Post-War Changes to British Society

Post-War Changes to British Society Life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. Discuss this claim. Introduction The welfare state, which was a feature of 1950s Britain was predicated on an optimistic view of the world, and one which anticipated that British social institutions such as the family would remain the same. However, increased technological change, post-war immigration policy and a fluctuating world market brought such certainties into question. Britain rapidly became a more liberal and culturally diverse society and this had implications in almost every area of social life. This paper will examine the view that life is more uncertain now than it was in the early 1950s. In doing so it will examine knowledge, particularly religious knowledge, the concept of the family, and the processes of globalization. The Family In the 1950s the institution of the family was seen as one of the best ways of ordering our lives. It was the primary instrument of socialization where children learned the norms and values of the society in which they lived. The transformation of family life and of family forms has been unprecedented in the last thirty years the traditional nuclear family of father, mother and children, has been challenged and in some cases abandoned in favour of other ways of living.[1]Some of these changes have come about as the result of the feminist challenge to patriarchal power and the patriarchal nature of the traditional family. Prior to the Second World War men were the family breadwinners and women stayed at home to look after the children and to tend to the husband’s needs. From the mid-nineteen fifties onwards women started to re-enter the workplace in increasing numbers. This gave women more choices about how they would live their lives, such choices were not available in the ear ly nineteen fifties but the late twentieth century and twenty first centuries are characterized by a diversity of family forms. The nuclear family no longer dominates, now we have step families, lone parent families and cohabiting same sex couples, all existing alongside the nuclear family. Statistics on these different family forms have been used by Conservative Governments to claim that there is a breakdown of the traditional family and this has led to a much wider moral decay in society.[2] There has also been concern over men’s power and role in family life and the implications this may have for social order (Phillips, 1997).[3] Phillips argues that the decline in the family may lead to the death of fatherhood and could have implications for men’s health and their son’s development. It refers not only to changes in the family but to the fact that these changes could also bring about the destruction of the things which hold society together. Feminists on the other hand welcome the change in family forms because they have challenged the patriarchal nature of the nuclear family in the same way as they have challenged the patriarchal nature of religion. Religious Knowledge Prior to the Enlightenment religious knowledge was regarded as authoritative. Religious knowledge is knowledge that is based on revealed truths rather than empirical data or scientific experimentation. Although sometimes science and religion are interested in the same questions such as the history of the world and the nature of humnity[4] The rise in scientific knowledge called the claims of religion into question and the late twentieth century has seen this questioning in the form of a massive decline in Church attendance.[5] In spite of this Armstrong (1999)[6] has said that since the 1970s religion has been high on the agenda in the forms of the Christian Right in America and the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. Marx, Durkheim and Weber, the acknowledged fathers of the social sciences, predicted that increased industrialization and new technologies would bring massive social change and that this would result in secularization.[7] Certainly on the surface this appears to be occurring, Church attendance has declined since the 1950s and education and welfare, which were once functions performed by the Church, have been taken over by the state. In addition to this, other forms of knowledge, such as science, appear to have more credibility than religious knowledge.[8] It might be said that religious knowledge remains to the extent that it provides some kind of answers to questions that science has so far failed to answer, such as where we go when we die. Social scientists have defined religion in two ways, the substantive definitions say what religion is while functionalist definitions say what religion does. Emile Durkheim (1912/1965) for example described religion as a sort of social glue which held society together. Durkheim believed that although religion would remain, it would, over time, change its form[9] Thus, because religion served a social function, traditional religious services might be replaced by other traditional gatherings su ch as Thanksgiving in America (Bellah, 1970).[10] Max Weber (1904/1930) on the other hand said that religion gave meaning to people’s actions eg. the Protestant work ethic Weber[11] Weber believed that when people became disenchanted with the supernatural content of religion then religion would die out. Peter Berger (1967) has said of religion that: †¦religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant (Berger, 1967:28).[12] The search for significance spreads across cultures. In the 1950s Britain was still seen as a largely Christian country and the Church of England was the established Church, the official religion. Mass immigration from 1948 onwards has meant that Britain is now a multi-cultural and multi-faith society. At the same time feminists have challenged the masculine bias contained within traditional religious knowledge and say that women’s experiences of religion have been ignored. The secularization thesis holds that religion is dying out but the situation with religious knowledge is not as simple as that, rather the situation is changing, and so traditional beliefs are called into question. This questioning tends to make people more uncertain of the beliefs they hold than might previously have been the case. Such changes are not confined to Britain but appear to be taking place on a global scale. Globalisation Since the 1950s the world has witnessed vast changes in transportation, in technology, communications and agriculture. Increased trade flow between different countries and the spread of capitalism has meant that the borders between nations are not as fixed as they once were and diverse societies are moving closer together.