Essay Sample on Student Life What Is It Like

Essay Sample on Student Life What Is It Like Imagine a person whose life is filled with so many activities and duties that he or she must schedule time just to hang out and be social. You, parents and teachers of working and full time college students, can imagine how chaotic life would be if different events filled your entire schedule. That scenario is exactly what students must go through every day of a school year and still try to keep their heads high. Students lives are not all about having fun, but rather hectic. Through the events of school, work, and organizing free time, a student is easily burned out. Two main activities of school is going to class and doing homework. These two activities play a major role in determining a work schedule because of the amount of time that must be put forth to be successful in school. You may think that class would not put too much labor on them, but actually class is the most crucial way to burn out a student. Let us say a student has four one-hour classes (the least amount of hours a full time student may take) three times a week. A student must learn twelve hours of new information a week. Try watching six or seven movies and then having to remember all the information in those movies. Now imagine what a student has to learn because remembering so many movies is the same concept as remembering so many lectures. The fact tha many students have more than fifteen hours of school a week is even more troubling than having twelve hours of school a week. By having that many hours class times are well over an hour. Many classes are two hours long which i s twice as much information in a week. A student can most definitely create blisters and unbearable cramps from notes taken the whole time period of the class. Another factor that long classes will cause is trying to pay attention. If a teacher runs a class with constant lecturing and no interaction, the probability of staying focused the whole time is very small. Constant lecturing is very taxing because a student cannot ask a question during a break and therefore losing information. Because of the difficulty in trying to just learn from lectures, a student must do his or her homework, which is at least a couple of hours for each section per class. â€Å"Why so much?† a reader may ask. The answer is because most teachers feel that their class is the most important. Many of the teachers also have no sympathy for the student and does whatever they need to feed the student information even if making students learn information requires the student to have hours over hours of hom ework. Added onto homework is the material the student lost during lecture. A student must make missed material his or her duty to find the lost information in the course text used and understand it. So, the student tries to finish homework after classes are all finished. If homework cannot be done, the homework is saved for after work. Stress from work begins with the start of the shift. Because of the amount of time put into school, a student has a minimum amount of free time (including sleep). The reason why stress starts there is because he or she is already worn out from school. Bosses always find the perfect way to nag an employee by telling the employee to do certain actions. This nagging aids in furthering the stress a nagged student already has from school and homework. After long hours of work, a student will find he or she has some time to finish up on homework. Long hours help students earn money. If homework is finished, the student calls up a friend to find out that friend already has plans. The student will then notice that all of his or her friends are already out and about. Furthermore, his or her girlfriend or boyfriend and friends are all mad at him or her because work will not allow for a descent time to be let off at so he or she can hang out earlier. Frustration sets in and the student tries to organize some time to spend with his or her significant other and friends over the week, but schedules seem to clash and social time is lost. When social time is lost, a student’s stress level further elevates. The reason for this elevation is because social times give a student a good time. If a student does not have a good time, his or her stress does not have a chance to be released from his or her body. Not having the time to spend his or her accumulated money can be more of an aggravation. The student looks at the clock and notices the time is far past bedtime after realizing he or she cannot organize free time. In the morning the student wakes up and he or she is very much tired form lack of sleep and so the day begins again. The student goes to school, goes to work, and tries to organize free time. The cycle of a students life continues day-to-day. The day-to-day process builds up until a result of burning out comes to play. A recommendation is to not react in an unkind manner so fast if your child or student has forgotten a task. If you sit back and analyze the situation, life would be a little easier. The reason why life would be less troubling is because students become agitated if they wont even have a chance to be listened to. If they feel they have had a chance to be understood, their relationship with you will be more pleasant and less complicated. Students have a lot to do. So, remember a student when you think of a person whose life is filled with hindering duties and activities . Students know that when you tell them what to do, the knowledge is to their benefit. On a different note, if they are told in a demeaning tone, their reaction might have taken it the wrong way because of the stresses they have to put up with all the time. Let going to school, going to work, a nd organizing free time remind you that is what a students life is like and how it leads to them being burned out.

