Was The Bosnian War An Ethnic Conflict Politics Essay

Was The Bosnian War An Ethnic Conflict Politics Essay The process by which one perceives a given situation can be misleading, especially when the information being relayed is moulded in a particular format- to the liking of the transmitter. World views of the war that took place in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 leave most to conclude that the tension was a classic case of ethnic conflict. This essay will explore the multidimensionality of the conflict in hopes of shedding light on other areas of stress that might have contributed to the forming or outbreak of the war by assessing the general discord in terms of measures set in place by theories of ethnic conflict. After offering definitions of some key terms that will be used in this writing, the essay will provide a brief history of the conflict, single out ethnic and identity entrepreneurs, rediscover roots of any existing particularity or stressors (including polarisation and pillarisation in the conflict), present theories of ethnic conflict, and show a detailed analysis through revi ew of literature before concluding. An analysis of the diverse faà §ades in this conflict will serve as a basis for comparison for points of interest, actors or parties involved, and will highlight how these factors influenced the surge of events that took place. Can the conflict in Bosnia be considered solely an ethnic conflict? This paper will endeavour to challenge the status of this war, as purely ethnic, by showing that there exist dimensions of this conflict which render it impossible to disavow the presence of convincing supporting evidence regarding the role of ethnicity and ethnic diversity as a cause for civil war. Definitions It is important to point out that because of the qualifying large number of loss of life and the nature in which that loss took place in this conflict, it can and will be termed as a war and genocide. For the purposes of this essay, while it is not always the case that ethnic groups share exclusive languages or affiliations, ethnicity, will refer to the existence of a unique set of racial, historical, linguistic, religious, cultural and/or ancestral traits, all shared specifically by a given group of individuals. National and ethnic identity, touch on the borders of a single concept, identity; it would seem fitting to relate them in terms of the conflict to be mentioned, as they both play a part in its history. Walker Connor defines this type of identity as being the self view of ones group, rather than the tangible characteristics, that is of essence in determining the existence or non-existence of ones nation (Qtd in Davis, 1999), while the presence of this type of identity is not always stable or fixed, as ethnicity is dynamic (Feron, Introduction to Concepts of Conflict, War Violence 2009). This essay will highlight four groups involved in this conflict: the Serbs (mainly Orthodox group), the Bosniaks (Muslim group), the Croats (mainly Catholic group), and potential causative foreign actors involved directly or indirectly in this conflict through participation or interest. A key term in this essay, prejudice, is defined by Herbert Blumer as a protective device. It functions however short-sightedly to preserve the integrity and position of the dominant group (Qtd in Kunovich and Hodson, 2002). Lastly, the term ethnic conflict, will indicate a situation of conflict, a clashing of goals among two or more parties or ethnic groups, sometimes depicting ancient hatreds, discrimination or victimisation through the use of media outlets and/or historical account, the possible involvement of ethnic or identity entrepreneurs whose contribution directly or indirectly l eads to a primary form of stress placed on any of the given parties or ethnic groups, differentiating the group in a way which might lead to the birth of a sense of external threat and resulting in a need to preserve the identity itself (Feron, Ethnicity Conflict 2009). History The Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) has had a multi-cultural and was always made up of multi-ethnic countries, while always falling under new rule or administration- each guided by different ideologies. This foundation makes for a breeding ground of multiplicity, resentment, gains and losses, and most of all change ever-present. As communism lost is hold on FRY, new, nationalist and separatist ideologies began to grow popular among the territories. Slobodan MiloÃ…Â ¡eviĆ¡ was placed into office in 1989, and quickly amended the Serbia constitution to allow for influence in Kosovo and Vojvodina (Region currently in the North of Serbia, which used to pertain to Hungary), which gave Serbia access to more votes on the federal level of Yugoslavias government. Montenegros vote then meant an additional vote for Serbia, leaving Serbia as the most powerful hand in the government (Ron 2000). Bosnia was considered an exotic country among European nations, due to its inhabitants and rich melange of cultures. Bosnia was a cosmopolitan country where more than a quarter of marriages cut through cultural divides (Lifschultz and Ali 1994). As the new nationalist and separatist mentalities span over the territories of FRY, mainly in Croatia and Serbia, things began to become clear that change was in the near future. After attempts to divide up Bosnia, into administrative and ethnic districts, proved semi-successful, but not without outbreaks for justice, it seemed inevitable that the moment had come for independence. Bosnia was already divided into the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Republika Srpska, and around the same time, both Slovenia and Croatia gaining independence from FRY. The then unseen yet not unthought-of situation was more evident day by day; if Slovenia and Croatia were to secede from Yugoslavia, Bosnia would quite literally be at the mercy of the Milosevic regime. Problems would then