[13] There are differing views on globalization and these can be broadly defined in the following ways. Globalists, argue that we are witnessing changes that are being felt across the world and that increasingly nation states are becoming less autonomous. Internationalists on the other hand do not hold this view, they believe that the global movements we are seeing are not a new phenomenon. Although international activity may appear to have intensified in recent years they argue that in some areas this has strengthened state powers.[14] The third view is that of the transformationalists who say that globalization has created new circumstances which are transforming state powers. Transformationalists say that although the outcome may be uncertain politics can no longer be the preserve of individual nation states. This is because the social and political contexts are changing and this has implications for the way states operate.[15] The information age as personified by the internet, satellite television and mobile phones means that people can communicate across the globe in almost an instant. Global economic changes can affect many different societies, some benefit from this and some end up worse than they were before. This has led Giddens (1999) to say that we are living in a runaway world that is propelled by forces that are beyond our understanding.[16] Held (1995) has argued that nation states are defined by their borders and the forces of globalization are breaching those borders and threatening the autonomy of individual states. Large corporations such as Microsoft control global markets hold considerable power, such power could end up in the hands of a few individuals and would thus become domination (Allen, 2004). Technology has the power to influence the way we see people and places, for example we may no longer have to visit a bank to pay our bills but can do it online. In this way the physical distances between people become unimportant.[17] Globalisation means that wherever we live our lives may be determined by forces that are outside our control. Theorists who take this position see globalization as a threat to different social and cultural histories and to collective and individual action.[18] Globalists argue that attempts to resist the forces of globalization are doomed to failure, rather we should welcome changes such as new technologies which may help to reduce pollution in the world. Internationalists are skeptical about these changes and argue against the idea that there has been a fundamental shift in social relations. They believe that nation states still have the power to order their own economies and determine their own welfare regimes. They do however point to the inequalities that women and unskilled workers may face due to the forces of big business and global capitalism. Transformationalists agree that to some extent nation states have remained autonomous but they also say that the effects of globalization cannot be dismissed. The effects of globalization are uncertain and uneven, they have produced changes in the way we live and these changes need to be studied. They argue that the forms of globalization are not necessarily irreversible but may call for new structures and forms of governance. Conclusion The late twentieth and early twenty first centuries have brought with them vast changes to life in Britain. In the early nineteen fifties people’s futures seemed secure and this security was bolstered by Government claims that the introduction of the welfare state meant that people would be looked after from the cradle to the grave. History shows that this was an over optimistic claim and the notion of full employment on which the welfare state was based has not been realized. In the last thirty years advances in many different areas have drastically changed life for a large percentage of the population. Religion is no longer so authoritative as it once was, and many children are not growing up in traditional families. In addition to these things Britain is now part of the European Union and contact with people of other nations is becoming a normal part of life. The notion of security that existed in the years following the war were based on idealistic visions of the future an d this may be why we now view life as more uncertain. Bibliography Book 3 v2 Book 4 v.2 Book 5 v.2 Armstrong, K 1999 â€Å"Where has God gone† Newsweek 12th July pp 56-7 Bellah, R 1970 Beyond Belief New York, Harper and Row Berger, P. 1967 The Sacred Canopy New York, Doubleday Giddens, A 1999 Runaway World, The BBC Reith Lectures London, BBC Radio 4, BBC Education Phillips, M.. 1997 â€Å"Death of the Dad† The Observer 2nd November 1997 1 Footnotes [1] Book 3 v.2 [2] Book 3 v2 page 68 [3] Phillips, M.. 1997 â€Å"Death of the Dad† The Observer 2nd November 1997 [4] Book 5 vs p.53 [5] Book 5 v.2 [6] Armstrong, K 1999 â€Å"Where has God gone† Newsweek 12th July pp 56-7 [7] The removal of the public functions of religion to the private sphere [8] Book 5 v2 p.52 [9] Ibid p, 57 [10] Bellah, R 1970 Beyond Belief New York, Harper and Row [11]ibid [12] Berger, P. 1967 The Sacred Canopy New York, Doubleday [13] Book 4 v.2 see page 9 [14] Ibid see page 11 [15] ibid [16] Giddens, A 1999 Runaway World, The BBC Reith Lectures London, BBC Radio 4, BBC Education [17] Ibid page 18 [18] Ibid page 21

Essay on the Deeper Meaning of Pride and Prejudice -- Pride Prejudice