What Are Good Email Click Through Rates

What Are Good Email Click Through Rates Recently, we shared what we learned through A/B testing our email subject lines over the course of several months. We showed what worked and what didnt, and what kinds of subject lines were the most likely to get opened. A reader then suggested that we provide similar data, but not just on subject lines. What were our readers doing once they opened the email? Were they clicking to articles? We thought this was a great question, and decided to look at the same set of data, but this time focus on what readers did once they opened the email. What Our Email Looks Like Our weekly Content Marketing Update email has no complete posts in it, meaning that if a reader wants to read what weve shared in the the email, they must click on something. We share the post title, a small graphic, and a summary of the post. We have a update or featured item with a gray background, and then below that, links to at least three interesting blog posts for the week. This is what our email looks like. We send it out every week, on Tuesday. Our Email Click-Through Rates Though we didnt A/B test our emails based on the click activity that happens once an email is opened, there are still a few things we can learn about what people do once they open an email. In the table below, we use the same emails from our earlier post. You can see the date of the email, and the subject line of the email. We are only showing the subject line that won the A/B test. Open Rate: The percentage of total recipients that opened the email. Click Rate: The percentage of those who opened and then clicked at least once. Click / Person: How many clicks each person made, on average. Subj. Post: Whether the most-clicked link matched the A/B winning subject line of the post. So, what did we learn?Date Subject Open Rate Click Rate Click / Person Subj. Match JUNE 3 17 Apps To Help You Make Ebooks 21 27 1.87 Y 10 A No-Fail Method For Writing Blog Posts 22 29 1.98 Y 17 The Total Guide To Sharing Content On Social Media 20 22 2.07 N 24 Using Game Theory As A Content Marketing Tactic 19 25 2.19 N JULY 1 The Case For (And Against) Using Link Shorteners 21 25 1.78 Y 8 3 Tricks To Get People To Remember Your Content 20 28 1.94 Y 15 The 1 Big Reason You Should Self-Host Your Blog 20 22 1.88 Y 22 5 Plugins That Get You More Leads 21 31 1.68 Y 29 Why Your Project May Be Doomed Before Its Launched 19 21 1.78 N AUGUST 5 Why Content Marketing Tips Should Not Be Trusted 19 21 1.69 N 12 Know Your Audience? Google Just Made It Even Easier 20 25 2.03 Y 19 90s Nostalgia Can Rock Your Content Marketing 19 23 2.03 NWhat is considered to be a good click rate? Lets look at some standard benchmarks to get a better idea at what email click rates are, based on the industry. MailChimp has compiled the data from their users, breaking it up by industry. According to MailChimp, for marketing and advertising: 18.81% of emails get opened. 2.44% of emails get clicked. According to MailChimp, for software and web app emails: 21.86% of emails get opened. 3.26% of emails get clicked. MailerMailer did a similar study of their own data, and found that marketing and PR emails generally had about a 15% click-to-open rate. Constant Contacts numbers hover around the same level, too. And, according to the 2012 Silverpop Email Marketing Metrics Benchmark Study, email open rates in general average about 20%, while click rates, once that email is open, drop to 5.4%. Our open rates average at 20%, which is in line with these averages, but what about our click rates? Even though the average click rate is at 5.4%, we set the bar a bit higher and consider a 20% click rate of those who open an email to be a good, typical rate. Our average rate, across these three months, was a 25% click rate. Thats pretty good! Ideally, youd love to see more than one click per reader, meaning that they are more engaged with your email content. Our average, across these three months, was  1.9 clicks per person. Was the most highly clicked link the same as the post referenced in the winning subject line? Youd think that, since we A/B tested our email subject lines and proved which was the most powerful, the link  referenced in the subject line would also be the link people clicked on once they opened the email. Not always. As you can see from the chart above, 58% of the time the subject line was the link that received the most activity. Sometimes, though, it was quite close. Once readers opened up the email, they found something else theyd like to read more than what the email subject line advertised the email was about.

Optimality Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Optimality Theory - Essay Example Joseph Paul Stemberger And Barbara Handford Bernhardt "The Emergence of Faithfulness" http://www.linguistics.ubc.ca/People/Stemberger/S_B_1999.pdf. Stemberger & Bernhardt, 1999 asserted "The basis of OT is the use of constraints rather than rules. Rules within language are procedures that construct representations and alter them in particular ways. Constraints, in contrast, are limitations on what is possible in a system. Constraints can also lead to the alteration of a representation such that information is lost or added. From a cognitive-psychological perspective, however, the mechanisms are quite different". (Stemberger & Bernhardt, 1999, pp. 417-446) If we conceptualize phonology as part of the process for producing and understanding language, the phonological properties of language must result from the fact that it is an extremely practiced behavior linked with the vocal tract of human beings. To move away from the more theoretical views of phonology, it is perhaps helpful to compare speaking to other moderately complex but repetitive neuron-motor activities, such as playing the piano. While a person learns to play the piano, he or she learns not just to strike notes, but to strike notes in sequence. Every piece of music has its own sequence of notes that should be learned. Practice is essential; the motor patterns that guide to the fluent, striking of longer and longer sequences of notes should be automated for a piece to begin to sound like music. With practice, the transitions linking the notes become more fluent, and the speed of execution mechanically increases. In order to maintain the correct rhythm and tempo, the player should at times hold back and not play every note as fast as doable. Several analogies with the acquisition and use of phonology are observable. Children learn phonological sequences as parts of words, never separately of words. Articulatory routines that are by now mastered are called forth for the production of new words, leading to a propensity of children to expand their vocabulary by obtaining words that are phonologically comparable to those they already know (Ferguson and Farwell 1975, Lindblom 1992). This propensity leads to the structuring of the phonological sequences across words and the restrictive of the potentially massive phonetic inventory. Put another way, the repetition of gestures and sequences across words permits relations of identity and similarity to expand in stretches of speech, giving rise to segment, syllable, and foot-sized units. Through practice, speakers become more fluent in stringing words together and this fluency and automation is typified by the smoothing of transitions and overlapping of movements forced by the need to retain information value. Several repeated sequences become highly automated and abridged in form. At the same time, speakers should be able to access and recruit sequences into new combinations to state their thoughts and intentions. With practice, t

