one week’s end to the next. This creates divisions between those families who have alternative sources of employment the ‘work rich’[5], and those whose suitability for different types of employment is limited. Such changes in employment patterns affect not only the traditional working classes but also the middle classes. In the early 1950s young middle class men could expect a secure career with a steady climb up the ladder, that is n ot the case today. Many people face redundancies, followed by the hard searching for a new job, in some cases they may find themselves dependent on state benefits for considerable periods.[6] Such changes may also have an effect on a couple’s marriage and if this ends in divorce then both people could be worse off. The wife may find herself looking for work after having been out of the labour market for some years because she was caring for children. This gets worse the further down the income scale a family is. In the past labourers and industrial workers may not have had as much job security as their middle class counterparts because some of them became unfit for work before retirement age. People did have some security however. Nowadays people can end up reliant on state benefits over a very long period and this can result in social exclusion where they are unable to fully participate in society (Mackintosh and Mooney, 2004)[7]. Changing employment patterns have, in many c ases, led to changing roles in society and this has had implications for people’s sense of identity. Identity Mercer (1990) argues that modern society is characterised by diversity and uncertainty and that this has corresponding implications for people’s identities.[8] Changing gender roles and more women in the workplace have resulted in changes in people’s sense of self. In addition to this as Mercer has highlighted Post-War immigration along with rapid social and technological change has brought with it n increasing focus on contemporary eacialised and ehtnicised identities.[9] This mixing of people’s new identities along with older ones contributes to the sense of uncertainty that many people feel is a feature of modern life.[10] Identities are relational, thus blackness is seen in its relationship to whiteness and vice versa. This has led to what have been termed hybrid identities where people draw on different cultural heritages. Social trends such s the greater exclusion of ethnic minorities from better paid jobs and decent standards of living point to the fact th at the social structure in the UK is permeated with racialisation and ethnicisation where people are seen only in terms of their skin colour and ethnicity.[11] These structures in turn, affect people’s identities because they prevent them from becoming something other than that which society has defined. On the other hand changes in society affect social structures which in turn affect people’s identities in myriad ways. Because identities are no longer fixed they are a source of continuing uncertainty. This uncertainty leads to further changes in the social structure. Contemporary people’s identities are unsettled because the changes mentioned above tend to cross ethnic boundaries. For example the changing role of women and their greater inclusion in the labour market has affected not only women’s and men’s identities, it has also led to changes in family structures. The Family Nowadays there seems to be considerable concern over what is termed the traditional family. In the papers and on television journalists are increasingly expressing concern for the death of what they call traditional family values. Critics raise the subject of cohabitation, divorce, same sex marriage, and the increasing number of lone parent households, and regularly pose the question of what is happening to British society. Mooney et al (2004) have said of this that it results in contemporary family life being viewed with a mixture of ‘fear and fascination.’[12] There is widespread concern that the changes we are witnessing in family structure will lead to wider social problems and may have troubling implications for the individuals involved.[13] This raises the question of whether such changes should be viewed with pessimism or whether they are simply a result of the different ways that people order their lives in response to changes in society. Will these changes resul t in changes in patriarchal society or will they serve to further strengthen masculine power and supremacy? Although family roles and responsibilities are changing, for example women are no longer viewed primarily in terms of their housewife role, nor men as the family breadwinner, the family is still a widely accepted concept.[14] It is becoming increasingly difficult to refer to the traditional family without making reference to the past, what some people term, ‘the golden age of the family’.[15]Numbers of people have questioned whether there was such a thing or whether it is an ideological form that served a certain period of society. Conclusion It has been claimed that life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. Certainly Britain has seen considerable changes in the last fifty years. The welfare state was presaged on notions of full employment which did not foresee the changes that would take place as the result of new technologies. Change does cause uncertainty but that does not mean that it is necessarily a bad thing. Harking back to the early 1950s as a sort of golden age is wrong. History shows that societies that do not change and are not prepared to go forward eventually die out, change may not always be easy and this can result in uncertainty, but worrying about it will not stop progress. Bibliography Block 1 (6) (3) Block 3 (3) (2) Block 1 (8) (4) Block 3(1) (2) Hutton 1999 cited in Block 3 (3) (2) Mercer 1990 cited in Block 1 (8) (4) Mackintosh and Mooney 2004 cited in Block 3 (1) (2) 1 Footnotes [1] Block 1 (6) (3) see page 153 [2] Block 3 (3) (2) see page 78 [3] Page 78 ibid [4] Cited on page 78 ibid [5] Block 3 (3) 2 page 78 [6]ibid [7] ibid [8] Cited in Block 1 (8) (4) page 130 [9] ibid [10] Ibid page 131 [11] ibid [12] Block 3(1) (2) page 46 [13] ibid [14] ibid [15] Ibid page 47

Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume Essay examples -

The way in which a concept comes to exist in one’s mind is itself a concept worth examining. Many philosophers have looked for the origin of thought in the human mind, and many different reasons for this origin have been put forth. As a philosopher, it is only fitting that Hume would propose his own framework for human thinking. For Hume, perceptions are developed either as the understanding of the outside world, or as recollections of these events or alterations of these memories within the mind ¹. This distinction is important, as it allows Hume to differentiate perceptions as true or false notions. With this, Hume puts forward his concepts of belief and fiction. Belief is defined in perceptions that one, simply put, believes, and fiction encompasses the thoughts that are not believed. These definitions seem redundant when viewed as so, but further examination of Hume’s framework sheds light on the meaning of what he attempts to establish concerning belief. In order to fully understand the difference between belief and fiction, Hume’s definition of thought must first be studied. Hume splits perceptions of the mind into two sections – impressions and ideas – and the distinctions between the two are significant (Hume, 18). For Hume, the most important aspect of perceptions is the force in which one experiences the thought. Impressions are defined as, â€Å"all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will† (p. 18). On the other hand, â€Å"the most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation† (p. 17). Here, Hume elaborates on the concept of force in ideas, stating that ideas are simply less forceful than impressions. As he continues, Hume explains that our thoughts of ... ...ntrollable, and while this feeling is hard to define, it is simply known, as â€Å"every man is every moment conscious of the sentiment represented by it† (p. 50). A major distinction to note is that belief is generated through custom. Belief in some perception is guided by the framework built by past experiences which leads you to make judgments about the world. This framework allows you to believe in what you observe, and to reject any ideas that do not make sense in regards to the custom. While Hume may not have been exact in some aspects, the writings provided remain strong, and this allows for an understanding of belief and fiction. Work Cited David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals: Third Edition, ed. P.H. Nidditch (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 18.

Gender is a Construct Essay

Each person is born either male or female, these are biological facts. However, no matter how clean cut these biological facts may be, they have social implications. Biologically speaking, there are minimal differences in the ability of male and female persons, none that would indicate a less able sex. Yet the underlying social assumptions associated to sex, translate to gender roles that clearly define a perceived difference because of sex. Gender is a social expectation, constructed through time, insisted and demanded through generations. It is a perception of roles and abilities created by society to define men and women as separate groups (Lerner, p. 238, Wolfe, p. 27-34). Sandra Lee Bartky (p. 61-86) further explains that people are born male and female and not masculine and feminine. Femininity is a social ideology imposed upon women, an attribute which is achieved through forceful and repeated learning (Lee Bartky, p. 61-8). By defining gender as a construct we acknowledge that gender is not an attribute that is biologically defined. Gender does not come innately in a person. Instead, gender is defined and perpetuated by social assumptions and expectations. Gender ideologies determine what is expected of each person dependent on sex, while gender roles determine how each person is to act in fulfilling their expectations and how each person is to relate to each other. Gender is an idea that is socially constructed based on expectations of social roles. The roles the men and women are expected to have in a society, and the perceived ideals of masculine and feminine are formed through social expectations and not biological characteristics. Broadly gender ideologies relate to socially constructed roles that define division of labor, distribution of power, individual rights and responsibilities and differentiation as one relates to society. Works Cited Lee Bartky, Sandra. â€Å"Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power. † Feminism and Foucult: Paths of Resistance. Northern University Press, 1988. Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy: Women & History. USA: Oxford University Press, 1987. Wolfe, Alan. â€Å"The Gender Question. † The New Republic 6 June: 27-34.