be expected from all sides of Bosnia, not to mention the l arger evil, as seen by Bosnians in that moment- Greater Serbia. Due to the separation of Croatia and Slovenia, even after thoughts to pursue a looser Yugoslavia Serbia would begin feeling its foundation and republic, quickly falling out beneath it, this only caused political leaders to consider preemptive action, in the form of attack. The republic became more unstable than ever when the government in Bosnia made it clear that when Slovenia and Croatia sought independence from FRY, that it would no doubt be forced to seek the same liberty, and Bosnia and Herzegovina began the referendum for independence alike. On March 5, 1992, parliament declared independence for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which shook the throne on which FRYs government had been founded, (Ron 2000). It is this timeline of events that outlines the situation in which Bosnia found itself under attack- both from the outside and the inside, including mass rape, killings, torture, oppression and finally the loss of approxim ately 200.000 lives. It is the identification of these sides which will prove interesting in testing theories of ethnic conflict on the conflict in Bosnia. Ethnic Identity Entrepreneurs In any given conflict there is sure to exist those who somehow find a way to use an existing fear or hate, to pressure or persuade others to feel endangered or moved to act. Franjo TuÄ‘man, of Croatia, and Slobodan MiloÃ…Â ¡eviĆ¡, of Serbia, entered into discussions which are known as the KaraÄ‘orÄ‘evo Agreement, which did just that by claiming rights to parts of Bosnia based on ethnic and demographic make-up (Ron 2000). As mentioned in the history (prior to the outbreak of this conflict) section of this essay, Croatia and Serbia took it upon themselves to divide up Bosnia- favouring ethnic enclaves and creating new republics for which, of course, new influences and/or votes could be easily manipulated, in the great scheme of gaining more and more land and authority. Populations were made to feel that their ethnic identity was externally threatened, and that there was somehow a need to protect it at any cost- first by separation and later t hrough physical battle. Other leaders, nations, entities, had made their views clear, that they would not interfere in this conflict and that they would also not stand for Bosnia to defend itself, without the forced attempt to sway Bosnia toward surrendering and ending up a helpless pawn in the international system, left to be carved or moulded- all the while losing its uniqueness (Kunovich and Hodson 2002). The issue with intervening in this matter, for the United States, and General Colin Powell, in 1992, was the question of deploying ground troops into Bosnia, something that would have held a cost of tens of billions of dollars. That particular point of debate took the panels down another avenue of discussion and of course complicated the situation of helping Bosnia (Lifschultz and Ali 1994). Later, the United States, the European community, and the United Nations, entered into a political huddle in what seemed to last forever. The process took the form of a remarkable policy deb ate, a discourse in search of rationales, while, in Diego Arrias apt phrase, slow-motion genocide was systematically carried out in Bosnia (Lifschultz and Ali 1994). The Serbs and the Croats had taken action to attempt to pull out of the game with more land, more authority and less opposition, but these actions do not directly target an ethnicity, and do not seem to be completely or even mainly ethnically based tactical decisions. After such a disaster, it was evident that life and surroundings echoed the erasing of certain ethnic qualities, but there was always an ulterior motive present. Bosnia as it had existed for six centuries had to be destroyed; the fabric which wove the lives of its many peoples together torn beyond repair; the loyalty of its indigenous Serb and Croat communities to a multi-ethnic Bosnian nation subverted; its native Muslim population terrorised. The objective was to cleanse Bosnia not only of the Muslims but also of the unique and dangerous cosmopolitanism of its cities which clearly had no place in the new pure nation-states emerging from the ruins of Yugoslavia. A cleansed Bosnia could then be carved up and annexed to the national states of Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia (Lifschultz and Ali 1994). These strategies to place pressures on ethnic grounds, as to influence the crowds, came about from already existing tensions in the communities that later witnessed the true results of what they had been convinced to do, all the while perhaps still not aware of the fact that they were being utilised, that their identity was being used as an instrument to gain their numbers, their voices and their force. Particularity Prejudice Genocide of this size could not have taken place without mass involvement of the common man and abuse of already established institutes/agencies, such as the existing military forces and of course the creation of new forces for the purposes of annihilating anyone that stood in their way. All prior events including agreements and discussions, only prepared the grounds for even worse events to come. Many contemporary theories of ethnic and racial prejudice, ethnic political mobilization, and ethnic conflict emphasize structural conditions that provide a context within which attitudes and behavior toward out-groups develop (Kunovich and Hodson 2002). In this way, it is a bit easier to follow the outcome of the events, and to understand how in the midst of such chaotic circumstances, so many windows to malice are opened. The events that followed ran rampant as pretexts of hatred, diversity and fear guided the masses to direct their uncertainties and reactions to those uncertainties towar d all things that seemed to represent the historically recognised Bosnia that