The Deeper Meaning of Pride and Prejudice       While Pride And Prejudice is demonstrably concerned with the subject of love, from Lydia's physical passion for Wickham, through Jane's slightly too patient and undemanding feelings for Bingley, to Elizabeth's final "perfect" match with Darcy, it would be doing the novel and its author a great injustice to assume that it is merely a love story, and has no other purpose or design. The scope of the novel is indeed much wider than a serious interest in who will marry who and who will have the manor that is worth the most money, or even the less shallow subject of women trying, failing, and succeeding at finding their perfect mates on a romantic level. While the investigation of love in its many forms is by no means a completely trivial exercise in and of itself, Pride And Prejudice does not confine itself to that one topic, but while presenting a story that details several love affairs and the variously intelligent, mistaken, and idiotic views of diverse characters towards the subj ect, Jane Austen also gives the reader insight into issues that range from moral questions of pride and lack thereof, to individual and class prejudice, to the expected roles of women eighteenth and nineteenth century society.    "Whether we like it or not, she [Jane Austen] was... a moralist," writes Gilbert Ryle. "...she wrote what and as she wrote partly from a deep interest in some perfectly general, even theoretical questions about human nature and human conduct," (Ryle 106). This concept of Austen as moralist, but "not, however, to say that she was a moralizer," (Ryle 106), is not one of the more common views, especially concerning Pride And Prejudice. The title itself, however, is a direct st... ... examination of social and moral issues, the deft touch of satire and sincerity used in portraying not only Elizabeth, but her time and place, the attitudes toward her and toward people like her, make it a larger work. It may be overall a love story even when taking these into account, if one were to view it as Jane Austen's love affair with the examination of human nature- but on no account can Pride And Prejudice be described as merely a love story; given its scope, it isn't merely anything.    Works Cited Austen, Jane. Pride And Prejudice. London: Penguin, 1972. First published 1813. Ryle, Gilbert. "Jane Austen And The Moralists." Critical Essays On Jane Austen. Ed. B.C. Southam. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968. Wright, Andrew H. "Feeling and Complexity in Pride and Prejudice." Ed. Donald Gray. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966. 410-420.

Comare and Contrast Living in the Country and in the City Essay

Everyone has the different lifestyle. City lifestyle and country lifestyle are two different types of livings. There are some most different thing between living in the country and in the city are the environment, job opportunity, cost of living, and social life. The environment in the countryside and the city is very different. There are less pollution, fewer cars, and fewer factories in the countryside. Moreover, there are many trees while there are many buildings in the city. These entire make the environment is better, fresh, and more natural. In the city filled with cares and factories which are the important causes of noise and environmental pollution. People would prefer to live in the countryside far away from the noisy and dirty city. There are more the job opportunities in the city. The job market in the countryside is smaller than in the city. People in the country have their farms or field, and stores that they can make a living, so the jobs in the country are more relax than in the city. However, most people move to the city to find a job because it’s easier. People in the city are owner of a big company or work mostly in the companies. In the city, most of work requires a high class and people almost work with technology such as computer, printer, phone all day in the building. City is a gathering place of a large number of different professions. Industrialists, small business owners, job holders, people related to transportation like taxi drivers and rickshaw pullers, doctors, professors, garments workers and many other are found in a city. Working in the city make more money than in the country, but on the other hand, people get more stressed than working in the country. Therefore, the city life has more job opportunities but some people like living in country. The cost of living in the city is higher than the country. The goods are more expensive. In the country, most people have the sufficient economy. They can plant and breed animals so they have the cost of living that is lower and the goods are cheaper. The country life is simple and comfortable. The inhabitants of countryside are always bound by a sense of community, but they also suffer from being cut off from the exciting outside world. They have the advantage of knowing that there is someone to turn to when they need help and some ideal places to go when they need to be alone. The life is simple but cozy enough. But the inconvenient transportation and underdevelopment of economy deprive villagers the possibility of going to a new show or a latest movie, and make shopping a major problem. City life may breed a scaring feeling of isolation but it can also focus people’s attention. Living in the building, all people can see from the window is sky and the concrete building jungle. Gradually they tend to hide their feelings and do not even say hello to the neighbors or they too busy to care about people around; even though, they do not have time with their family. However, compared to the countryside, the city is a center of fashion and events, and an ocean of opportuni ties and material prosperity. Besides, the life in the city does not come to an end at ten at night like it does in the countryside. These reasons above shown very clearly. The country lifestyle is much better, simpler, and more relaxing than the city lifestyle. In the country, people make less and use less, but they enjoy their life with their family, have a peace life without competitive, noise, busy, crowded, and stressful.