Leadership and Organizational Theory

â€Å"Human relations† is a broad terminology that refers to the interactions between people in all kinds of situations in which they seek, through mutual action, to achieve some purpose. Thus, it can be applied to two people seeking to develop a happy and productive life together. More so, human relations establish interactions within a social club, a business firm, a school, or to an entire government or even a whole society. According to Owens (2004), the social structure that regulates the human interactions that are the subject of human relations may be formal, clear, and readily apparent (for example, a government, a firm), or it may be informal, even diffuse, and therefore difficult to accurately describe (for example, the power structure of a group of prison inmates, the social system of a school faculty, or a neighborhood).As the world continues to change, work conditions, technology, and the people with whom individuals work have a dynamism about them that is unprece dented in our history. People are more likely today to work with more diversified peers than at any other time. Furthermore, their interactions at work are changing as well. This means that human relations will no longer entail employees in a bureaucratic organization. Instead, they are more likely to be part of a work team, and they are expected to work together to be successful in accomplishing tasks (DeCenzo & Silhanek, 2002).Beginning in the mid-1950s, increasing attention was devoted to efforts to better understand the relationships among (1) these characteristics of organizational structure, (2) the personality (and consequent â€Å"needs†) of individuals in the organization, and (3) behavior on the job (Owens, 2004). The struggle to develop understanding of human resources approaches to organizational behavior has led to the development of a number of theoretical views that can be helpful in clarifying issues confronting the leader.The organizational theory is as much about describing and reflecting what is going on in organizations as it is about finding ways to improve organizational behavior. It is as much descriptive as it is prescriptive. However, there is not one correct organizational structure that will apply to a particular situation. The workers or subordinates within the organization promote the impact on how the organization will be managed by its leader. Workers' ethics, skills, and maturity will affect their response to management initiatives.Since time immemorial, concepts of leadership, ideas about leadership, and leadership practices are the subject of much debate, writing, teaching, and learning. Many scholars sought the formula that could mold true leaders. According to James Kouzes (2003), leadership is not an easy subject to explain. The goal of thinking hard about leadership is not to produce great, or charismatic, or well-known leaders. The measure of leadership is not the quality of the head, not even the tone of his or he r voice. Outstanding leaders shine appear primarily because of their followers. Thus, in defining leadership, there are a lot who offered their acquired concept of what a leader should be or do. Brown (1954) defined leadership as:A collective function in the sense that it is the integrated synergized expression of a group's efforts; it is not the sum of individual dominance and contributions, it is their interrelationships. Ultimate authority and true sanction for leadership, where it is exercised, resides not in the individual, however dominant, but in the total situation and in the demands of the situation. It is the situation that creates the imperative, whereas the leader is able to make others aware of it, is able to make them willing to serve it, and is able to release collective capacities and emotional attitudes that may be related fruitfully to the solution of the group's problems; to that extent one is exercising leadership.On the other hand, Tom Peters and Nancy Austin, a uthors of the best-seller, A Passion for Excellence (1985) describe leadership in broader terms:Leadership means vision, cheerleading, enthusiasm, love, trust, verve, passion, obsession, consistency, the use of symbols, paying attention as illustrated by the content of one’s calendar, out-and-out drama (and the management thereof), creating heroes at all levels, coaching, effectively wandering around, and numerous other things. Leadership must be present at all levels of the organization. It depends on a million little things done with obsession, consistency, and care, but all of those million little things add up to nothing if the trust, vision, and basic belief are not there.With those definitions, we could delineate leadership as harnessing capabilities of your subordinates for them to reach their full potentials. Therefore, leaders should see to it that: are the followers reaching their potential? Are they learning and serving? Do they achieve the required results? Do the y change with grace? Do they know how to manage in times of conflict?With these questions, it is significant to point out the diverse natures of leadership. The social nature of leadership entails the interpersonal skills necessary to be effective in a variety of situations. The ethical nature of leadership involves the inherent power of a leadership position that, when exercised, should benefit the common good. Leadership is the means by which things get done in organizations. A manager can establish goals, strategize, relate to others, communicate, collect information, make decisions, plan, organize, monitor, and control; but without leadership, nothing happens. Thus, leadership clearly entails more than wielding power and exercising authority and is exhibited on different levels. At the individual level, for example, leadership involves mentoring, coaching, inspiring, and