Europe knew. Similar conflicts to the Bosnian War arose within the same time, such as the Rwanda genocide, which provide clear examples of particularity. Rwanda was a nation whose marriage statistics, just as pre-conflict Bosnia, showed a harmonious and culturally accepting coexistence. Upon the arrival of the Belgians to Rwanda, local authority was given in exchange for Tutsi collaboration, overturning many previously governed Hutu districts (Sadowski 1998). These types of interactions promote jealousy and fear in environments where such fears had never been so prevalently manifested. Foreign intervention did not come first in the physical form, but in the form of distant involvement, influencing authority throughout ethnic enclaves in Bosnia, although leaving a like scar, to that of the Rwandan example, in the midst of the conflict. Agreements were reached, regarding or involving these particular enclaves by foreign leaders from afar, who attempted to encourage the distribution of administrativ e authority ethnically, as to prevent the nation from sliding into war. This division of Bosnia used the previously existing, or seemingly clear ethnic population divisions that existed in Bosnia in areas where notable enclaves existed, which intended to label administratively as: Bosniak, Serb or Croat. Another point of this doing was to decentralise the Bosnian government by giving ethnic groups a sense of authority in their own land. This was done by assigning districts as pertaining to one ethnic group of another, even though random review showed that certain villages could have been up to 70% Bosniak and 30% Serb and yet still designated as a village or district administrated by Serbs or municipally adopted under Republika Srpska- an example of this type of agreement is the Lisbon agreement, which was drawn up by Lord Carrington and Ambassador of Portugal, Jose Cutileiro (Ron 2000). The agreement was signed on March 18, 1992, by the three leaders of the ethnic groups, although Izbetgovic, leader of the Bosniaks, after meeting with the U.S. Ambassador, Warren Zimmerman, quickly withdrew his signature only ten days after having signed it. It is said that Izbetgovics decision to withraw his signature and renounce the agreement was influenced by the United States offer to finally intervene, viewed that he did so immediately after leaving the U.S. embassy on March 28, 1992 (Ron 2000). Even today, Bosnians ask themselves questions as to the interests behind such decisions, and wonder how their ethnicity was able to be so very discretely instrumentalised in the scheme of something that was obviously very multifaceted. One of the most targeted and still the most visibly affected aspects of that once cosmopolitan Bosnia that one recognised, are the elements of diversity that were once revered as the nations richest social resource- its cultural quality, eccentric and obvious traces of history demonstrated throughout the cities of all Bosnia Herzegovina. The countrys architecture, its buildings, bridges, monuments built by the Ottomans were the most visible, most immediately tangible signs of Bosnias otherness. These became targets of relentless artillery bombardment or straightforward demolition. As if the intent was to destroy all recorded history, libraries housing rare books and priceless manuscripts were deliberately destroyed. Hundreds of delicately designed mosques, large and small, that had stood for centuries unharmed, untouched, disappeared overnight (Lifschultz and Ali 1994). It is in this way that any and all unlikely seeming traits of Bosnia were the targets of particularity in the atro cities that took place throughout the cleansing of Bosnia Herzegovina. The particularities and stressors that factored into this conflict, were perhaps greatly influencing reasons for the masses to be shift into motion but they somehow do not come across as a great enough cause given the history prior to this conflict and the strategically devised agreements that led to the need for independence- much less the outbreaks of violence that followed. Theories of Ethnic Conflict When given a vast amount of information about a conflict, you use a sphere by which you measure the elements and the gravity, logic or even reality of the events occurred. As mentioned before the tool by which we are measuring up the events of the Bosnian Conflict, are theories of ethnic conflict. These theories provide limits and start points for possible patterns to describe a conflict of this genre and are ever growing in that they descend from fruitful tests of hypotheses that have branched from detailed research. There are two sides or clusters, if you will that theories of ethnic conflict provide us with, for views on analysis of this type of conflict: the primordialist and the instrumentalist take on things. The primordialist stance rests on explicitly attributing the cause for the events that took place as a history of ancient hatreds and prejudice. Instrumentalists negate that the direct cause of these types of conflicts could be a clear-cut question of primordial abhorrence (Blimes 2006). These paths help refine a thin line of sight for analysing this type of affair, facts and deeds fight myth and hearsay- in fact, instrumentalist refuse to accept that this could be the direct cause of antipathies. Instrumentalists point out that in many instances, ethnic groups with a history of animosity have managed to live in peace and therefore reject the ancient hatreds argument. After all, interethnic cooperation is the norm rather than the aberration between ethnic groups. Instrumentalists argue that ethnicity is merely a tool that an individual or group uses to achieve an end (Blimes 2006). Scholars have begun combining theories of ethnic conflicts with theories of civil war, in an attempt to view if either incites a greater probability in the other. The analysis proves interesting although no concrete results were extracted through any