Importance of Sex Education - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 962 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/09/19 Category Education Essay Type Argumentative essay Tags: Development Essay Gender Roles Essay Sex Education Essay Did you like this example? It may be the most important talk you or the school will ever have with your children. The talk about sex which is recommended at about age eight. (Quillen 19) Some say this is too young but a preemptive strike can give your children a healthy, positive, respectful view of human intimacy. This will help with all the garbage that will come from the media and peer groups. Such as all the commercials that try to sell sex, the movies and music videos. But no matter what, all parents need help with this subject. This is where sex education comes in handy. Sex education usually occurs during the middle school grades. In a way, it’s a magical time and certainly an opportunistic time for parents. Middle- aged kids are usually extremely curious and interested. Further, they are conceptual enough to understand most of what is explained to them. They are not yet emotionally or hormonally preoccupied with sex, so they are able to look at it objectively. Sex education in public schools has been a controversial issue in the United States for over a decade. With all the sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy crisis growing, sex education is needed. Some of the American public believes that sex education should not be taught at school. Sex education should go on at home with parents. When it’s taught at school they’re not putting emphasis on abstinence and encouraging children to have sex. Our American culture is very sexually orientated. (George 2) Sex can be seen all over the media. Sex oozes from every aspect of our culture and there’s no kid that can avoid it. After being faced with sex on an everyday basis, the independent teens of today will make their own decisions on whether or not to have sex. The important thing is to make sure that they know all aspects of it. Sex education gives young people an understanding of positive sexuality. It also provides health information and skills on decision making(George). Succes sful sex education programs have several great points. The great points include exercises to encourage their moral values, learn to talk with one another, and taught how to negotiate while in sexual situations. (Ramos 2) Subjects include sexual development, reproduction, relationships, affection, intimacy, body image, and gender roles. These are important issues that young people deal with everyday. It is important to share with students that you don’t have to feel pressured into sex. Sex education specifically teaches students strategies to deal with these issues. The majority of our nation favors sex education in public schools. There are some surveys that show eighty-nine percent of citizens support it. The other eleven percent believes that sex education prompts young people to have sex. This reasoning is based on nothing. There is no evidence that proves sex education causes any negative behavior (Ramos 7). Since 1981, the year that HIV was an epidemic, adolescents have accounted for only 20 percent of new infections(Quillen 6). HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. It’s a blood virus that is transmitted when a person comes into contact with infected body fluid. This includes unprotected sex. Condoms made of latex are one way to protect against contracting the virus if the person chooses to have sex. This is some of the information that sex education provides young people with. This information is vital. Only a small amount of teens infected with HIV actually know they have it. If teens take risks of having unprotected sex with their partner because they know they are sure â€Å"their partner† doesn’t have the virus, they are putting themselves at risk. This could cause the HIV crisis to grow. Sex education teaches young people that having unprotected is risky sex and has possible consequences. These are things that as parents don’t really get addressed until it’s too late. The people who donâ€⠄¢t believe in sex education in school say that it does not enhance life. How can that be so when it could help save lives! There are a lot of young people confused about what really causes HIV. Most commonly, young people think that HIV is a homosexual disease or an IV drug user’s disease (Quillen 18). Sex education could also inform students that everyone can be infected. Teen pregnancy is a problem in the U. S. A brief news bulletin from NBC showed that there are about 1. 2 million teens that get pregnant every year (Jayson 1). This could be caused by the lack of the teen’s knowledge. Most of these teens were having unprotected sex the first time they participated in intercourse. Sex education can help reduce teen pregnancy by encouraging sexual responsibility. The risk of STDs and teen pregnancy is an irreversible problem. The key is preventing it. This is a very important time for your children. The world is changing; it’s more dangerous now than ever . The stakes are higher now; they have more to lose and more to gain. There is more to worry about, more to protect from, and more need for solid, lasting family commitments. This can and will be instilled in your children through sex education. Parents are responsible for sharing and informing teens of sex education. A lot of parents are not comfortable doing so. That’s why they offer the sex education class. This class does not zero us out from participating, because we are left with monitoring our teens. You as parents can convey values and attitudes that may discourage sex. Parents can emphasize the importance of school and discourage dating because it interferes with academic success. Along with parental discussion and sex education the point will get across to our teens. Is it your time to have a talk with your child? Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Importance of Sex Education" essay for you Create order