Steady-State Economics and Environmental Philosophy Research Paper

Steady-State Economics and Environmental Philosophy - Research Paper Example According to an article â€Å"CASSE proposes the establishment of a steady state economy with stabilized population and per capita consumption.† (U.S. Fed News Service) To begin let’s examine the significance the environment has on a state’s economy. Why is it important that the two thrive together to produce a stabilized economy, The environment and the economy rarely have traveled together on the same path. Gains in the economy come at the sacrifice of the environment. Protection of our natural resources hamstrings business development. Or so the argument goes. But what if by protecting special lands, cleaning up environmental problems and growing responsibly, we actually increase jobs, stop the population migration, and revitalize our communities? (DiBerardinis) According to an article published for Environmental Law the state of the environment plays a very significant role in the advancement or the downslide of the economy, The warning of "global environment al crisis" is being sounded more and more frequently by scientists, politicians, and other observers. The doomsday predictors of the 1960s, like ecologists Paul Ehrlich(1) and Rachel Carson,(2) have been joined by an ever-growing chorus of doomsayers in the 1990s.(3) Rachel Carson's concerns regarding pesticides were prominent in the early 1960s; today, concerns about the potential myriad of ecological effects from global warming predominate. Loss of biodiversity from habitat destruction, pollution, and other threats is also a major present concern.(4) The proliferation of environmental alarms has, as expected, been accompanied by claims of critics that the alarms are overstated.(5) Besides denying the existence or magnitude of environmental threats, these critics question the priorities of the leading environmental advocates and their focus on government regulation, rather than the market, to address those priorities.(6) Underlying the debate over whether humans' demands on the Ear th have exceeded its ecological carrying capacity is a debate over the propriety of economic growth, the primary goal for rich and poor countries and for most international institutions.(7) The doomsayers generally see humans' unbridled pursuit of economic growth as a major root of all or most environmental evils; their critics generally see growth as providing a solution to environmental problems.(8) While this debate has continued, there has been increasing consensus behind the concept of "sustainable development," which became a global future through its adoption by the United Nations-sponsored Brundtland Commission in a 1987 report entitled Our Common Future.(9) That report defined sustainable development vaguely as development that "meet[s] the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future."(10) Although that concept has helped raise the prominence of environmental protection on national and global policy agendas, it has not u nseated economic growth as the primary public policy objective. (Wenig) The impact of the environment is crucial to the survival of a state’s economy. There are many ways to help ensure the environment’s safety. There are organizations that rise up to protect natural habitat from extinction. There are organi

Nietzsche- Good V. Evil Essay Example for Free

Nietzsche- Good V. Evil Essay Friederich Nietzsche’s first essay in his work â€Å"On the Genealogy of Morals† is a piece titled, â€Å"Good and Evil, Good and Bad. † The essay seeks to trace the origin of morals, specifically the distinction made between good and bad and the subjective difference separating evil and bad. He elaborates that in the modern world the way we define good and bad is never questioned since we assume those definitions were reasonably created. Over time, Nietzsche argues, we lost sight of the origin of these words, pinpointing this moment as â€Å"when aristocratic value judgments declined† (Nietzsche 26). Nietzsche holds the ruling aristocratic class responsible for originally defining good and bad, while the common lower class followed with their own definition of good and its antithesis, evil. The focus of Nietzsche’s essay is the search to define good, bad, and evil, and the response of the weak class to classifications of good and bad made by the powerful class. It is the resentment or as he calls the ressentiment of the commoners or the â€Å"slaves† to the noble class that creates the opposing idea of what constitutes good and what is bad or evil. The original definition of good given by the powerful aristocratic class caused resentment among the lower classes. This weaker lower class turned the tables, claiming the actions of the nobles were not simply bad, a clear turn from good, but evil, and instead the inaction and weakness inherent in the lower classes was in fact good. Nietzsche argues that the commoner’s resentment of the powerful is more aggressive than the aristocratic contempt for the weak. This deep resentment further enslaves the weak into a downcast role since the weak only define their goodness by the evil nature of the powerful. The powerful noble class maintains their definition of good without going as far to say that the weak are evil; instead they are pitiable. The weak are unable to challenge the strong and therefore define their position as good despite their inaction, while the strong and powerful noble class is free to live in a world of activity void of constant comparisons to their counter part, the weak. Nietzsche believes time has distanced and blinded man from the original conceptions of morality that are good and bad. The modern conceptions of good and bad come from a practical and believable story where â€Å"one approved unegoistic actions and called them good from the point of view of those to whom they were done, that is to say, those to whom they were useful†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Nietzsche 25). Nietzsche continues that â€Å"†¦later one forgot how this approval originated and, simply because unegoistic actions were always habitually praised as good, one also felt them to be good- as if they were something good in themselves† (Nietzsche 25). This is how we define good in the modern day, Nietzsche says, because once the true origin of good was ditched along the path of history, man invented a definition that seemed appropriate. He continues stating, â€Å" The judgment ‘good’ did not originate with those to whom ‘goodness’ was shown! Rather it was ‘the good’ themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian† (Nietzsche 25). The definitions of good and bad were constructed by the noble class who looked to themselves for examples of goodness and then invented a casual explanation of bad as only a contrasting necessity. Nietzsche strengthens his