empirically tested models. Through the mentioned research, there were no greatly solidified demonstrations that ethnic fract ionalisation contributed directly to the onsite of civil war. Other scholars, not related to that particular study, conclude similarly that the link between ethnicity and civil war are relatively evident but, as of now, in no finitely tested way conclusive. The Bosnian war arose out of a familiar set of circumstances: the collapse of totalitarian control of territory producing a political void that, in turn, exposes a deep-rooted rivalry between ethnic groups leading to a struggle for control of territory ending in an attempt at violent resolution. Central to the process are the notoriously ambiguous concepts of ethnicity and nationalism (Doyon and Slack 2001). While opinions may differ, much research shares a relatively similar conclusion in that the roles of ethnicity and civil war are greatly influencing factors in terms of general dispute, and it is through the evaluation of analysis in these two theories that this essay has attempted to clarify the labelling of the conflict in Bosnia in the 1990s. Analysis Ethnicity is definitely a recurring theme in this conflict, and very rightfully so. Some academics, such as Jovanka Stojsavljevic, would say that the war in the Former Yugoslavian Republic was merely an opportunity- that old guard communists took advantage of a vulnerable moment in FRYs history to use the ideology of nationalism as their own personal ticket to increased power (1995). The important fact to remember when dealing with this type of immediate reaction, is to remember that with such a great deal of input to process, and more than enough on both sides of the scale (both supporting and negating), there is not one single response and when there is perhaps a combined answer, even that is difficult to clearly devise into a black or white response. The Bosnian war arose out of a familiar set of circumstances: the collapse of totalitarian control of territory producing a political void that, in turn, exposes a deep-rooted rivalry between ethnic groups leading to a struggle for co ntrol of territory ending in an attempt at violent resolution. Central to the process are the notoriously ambiguous concepts of ethnicity and nationalism (Doyon and Slack 2001). This conflict demonstrates a great deal of multidimensionality and it is clear that such a trait must be taken into consideration when attempting to trace a fault or pin blame. Stojsavljevics conclusion of these events gets directly to the point and immediately cancels out ethnicity as a cause for the war. The one thing it does not do is seek to locate the role of ethnicity in the controversy or to quantify ethnicity as an influence. To do so, it is important to realise the situation that Bosnia Herzegovina was in at the time. With the decentralization of political power following Titos death and trends toward democratization within republics, political leaders on all sides mobilized ethnic enclaves for political gain. Once small-scale conflicts began to develop in these ethnic enclaves, fear spread rapidly , and the mobilization of individuals in more tolerant regions became possible. Thus, regional differences in ethnic prejudice provided a foundation for the emergence and spread of ethnic conflict (Kunovich and Hodson 2002). Misdistribution of power, bad leadership, a lack of checks and balances system and utter greed brought upon by fears for loss of fortune, authority, as well as future livelihood became deciding factors and the people who were not among the few in power, were significant liabilities that needed to be made to cooperate quickly. The decision in Bosnia and Herzegovina to seek independence was one that Serbian leaders anticipated and feared. It is that fear that incited a chain reaction of domestic and international obstacles to aid that would later end in ethnic cleansing, genocide and an immense infraction on human rights. The length, in time, that these obstacles stalled the international community from intervening, would serve as the lifeline for the atrocities that took place. The more divided the nation became; the easier it became to instrumentalise historical accounts and diversity as weapons to fan the flames of fear. Many claim that the simple fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina was so ethnically fractionalised directly affected the probability for the onset of conflict and that it made for a likely place for civil war. Scholars, such as Blimes, would respond that empirical assessment of any such hypothesis, that the very existence of ethnic fractionalisation could directly, much less greatly affect the inception of civil war has not turned out any unassailable conclusions (2006). To attribute ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass violence to ethnic fractionalisation, or even ethnicity alone, would mean that everything that took place from the late 1980s to 1995 to build up to this conflict somehow all stems from ancient hatreds or that sooner or later all nations where ethnic fractionalisation exists will have a similar fate. This way of thinking suits a primordialist view in the sphere of theories of ethnic conflict. Blimes goes into detail by mentioning that primordialists consider ancient hatreds to be the direct root of these ethnic issues, while instrumentalists view that an explanation or blame on ancient hatreds quite commonly oversimplifies conflicts that are really much deeper than can be simply explained by timeless rancour (2006). The worst genocides of modem times have not been targeted along primarily ethnic lines. Rather, the genocides within Afghanistan, Cambodia, C hina, the Soviet Union, and even, to a great extent, Indonesia and Uganda, have focused on liquidating political dissidents: to employ the emerging vocabulary, they were politicides rather than ethnicides. Indeed, the largest genocides of this century were clearly