motivating (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004).Corporate organizations in the 1980’s have been adopting and ins talling programs of organizational restructuring and re-engineering. Most of the programs are based on the principles and practices of a widely popular management strategy often called Total Quality Management, participative management or â€Å"the learning organization,† or some other vernacular title for a program of organizational structural and cultural change (Casey, 1999). These changes were then had been aptly devised in different corporate organizational and national settings that deals with organizational behavior. Theories of sharing the common fundamental aims of the reorganization and production of new sets of attitudes, beliefs, and behavior, most organizational change programs commonly aspires to develop on their corporate employees to enable increased productivity and profitability for the organization’s benefit as a whole:Pivotal among the new organizational cultural practices and values are the metaphors of â€Å"team† and â€Å"family.† Many companies, from manufacturing operations and supermarket chains, to hospitals and airline companies, promote themselves in the marketplace and to employees as caring, familial communities, inviting both employees and customers to â€Å"Come, join our family† through their involvement with the company. At first glance, such an invitation may seem a timely and welcome recognition of relational and affective dimensions of human life that â€Å"ought† to be promoted in workplaces historically ridden with industrial conflicts and divisions. Furthermore, team evokes references to cooperation and sharing of skill and labor toward the attainment of shared goals. Both family and team, are, in normative conditions, positive and generative social practices. Therefore, their deliberate installation as part of the new organizational culture fundamentally assumes their reasonable incontestability and universal attractiveness. (Casey, 1999).By leading into a culture of systemati c inquiry and skillful listening, leaders can strengthen the foundation of their organizations. Accomplishing this requires the shifting of culture wherein leaders should scrutinize how dysfunction shows up within them, their group, and their organizational culture and then seek a systems approach in dealing with these problems within the organization. Good leaders know when and to whom a particular task should be delegated (i.e., knowledge), they effectively communicate their expectations concerning a delegated task (i.e., behavior), and they check to see whether the task was accomplished in a satisfactory manner (i.e., criteria). Thus, a skill is knowing when to act, acting in an manner appropriate to the situation, and acting in such a way that it helps the leader accomplish team goals (Hughes, Ginneth & Curphy, 2001). In addition, good leaders also know when to institutionalize organizational change when they think that they need it to improve their company’s productivity .In this time and age, upcoming leaders face tougher challenges as the whole world braces from the rapid spread of information and technology. Apart from that, the expansion of the traditional businesses into venturing in e-commerce and globalization had kept leaders busy thinking of up-to-date business strategies, new competitors, new cultures, complex markets, political uncertainty, and huge logistical problems.As a process, leadership in all its stages requires application of organizational theory and human relations to determine the best possible leadership action. The knowledge and skill level of the duly-appointed leader directly and indirectly influence the short-and long-run goals of any organization. Interpersonal relationships significantly influence the possible alternatives that might be generated to solve a problem or to make a decision. The creative leader who possesses innate intelligence, resourcefulness, dominance, and self-sufficiency will be able to facilitate wha t the proper course of action should be.Organizations in the 21st century are realizing that if they are not quick to adapt to market and competitive changes and become responsive to their key customers, they will have more tendencies to fail. Indeed, the ultimate impact of the practice of leadership in the era of globalization is that leaders should somehow come at pace with the swiftly changing times. Being a global leader is not just a pursuit for self-improvement, but harnessing the energy of other people.   In the end, it is the global leaders who determine the roadmap, a mixture of traditional and modern concepts, which will guide both themselves and their organizations to new heights of international competitiveness.ReferencesBrown, J.A.C. (1954). The social psychology of industry. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, pp. 129–130.Casey, C. (1999) Come, join our family: discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture, Human Relations, 5 (2), 155–178.DeC enzo, David A. & Silhanek, Beth. (2002). Human relations: Personal and professional development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.Hughes, Richard L., Ginnett, Robert C., and Curphy, Gordon J. (2001). Leadership: enhancing the lessons Of experience. New York: The McGraw−Hill Companies.Kouzes, James. Everyone's business — leadership for today and tomorrow. The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.Kreitner, Robert and   Kinicki, Angelo.(2004). Organizational behavior. New York: The McGraw−Hill Companies.Owens, Robert G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (8th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall – Pearson Education Company.Peters, Tom and Austin, Nancy K. (1985). A passion for excellence: the leadership difference. New York: Random House, Inc.