argument that the moral values of good and bad were defined by the noble class in a discussion of the origin of the words good and bad in multiple languages. He asks the question, â€Å"What was the real etymological significance of the designations of ‘good’ coined in the various languages? I found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation- that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which good†¦ necessarily developed† (Nietzsche 27-28). Nietzsche wishes to firmly establish that the powerful class elucidated original morality. The action to establish what is good and bad by the noble class is followed by a refutation of these establishments by the weaker class. Nietzsche affirms that it was specifically the Jews, the priestly people of the earth, who were the first to flip the roles of good and bad in the debate of what constitutes moral behavior. The priest and the noble aristocrat are in opposition to each other. Nietzsche thought this obvious and says, â€Å"One will have divided already how easily the priestly mode of valuation can branch off from the knightly-aristocratic and then develop into its opposite; this is particularly likely when the priestly caste and the warrior class are in jealous opposition to one another and are unwilling to come to terms† (Nietzsche 33). It is important to understand why Nietzsche focuses on the Jews in particular for being the people who reinvent the terms of morality. Nietzsche alludes to the history of the Jews as repressed people who are taken advantage of by the powerful and cruel warrior class of aristocrats. It is due to this history that â€Å"†¦the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies’ values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge† (Nietzsche 33-34). This section of Nietzsche’s first essay is directed at examining the context in which the value of good was redefined, shedding light on why the revaluation of morals by the weak is insufficient and lacking conviction and merit. The trend was begun by the Jews and soon turned to the more general â€Å"slave revolt in morality† (Nietzsche 34). The slave can be the priest, the peasant, simply the overall commoner who is weak and defined by impotence. The Jews though, were the first to â€Å"invert the aristocratic value-equation†¦ saying ‘the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious†¦ and you, the powerful, noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned† (Nietzsche 34)! The definition of good has been transformed to support the inaction and inferiority of the weak. Nietzsche does not value this change in moral standards not because he believes they are inherently wrong, but by the process in which they were constructed. The man of resentment, to which we may now refer to in place of the Jew, the priest, the commoner, or the weak, has positioned himself to be seen as good because the powerful aristocratic class is evil, cruel, and damned. This is where the problem lies and where it is seen that the argument of goodness coming from the man of resentment, although plausible and not without merit, is superficially constructed and gives no real convincing advantage to the morality of the weak. This slave morality that is created by the man of resentment exists only from vengeance of the external idea of good created by the class of nobles that is also external to the weak and resentful. Herein lies the problem. While the powerful noble class has found what they consider good by looking in on themselves, out of their action and their values, the men of resentment on the contrary have only conjured a lucid definition of good by their blind opposition to the conceived good of the nobles. Nietzsche says, â€Å"The inversion of the value-positing eye- this need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself- is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all- its action is fundamentally reaction† (Nietzsche 36-37). The need for an opposing view of what is moral and good is needed for the man of resentment to redefine what he thinks is moral and good, yet Nietzsche argues that the slave morality does not consist of its own definition; it simply labels what was good as evil and assumes this will be a convincing argument for the goodness of those who can define the evil powerful class. The constant comparison the men of resentment make of themselves to the powerful is a fault since the slave morality these men wish to prove is void of real tangible evidence of good and can only define goodness in contrast to the evil of the powerful. These powerful are given the upper hand because of the way they define their goodness. Whereas the men of resentment form their slave morality by the external examination of the powerful, â€Å"The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, its seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly- its negative concept ‘low,’ ‘common,’ ‘bad’ is only a subsequently-invented pale, contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept† (Nietzsche 37). The difference is in the contempt the powerful have for the weak as opposed to the resentment the weak have for the powerful. The contempt of the weak is weak itself, where it is only a product of the original definition of good. Yet the resentment of the weak is a force that defines them instead of seeing this resentment as only valuable to define what is evil or bad after a self-created concept of good is in place. The man of resentment therefore places value in his opposition to evil. While the evil of the powerful noble class manifests itself in actions of cruelty at times, the powerful are also more capable of better things, as they â€Å"†¦felt themselves to be ‘happy’; they did not have to establish their happiness artificially by examining their enemies, or to persuade themselves, deceive themselves, that they were happy† (Nietzsche 38). The man of resentment on the contrary is burdened by his constant comparison to the evil, continuously having to convince himself that he is indeed good instead of just living that way. The man of resentment is in an unfavorable and unfortunate disadvantage. His opposition to the powerful noble always defines his livelihood and happiness, whereas the noble lives a life more free, void of constant comparison. The man of resentment defines the moral values of good and evil out of vengeance and in contrast to the self-established morality of the powerful aristocratic class. These men of resentment, who Nietzsche argues are naturally weak, define goodness not by looking to themselves but by examining the external world of the powerful, which they perceive as evil. The weak superficially construct strength and power from their inferior position by defining good as their humble and peaceful attitude, a substitution for their natural weakness and inability to challenge the strength of the powerful noble class. These men of weakness have historically succeeded in defining their inferiority as good by demonizing the powerful, but this self-deception constrains the livelihood of the weak as they are weighed down by their constant resentment of the powerful that only hold indifferent contempt for the weak. The weak are only redefining the form of slavery that is weakness with a self-deceptive concept of good.