ideologically driven politicides (Sadowski 1998). This and many similar conflicts are simply much too multifaceted to ascribe all responsibility to one factor or to omit the existence of other very evident agents. Conclusion As one refines the scope of analysis a bit, it becomes more and more apparent that in order to strongly support whether or not this conflict can be looked at solely as an ethnic conflict, indeed lies in isolating and identifying the function of ethnicity and/or ethnic diversity as factors. Of the two clusters mentioned in theories of ethnic conflict, it seems an instrumentalist view is more efficient in meticulously combing through this tumultuous history with a fine toothed comb. This does not indicate that ancient hatreds did not or do not exist or that a primordialist viewpoint is completely erroneous- only that it does not convincingly represent the foundation of motive behind years of strategically planned moves that in turn yielded even more power and riches to those making the decisions (which were not those of the targeted ethnic groups). Ethnicity and ethnic diversity do not compellingly embody a basis for ethnic cleansing, genocide or mass violence. Rather, ethnic diversity serves as natural fault lines on which a society, subjected to other variables that have a direct influence on the likelihood of civil war onset, can fracture or act as a solution to collective action problems that might otherwise prevent a cohesive rebellion from forming (Blimes 2006). While it is true that ethnicity and ethnic diversity are both pervasive in the sphere of this conflict, this essay finds that the Bosnian Conflict cannot justly be labelled and viewed solely as an ethnic conflict.

Liberal Arts Study

William Cronon states in his article entitled â€Å"only connect†¦Ã¢â‚¬  the goals of liberal education that liberal education is founded on the virtues of aspiration towards the development and growth of human potential for the services of human freedom. This simply means to say that liberal education is a way by which a human being is released and brought to a place where he or she can fulfill their utmost potential.Liberal education and the study of liberal arts, for that matter, is a way of life and not simply a form of education adapted by institutions. It involves passion and girth of knowledge. It accounts for a broad understanding of various kinds of knowledge that is needed for the holistic development of an individual. In today’s society, however, is the study of liberal arts truly needed? What is the importance of studying liberal arts?One of the most important aspects of liberal arts is in the fact that it encompasses the humanities. The study of liberal art s then encourages the study of the humanities. Why is this important? What makes the humanities essential in the progress of humanity, in the continuation of an individual’s daily life?There are many skeptics, especially in this age of unending quests for money and luxury, who believe that the study of the liberal arts, in general, and of the humanities, in particular, is only for those who have time on their hands; only for those who have no plans in contributing to the fast-paced development occurring all over the world today. However, this thinking is wrong and misled in many ways. Before one can understand this, however, one must first be able to understand what the humanities are.According to A.S.P. Woodhouse in his article The Nature of Humanities, humanities is a field of study that reverts the attention or the quest for knowledge on man. It puts the focus of attention on the life of man. Other definitions of humanities state that â€Å"The essence of the humanities i s a spirit or an attitude toward humanity.† (The Humanities in American Life, 3) The humanities, then, is exactly what its name implies, the study of humans, of human life, of human way of life.However, this is very broad. If the scope of the humanities is humanity, this would indicate a near impossibility in studying it in its totality. This is why the development of the study of humanities has involved the sorting of the discipline into different interrelated fields. These include, but are not limited to, literature, art history, music history, cultural history, philosophy, dance, theater, arts, and film. All the disciplines related to humanities and through which it is studied are all centered on human values, beliefs, emotions and also the way these aspects are portrayed through the creativity of humans. (Witt, Brown, Dunbar, Tirro, and Witt, xxvi)It is clear from this description that the humanities are different on many levels from fields of knowledge such as the natural sciences. The sciences include the observation of the world we exist in. It entails creating assumptions, collecting data, and trying to create theories and laws to explain the behavior of the data collected. The humanities, the arts, on the other hand, begin with the very things that are considered irrelevant in science. It starts with the intangible things that are formulated by the creativity and imagination of a human being. The humanities begins with the world man created for himself and only then progresses to the world that is seen with the physical eye.(Frye, 23)Even from this basic explanation of the difference between humanities and science, one can see that there is no point of comparison. Both fields of knowledge are concerned with different aspects of reality. Even with this basic truth, the importance of studying the liberal arts, of studying humanities is seen. As much as there is a need to study science and to explore the world in the way that scientists wish to app roach it, there is also a need to study the liberal arts and humanities and the opposite way by which humanists approach the world. It is, quite possibly, through the intersection of the approaches of both bodies of knowledge that true reality can be understood.However, there is another reason for studying the liberal arts and the humanities. It has been studied by scientists that the human brain is cleft into two. These two hemispheres are in charge of two different aspects of human behavior. The left hemisphere is said to be important for sequences, literalness, and analysis. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, deals with context, emotional expression and synthesis. The left brain has been commonly related to the sciences while the right brain has been related to the humanities.Daniel Pink in his article Revenge of the Right Brain stresses the importance of developing the right brain. He indicates that the world is in overdrive to stick to the sciences, to emphasize the devel opment of the left brain. Computer savvy individuals are held at high esteem. Mathematicians are considered to be of top caliber in the human race. However, he points out that the future is not geared towards a simple understanding of numbers and figures. He emphasizes the need to go right, to develop the capabilities of the right brain. Individuals with the ability to create, to synthesize technology with the development of humanity, and to innovate new ways of thinking are needed.There is, therefore, a need to stretch out further than we have dared to go. The success and the development of mankind is not just in understanding the world he or she lives in but also in being able to interact with it creatively. Being a liberally educated person, says William Cronon in Only Connect, means being able to connect with the world and to interact with it in new and creative ways.This brings one to understand that, indeed, the humanities and the sciences are not separate or battling fields. In fact, the two are interrelated and should be used together for the betterment of society. In fact, without the general knowledge of all, both are indeed already converging in areas such as biomedical research, application of microprocessing and computer technologies, conduct of government, arms control, and utilization of natural resources.These are only a few of the many fields where both humanities and science are needed because of their very nature as fields with social and ethical aspects. (The Humanities in American Life, 6) It is thus clear that as much as society today emphasizes the need to develop the study of the natural sciences, it should also encourage the continuation and the development of the study of the different liberal arts and humanities.Although it is clear that there is a need to interrelate the two bodies of knowledge, the need to study the liberal arts and humanities is not simply based on the fact that it contributes to the developments of science. Scien ce is said to be a study engaged in the constant gathering of information. It involves the steady accumulation of data about the world in which man moves and grows.The liberal arts and humanities on the other hand are unorthodox with regards to the view of education as an addition of knowledge one on top of the other. This is because the liberal arts and humanities are concerned with creation. They involve processes of visualizing the future, of imagining the ideal, of creating in the mind the concept of a society and world to be hoped for. The humanities involve the study and the understanding of the culture and the cultural contexts of mankind. (Witt, Brown, Dunbar, Tirro, and Witt, xxvi) It puts things in perspective because, as the initial definition stated, it focuses on the human life.The humanities, then, involves the aspects of life and reality that are not covered by science. These are just as important, and perhaps at times more important, than the fields science handles. This is evidenced by the fact that both fields of knowledge are interrelated. This is evidence by the fact that both approach the study of life from opposite sides. This is what renders the study of humanities and liberal arts important.A.S.P. Woodhouse in his The Nature of Humanities stated,If the humanities are indeed normative, if they mold the mind and sensibility of the student and bring an accession of wisdom, it is by virtue of their subject matter, of the ideas which they present or evoke and the experiences to which they give him entry; and these ideas and experiences achieve their full effect only as they are examined critically, evaluate, and by the student made his own.This shows that the study of the liberal arts and the humanities is essential not only in the fact that its main subject of study is important. An education in the liberal arts teaches an individual to think outside the box. It teaches him or her to become a critical thinker. The world is no longer simply a place of dates, names, theories, and laws. It becomes a place of endless questions and unlimited answers; answers that can be wrong, right, or somewhere in between. The human being becomes someone with the capacity to reject or accept the validity of everything occurring around him. More importantly, man becomes someone with the capacity to create, change, and redefine the world in which he or she lives. The liberal arts and humanities empowers man and makes him the center of his world. It also humbles man, placing him in a world that continues to provoke thought, emotion, and exploration.Works CitedCommission on the Humanities. The Humanities in American Life: Report of the Commission on Humanities. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1980.Cronon, William. Only connect†¦the goals of liberal education. The American Scholar, 67(1998)Frye, Northrop. The Educated Imaginaion. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press. 1974Pink, Daniel H. Revenge of the right brain. Wir ed Magazine, 13(2005) Retrieved 29 March 2008 from Witt, Brown, Dunbar, Tirro, and Witt. The Humanities. 7th ed. Jean Woy. Berkeley, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 2005.Woodhouse, A.S.P. The nature of humanities. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1989.