Cosmetic Surgery: The Cure for Low Self- Esteem? Or are the Risks too r

Cosmetic surgery has been around for decades. As the years went by, new procedures came to surface as well as new surgical tools. The procedures that surfaced became attention grabbing from many people. New and improved procedures and equipment came as more years went by and it grabbed more attention to more people. But is cosmetic surgery the answer to a person with low self esteem? The first American Plastic Surgeon was John Peter Mettauer. He performed the first cleft palate in 1827 with surgical instruments that he designed himself. However, since 2000 BC reconstructive surgery techniques was being carried out in India. A man by the name of Joseph Constantine Carpue performed the first major surgery in the Western World by 1815. The internet carries a lot of information on cosmetic surgery along with many doctors, specialists, etc, that writes their opinions and/or professional insights on cosmetic surgery. Some people wrote that in most cases it will and in some it won’t. I think it just completely depends on how bad ones self esteem is, meaning how low it is. I do agree that the performing Doctor should do a low self esteem test on all their patients before going into such body alterations. If they should come across a person that is with low to very low self esteem they really should explain to the person exactly what to expect with the procedure that is chosen. Being very sensitive and not leaving out any surprises. The Doctor should also consider asking the patient if they would want a second opinion they should very much get one, in fact I think that the Doctor should insist that the person obtains a second opinion. This is because it may just ease everyone’s minds. If for some reason that the procedure turne... ...g the perfect body is what many people think will get them far, so what is their answer? Cosmetic surgery, but do they even care about the risks that are involved, maybe and maybe not. Here in the present technology is booming with equipment that is unbelievable and may make any person think they would be safer during surgery now compared to back in the days, this may be true, however what they really need to think of is, will having a cosmetic surgery procedure be what really will make me happy and go as far as I want to? Works Cited Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.  (n.d.).  Plastic Surgery.  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery Morello, D.C., Colon, G.A., Fredericks, S., Iverson, R., Singer, R. Patient safety in accredited office surgical facilities. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 99: 1496, 1997. Source:  http://www.surgery.org

Moments of life Essay

Basically, people have a different memorable socializing moment in their life. Every single minute of their life are valuable so that memorable situation might be happened anytime. Firstly, everybody likes to go to the party. There are different kinds of party which can make a nice moment such as graduation party or birthday party. To illustrate, when you are 18 years old you will have a big party from your people around you. They will create a surprising party for you. Particularly, the gifts will be amazing. Therefore, this event will be one of the best memorable socializing moments in your life. Secondly, some festivals might impress you which you will have a good experience. For instance, Christmas festival, it’s apparently everyone favorable holiday which everyone can do several things on that day namely enjoying a delicious meal or opening a secret gift which is a main tradition of Christmas Day. Hence, many people are going to memorize things they do on this day because it’s a spectacular day for everyone. Eventually, everyone has many friends such as high school friends, neighbors or even upcountry friends. Unfortunately, they are not with you all the time. They live separately from you. Reunion always makes memorable time for them. For example, you have not seen your friends long time ago, and one day they all come to meet you as a reunion party. Certainly, you are definitely going to remember this event forever. Thus, this is not difficult to see that reunion is a wonderful memorable socializing moment. Conclusively, memorable moment is able to happen in every situation. It is depend on you whether you satisfy it or not.