Relationships and Human Behavior Perspectives Essay

Reviewing human behaviors from different perspectives, including the five main perspectives of biological, learning, social and cultural, cognitive, and psychodynamic influences, can sometimes shed light on why humans act the way they do. Using these perspectives to review how relationships begin, develop, and are maintained can provide a deeper understanding and context of this phenomenon. Framing love relationships with these different perspectives also helps to show how the perspectives themselves differ or are similar in relation to how they consider relationships as being formed and maintained. The biological perspective contends that innate causes drive human behavior. Specifically, this perspective states that the actions of the nervous system and genetic heredity lead to different types of behavior (McLeod, 2007). From this perspective, hormonal reactions and feelings of reinforcement in the brain that are associated with a particular individual lead people to start relationships (McLeod, 2007). Additionally, the relationship is maintained because humans have an innate desire to reproduce and pass their own genetic material on to their offspring, and in order to drive this urge, the brain continues to trigger feelings of pleasure and hormonal releases to strengthen the association between a given person and good feelings (McLeod, 2007). This perspective is somewhat unique from the other ones in how it views relationships, because it claims that advanced cognitive processes are not even necessary for a relationship to last; instead, only biochemical processes are required . The next type of perspective, the learning perspective, claims that learning through association leads to specific behaviors, and that individuals will generally learn to enact behaviors that they see are rewarded (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). From this perspective, humans form relationships because they see other relationships, such as those of their parents, externally rewarded, and come to associate the notion of â€Å"love† with reward. The rewards that one receives from a relationship, such as attention, compassion, or even financial security, are associated with â€Å"love† over time, which strengthens the relationship and makes people more likely to  maintain a relationship after they have been involved in it for some time (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). Like the biological perspective, the learning perspective deems relationship behavior as something beyond humans’ conscious control and does not necessarily require conscious thought, although the learning perspective does not claim to know the internal processes that drive it, and it does require that humans have at least the ability to learn in order for them to be involved in relationships (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). Social and cultural perspectives claim that humans are ingrained with what constitutes â€Å"right† behavior through socialization. Because people grow up, in many cases, in households with married parents, or at least where the parents date other individuals, children learn early on that relationships are not only acceptable, but actually desirable (McLeod, 2007). This notion is further reinforced through messages given to the child through the media, their friends and other family members, and most people they come in contact with, all of whom deem â€Å"love† to be one of the highest goals a person can achieve. Individuals therefore seek out relationships in their teen years because they have been told that it is a positive objective to strive toward, and they are further reinforced in their views by their partner and others who know them after dating or getting married, which leads the person to continue their relationship (McLeod, 2007). This perspective is unlike the learning and biological perspectives in that it does not rely on reflexes or innate drives, but instead requires complex thought, and, moreover, socialization; a person living outside of society would likely have no desire to be in a relationship, according to this perspective. The cognitive perspective claims that human thought is what drives all behavior. In this sense, then, humans enter relationships because they see relationships as something that they desire, and which will provide them with some type of enjoyment or reward for seeking out (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). If they find that they do receive some type of benefit from dating a person, they will make the decision to develop the relationship further, learning more about the person and perhaps even getting married, if they believe that they are sufficiently compatible with the other person for the  relationship to last and continue to be rewarding (Mikkelson & Pauley, 2013). This perspective, like the social and cultural perspective, is very reliant on human thought as a driver of relationships, but the cognitive perspective deems relationships an individual choice rather than a result of societal pressure. Lastly, the psychodynamic perspective contends that behavior is due to interactions between the conscious and the subconscious mind. A relationship might begin because a member of the opposite sex might remind an individual of the loving relationship they had with their parents, but in order to sublimate the inappropriate desire for one’s parents, the individual seeks out a relationship with a person outside of their family. The relationship is maintained because it provides the person with ego fulfillment (McLeod, 2007). Like the cognitive and social perspectives, the psychodynamic perspective describes relationships in terms of human thought and cognitive activity, but unlike those other perspectives, the psychodynamic outlook believes that humans are essentially bound to enter into relationships, because it ascribes the behavior to innate drives. In this sense, the psychodynamic perspective is somewhat like the biological perspective. All of these different perspectives, then, can provide different types of insight into human relationships. References McLeod, S. (2007). Psychology Perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/ Mikkelson, A. C., & Pauley, P. M. (2013). Maximizing Relationship Possibilities: Relational Maximization in Romantic Relationships. Journal Of Social Psychology, 153(4), 467-485. doi:10.1080/00224545.2013.767776

Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage - 939 Words

The article I choose was called Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Is a Nationwide Right. The Supreme Court on Friday ruled same-sex couples across the nation have a protected right to wed, a milestone choice that scrapes away state bans on gay unions and tops a fast American change on the importance of marriage (Bravin, 2015). The 5-4 choice composed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, his fourth real gay rights, administering more than two decades, struck down limitations in power in 13 states and means each of the 50 states must perceive same-sex unions. The court was considering a test to laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that restricted marriage to inverse sex couples. The decision for the situation, Obergefell v. Hodges, takes after a fast move in legitimate and societal acknowledgment of same-sex marriage over the previous decade and reflects all the more by and large how gay rights throughout an area have moved to the forefront from the edges of a national level headed dis cussion over the importance of balance. Gay rights supporters cheered Friday s decision, both before the Supreme Court and in unrehearsed festivals across the nation. Authorities in states with bans started dropping restrictions Friday, and couples moved promptly to acquire marriage licenses. Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, a Republican, said his office was prepared to work to actualize the decision, however he said the choice takes from the states and their residents theShow MoreRelatedEssay On Salience1181 Words   |  5 Pagesand same-sex marriage cases. However, the media only covers cases that â€Å"rearranged the prior distribution of political influence and benefits† (Flemming, Bohte and Wood 1947 pg. 1247). These characteristics can bring the Supreme Court’s voice to the forefront of the media. Periods of stasis can be interpreted by the Supreme Court due to the magnitude of specific cases. I argue that although the Court has the power in affect social change by means of increasing salience, they need to rule on a case thatRead MoreThe Fight For Equal Marriage1292 Words   |  6 Pages The fight for equal marriage rights has been one of great length. Although this topic only brought to attention of the Supreme Court in 2015, gay marriage has long been a topic of interest in American society. Prior to 2015, gay marriage was only acknowledged and legal in select states, not nationwide. This caused great distress and heartache. One case in particular, the case that was brought to the supreme court, is very representative of such dejection. The subjects of such case are James ObergefellRead MorePros and Cons of Same Sex Marriage1734 Words   |  7 PagesPros and Cons of Same Sex Marriage Jasmaine Joseph April 19, 2013 Final Grade Same sex marriage is when two people with the same gender get married. Most people label it as homosexual, gay or lesbian marriage. Allowing same gender couples to legally marry is considered to be one of the most important of all  LGBT rights. Same sex marriage isn’t hurting anyone, personal I don’t have a problem with it. People should love and be able to marry anyone they please. America isRead MoreThe Against Gay Marriage : Racism Or Proverb1737 Words   |  7 Pages Opposition to Gay Marriage: Racism or Proverb Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. But discrimination is a treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category. Is the opposition to gay marriage an act of racism, discrimination or truth? Homosexuality andRead MoreSame Sex Marriage By Kennedy1141 Words   |  5 PagesSame-Sex Marriage In the article, Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide, the article discusses the main event, people’s insight on the event, quotes and beliefs of Kennedy, and it also goes a couple years back in time to explain some events leading up to this Supreme Court ruling. In the beginning of the article, it is discussed how the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states on June 26th, 2015. People gathered outside of the white house andRead MoreRecognition and Legalization of Same-sex Marriage 1405 Words   |  6 Pagesof debate. Although the gay and lesbian community has progressed, the fight for equality remains. Recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage still falls within the minority rule amongst the states, but will soon be the majority. California , Delaware , Connecticut , Hawaii , Illinois , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Rhode Island , Vermont , W ashington , Iowa , and Washington D.C. are marriage equality states. ColoradoRead MoreShould Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized? Essay1509 Words   |  7 Pagesconstantly is legalizing same sex marriage. Since same sex marriage has become a popular topic that everyone has to deal with, it has provoked many problems around the world. People have different aspects stating that gay marriage has pros and cons. Fortunately, even though everyone constantly can not stop talking about gay marriage, it keeps spreading throughout the world and causes more problems day after day. In an article titled Supreme Court rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide, it talks aboutRead MoreCivil Rights And Freedom Of Speech1569 Words   |  7 Pagestrials, or other essential liberties that make us uniquely American. A current issue that deals with our civil rights and liberties is the topic of gay rights, specifically gay marriage. This is a controversial issue that has become prominent in recent ye ars due to members of the LGBT community taking a stand and making sure their voices are being heard. Gay rights are an important topic because in some states, it is illegal to marry a person of the same sex, which some may argue is unconstitutionalRead MoreEssay about The Case for Gay Marriage1673 Words   |  7 Pagesthe vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.† – United States Supreme Court majority decision in Loving v. Virginia. America is a nation built on fundamental rights. In our Declaration of Independence, our new nation guaranteed its citizens â€Å"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness†. Today, the political debate over the decisive issue of gay marriage forces us to rethink our commitment to those deliberate words. Throughout our history, America’s homosexualRead MoreThe Current Constitutional Foundation For The United States Of America1350 Words   |  6 Pagesfederal government will be the â€Å"supreme law of the land†. This means that if the state and the national governing bodies came into conflict, the federal government would ultimately rule over the state. These two additions to our Constitution exist to limit the tension between the State and United States government, all while ensuring that powers are shared in a fair nature. Today, we see an example of the Supremacy Clause taking action when it comes to same-sex marriage rights. Prior to June 26, 2015