Guilt and Shame

The society of traditional  Japan  was long held to be a good example of one in which shame is the primary agent of  social control. The first book to cogently[citation needed]  explain the workings of the Japanese society for the Western reader was  The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. This book was produced under less than ideal circumstances since it was written during the early years of  World War II  in an attempt to understand the people who had become such a powerful enemy of the West. Under the conditions of war it was, of course, impossible to do  field research  in Japan.Nevertheless, depending on the study of members of that culture who were  available for interview and study in the West, namely war prisoners at detention centers, as well as literary and other such records pertaining to cultural features,  Ruth Benedict  drew what some regard[who? ]  as a clear picture of the basic workings of Japanese society. Her study has been challenged and is not relied upon by anthropologists of Japan today. Contemporary  Western society  uses shame as one modality of control, but its primary dependence rests on  guilt, and, when that does not work, on the  criminal justice  system.Paul Hiebert  characterizes the shame society as follows: Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. Personal desires are sunk in the collective expectation. Those who fail will often turn their aggression against themselves instead of using violence against others.By punishing themselves they maintain their self-respect before others, for shame cannot be relieved, as guilt can be, by  confession  and atonement. Shame is remov ed and honor restored only when a person does what the society expects of him or her in the situation, including committing suicide if necessary. (Hiebert 1985, 212) guilt society  is one in which the primary method of  social control  is the inculcation of feelings of  guilt  for behaviors that the society defines as undesirable. It involves an implicit judgment on the being (rather than just the behavior) of the individual: â€Å"You are an  evil  person if you would do such-and-so. It also involves creating the  expectation  of punishment now (when the behavior fails to be kept secret) and/or in the hereafter. One of the interesting features of many such societies is that they inculcate feelings of guilt for feelings and/or impulses that the individual cannot help but feel. Where a  shame societymight tell its members that sexual interactions are to be hidden from general view or knowledge, a guilt society may tell people that they are guilty or sinful for me re  sexual desire.A prominent feature of guilt societies is the provision of sanctioned releases from guilt for certain behaviors either before the fact, as when one condemns sexuality but permits it conditionally in the context of marriage, or after the fact. There is a clear opportunity in such cases for authority figures to derive power, monetary and/or other advantages, etc. by manipulating the conditions of guilt and the forgiveness of guilt. Paul Hiebert characterizes the guilt society as follows: Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of  morality  within us, when we violate our conscience.A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions. Guilt cultures emphasize punishment and forgi veness as ways of restoring the moral order; shame cultures stress self-denial and humility as ways of restoring the social order. (Hiebert 1985, 213) GUILT, SHAME,  and embarrassment are forms of social control.Whether these are cast in evolutionary, psychological, or cultural terms, we should not lose sight of that basic function. These emotions may not always be portrayed in these terms, but that is how they have evolved and become embedded in our cultural beliefs and practices. It is in this context that we should raise the question: Are there shame cultures as opposed to guilt cultures, with corresponding differences in how people within them experience guilt and shame? In American culture (and Western cultures enerally), personal identity is conceived of as being independent and autonomous. Society is seen as a collection of self-contained individuals who are held responsible for their own behavior. One's interests are best served by allowing maximum freedom and responsibili ty in choosing one's objectives. Moral precepts are based on conceptions of justice. Even when these are tempered by interpersonal obligations, the focus remains on individuals who must balance their responsibilities between the self and significant others.THE PRIMARY  moral obligation is to avoid harming significant others. It is when you cause harm, or are unjust, that you feel guilty. Being responsive to the needs of others is desirable, but is not a moral duty. Individuals are free to follow their inclinations within the limits of the law and in consideration of the rights of others. Their obligations to others are defined in negative terms—what they should not do—rather than as positive duties of what they should do. Whereas the failure to uphold justice is a vice, the failure to be beneficent to others is only a lack of moral virtue.By contrast, in Asian contexts, one's identity is defined in relation to the group one belongs to, typically the family. Whereas i n the West, a person would be known as Jane or John Doe, in the East, they would be identified as members of the Doe family. In her study of Indian Hindus, psychologist Joan Miller found that the primary basis of determining moral conduct was not justice but a person's duties to significant others. Among Americans, moral duty is imposed on the individual to constrain that individual's actions.For Hindus, doing one's duty meant both meeting one's obligations as well as realizing one's own nature. Therefore acting benevolently toward others was not an aim secondary to considerations of justice, nor was it a matter of acting above and beyond the call of duty—fulfilling one's social duty was the primary purpose of moral conduct. These differences lead to contrasting ways of determining what is moral. For instance, if there is no other way to help a friend in need, it would be ethical for an Indian to steal but unethical for an American to do so even if it means failing to help th e friend.These differences are not absolute; nonetheless, twice as many Indians as Americans would give priority to interpersonal considerations over abstract ethical principles. Moreover, Indians were more prone than Americans to make contextual exceptions (where the morality of an action depends on the nature of the relationship and the circumstances of the case), whereas Americans took a more absolute view about an action being right or wrong, irrespective of other considerations. The moral objective in the West, as noted above, is to avoid doing wrong and is more objective; in the East, it is to do what is right and is more subjective.Similar considerations apply in other Asian cultures. In China, the family is the â€Å"great self. † One starts by literally owing one's life to one's parents. One's primary obligation in life is to serve and protect social ties, not pursue personal goals. Similarly, while Americans place a high premium on self-reliance, the Japanese favor interdependence and harmonious integration within the group. Individuals in both groups are highly competitive, but in different ways. Americans want to  get ahead  of others; the Japanese are concerned with not falling behind; instead of pushing ahead, they line up sideways.The personal boundaries of Americans have been compared to the hard shell of an egg; those of the Japanese, to an egg's soft internal membrane. Erich Lessing/Art Resource This individualistic-versus-interdependent basis of moral judgment helps clarify the problematic distinctions between shame and guilt cultures. Instead of these designations explaining differences in such a way that makes one culture seem morally superior to another, they explain cultural differences as the outcome of serving different needs.In the Western context of individualism, guilt, with its emphasis on autonomy, provides a better moral foundation for guiding individuals who are responsible for themselves. With a lesser sense of respo nsibility for others, there is less need for shame as a form of social control. By contrast, in the Asian cultural context, where maintaining harmony in relationships is most valued, shame is a more effective means of moral control. Since personal boundaries extend beyond the individual, it becomes more difficult to generate guilt. When someone does wrong, it is not only the person but everyone related to that person who shares in the guilt.Therefore, shame in Asian cultures fulfills some of the same functions of social control that guilt does in the West and vice versa. These considerations are important to our understanding of differences in the ways guilt and shame are perceived in Western and Eastern religion. . . . For instance, the centrality of shame in Confucianism has led to the general impression that Confucian China is a shame society, and hence is ethically less developed. [Religion scholar] Mark Berkson [MA '92, PhD '00] has raised cogent arguments that this characteriz ation is not valid.Confucian ethics, far from being ethically less well developed, offers much to others to learn from. While generally framed in East/West terms, these differences between guilt and shame can also be seen within Western culture itself in historical perspective. Homeric heroes in ancient Greece were driven by the twin virtues honor and fame. In their warlike society such virtues were best manifested on the battlefield. The self-esteem of heroes like Achilles, Odysseus, and Oedipus depended on their standing in the eyes of their peers, with whom they were in fierce competition and often conflict.Failure led to loss of face and shame. Consequently, shame has been generally assumed to be the predominant moral sentiment that motivated and restrained the ancient Greeks. Their shame culture was based on public esteem. What mattered was where one stood with respect to one's peers, who constituted an honor-group. This view has been challenged by moral philosopher Bernard Wil liams, who argues that Greek conceptions of shame also included elements of guilt. The moral objective in the West is to avoid doing wrong; in the East, to do what is right. These cultural differences are embedded in various languages as well.This makes translating terms like guilt and shame a common source of confusion. For example, when we look for synonyms for shame and guilt in Chinese, we do not find single terms that correspond to them. Rather, we find a number of terms that correspond to various types of shame, making distinctions that do not exist in English. In some contexts, even guilt may appear as a subsidiary form of shame. Even if the terms to designate them vary, are these emotions universal or culture specific? Do an American and an Indian experience guilt and shame the same way, whatever they call them?There are no simple answers to this question. Some emotions appear to be more universal than others; for instance, it is hard to imagine a culture that does not recog nize expressions of fear or anger. However, when it comes to complex emotions like guilt and shame, which are more subject to cultural variation, the picture becomes less clear. Even the fact that a culture has no word for an emotion does not mean that the emotion it represents is absent. Linguists point out that even if certain emotions are universal, their terminology is not.For instance, there is no word for â€Å"disgust† in Polish. And in one Australian aboriginal language, â€Å"fear† and â€Å"shame† are expressed by the same word (associated with the impulse to retreat). The common error is to start with one's own language and look for exact translations in other languages. Ultimately, it is not through specific terms like â€Å"guilt† or â€Å"shame† but throughmetalanguage—descriptions of the essential elements in emotional states— that we can test the universality of the emotions. For instance, the answer to â€Å"How do y ou feel when you have lost someone dear to you? would convey the idea of sadness better than would the answer to the question â€Å"Do you feel sad? † How does the evolutionary view help us in  dealing with guilt? This is not a matter explicitly addressed by evolutionary psychologists. . . . Nonetheless, the evolutionary basis of the capacity for altruism and the capacity to feel guilty provides us with a natural foundation for guilt, and hence the need for its acceptance and usefulness. If guilt is indeed part of our nature, and there are good reasons for it, it makes no sense to fight it or deny it. Related essay: Shame is Worth a TryAccepting guilt as a fact of life therefore makes it easier to approach it in a positive manner, and perhaps helps us to resolve it in more authentic and adaptive ways. HERANT KATCHADOURIAN,  who came to Stanford in 1966, is an emeritus professor of psychiatry and human biology and former president of the Flora Family Foundation. He has received the Dinkelspiel and Lyman awards and has been selected seven times as Outstanding Professor and Class Day speaker. HONOR AND SHAME  IN A MIDDLE EASTERN SETTING| Roland Muller Copyright 2000 All rights reserved. Sociologists have recognized that three social issues have existed since earliest times.As civilizations formed, each of them grappled with the concept of fear, shame and guilt. These are, in essence the building blocks of society. Every society has its particular ways of dealing with these issues. And each of these issues have different importance, depending on the cultural makeup of that society . These three aspects make up the basic building blocks of worldview. It is similar to the three basic colors that an artist mixes to make all the colors of the universe. On my computer, I can mix the three primary colors to make up 64 million other colors. That's the way it is with worldview.There are many different kinds of worldview, but when carefully examined they can be better understood when looking at them in the light of man's response to guilt, shame and fear. Sociologists have used terms like guilt-based cultures, and shame-based cultures for years now. We must be careful, however, not to try and fit each culture or worldview into one specific category such as fear based or shame based. As I stated, these building blocks are similar to an artist, creating thousands of colors from three basic primary colors. How much of each primary color is used, determines what the final color will be when the paint is mixed.In the same way, all three building blocks are present in all c ultures and worldviews, but how much of each one is present, determines the actual type of culture that emerges. Having determined this, one must also consider how people in a particular local culture react to the elements of the overall culture. As an example, when an Arab is shamed, he may react by taking revenge on the one who causes the shame, but when an oriental is shamed, he may react by committing suicide. So while individual cultures may react to sin in different way, in general terms there are great blocks of the world that have similar worldviews.Where are the major blocks? Many western nations (Northern Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand) have cultures that contain mostly guilt-based cultural characteristics. On the other hand, much of the Middle East and Asia is made up shame-based cultures. Most of the primal religions and cultures of the world (such as tribes in the jungles of Africa, Asia, and South America) are structured around fear-based principles. The problem comes when we want to simply classify cultures into these three basic classifications. They do not easily fit, because they are made up of blends of all three.Thus, when analyzing a culture, one must look for the primary cultural characteristics, and then the secondary ones. As an example, many North American Native cultures are made up of elements of both shame-based and fear-based cultures. On the other hand, much of North American culture has been made up almost exclusively of guilt-based principles, although this has changed in the last two decades. As cultures and worldviews developed over the millennia, they have gravitated towards one of these groups. This polarization has created three mega-trends in worldview.While the majority of worldviews fits into these three classifications, many cultures draw equally from two or all three worldviews. This mixing of worldviews is especially noticeable in South America where jungle tribes with fear-based cultures come in co ntact with shame-based cultures originating out of southern Spain, and guilt-based cultures brought by western religion and western business. The goal of this paper is to simply introduce the idea of guilt, shame and fear based cultures, and then to examine how the Nabataean culture fit into this picture.Along the way I will use illustrations drawn from many cultures of the world, including modern Muslim culture. Guilt-Based Culture None of us lives in exactly the same culture. Culture varies from town to town, family to family and sometimes even from individual to individual. All of us are different. We are made up of different fabrics and formed by the different experiences that come into our lives on a day to day basis. Even those who try to define â€Å"American† or â€Å"Canadian† culture can only talk in vague generalizations. Americans come from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, and have all kinds of values.Some live in middle class housing, some in cardboard box es on the street, and some in large impressive mansions. It's hard to place categorizations and descriptions on people who are so diverse. Despite this, however, there are some general characteristics or mega-traits that fit the majority of people in the western world. Certain basic fundamental beliefs have molded western civilization. These beliefs have laid the foundations upon which these nations are built, and from which the fabric of their society has been formed. One of these basic foundations is their belief in right versus wrong.This understanding is so deeply ingrained in western culture, that westerners analyze almost everything from this perspective. Most western forms of entertainment are built upon ‘the good guys and the bad guys. ‘ It is so familiar to westerners that few of them question its validity. It is such an integral part of religion and society, that they often cannot imagine a world where ‘right versus wrong' isn't the accepted basic underly ing principle. ‘Right versus wrong' is the yardstick used in their culture to measure everything else with.They talk about the rightness and wrongness of someone else's actions. They talk about things being â€Å"right for me. † They are obsessed with knowing their rights and exercising them. Many western societies spend countless hours and billions of dollars debating the wrongs of society. Is homosexuality right or wrong? Is spending billions on the military right or wrong? Is possession of drugs right or wrong? How about possession of nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction? Almost every major issue the west struggles with involves an aspect of deciding whether something is right or wrong.They arrive at this basic tension in life because almost everything in western culture is plotted on a guilt/innocence line. (Innocence being something defined as being right or righteousness). Guilt —————————- Inn ocence The pulls and demands of these two diametrically opposed forces dictate much of western human behavior. Guilt can plague and haunt people bringing fear and condemnation upon them. Many westerners do everything they can to avoid being guilty. Psychologists spend a great deal of their time helping people deal with all sorts of guilt complexes.Evangelical Christians in particular, often live in circles that are governed by guilt principles based on the authority of the Bible. Outside of these circles, guilt is defined in many other ways. It can be a sense of public disapproval, being in trouble with the authorities, or not being politically correct. However guilt is defined, and to what extent it influences a culture varies widely from location to location. However, the understanding of right and wrong has been instrumental in forming much of western society. On the other end of the spectrum, is righteousness, or innocence.This is the unspoken goal of much of western society. â €Å"I'm OK, you're OK† is the most comfortable situation for many. Many westerners express their innocence with the statement that they are as good as the next person. If this is true, then they can get about their business of pursuing happiness and pleasure within the bounds of being OK and not guilty. Most westerners do what they can to avoid being guilty and at the same time exercise their rights. This guilt/innocence thinking is so ingrained in western society that most westerners have immediate reflexes to events that catch them off guard.Being a westerner, I have often noticed some of the reflexes that we have developed. Have you ever noticed what happens in the swimming pool when the lifeguard blows his whistle? Almost all westerners will stop to see who is guilty, and when they realize they are innocent will resume swimming. This is a normal scenario from the western world, but it is not true in much of the eastern world. When we in the western world do something wron g, like unintentionally running a red light, we may feel guilty. This is also not necessarily true in the eastern world. Or, how about this scenario?Imagine a classroom full of grade school kids. Suddenly, the intercom interrupts their class. Johnny is being called to the principle's office. What is the immediate reaction of the other children? In the west the immediate reaction would almost always be: â€Å"What did you do wrong? † Even western children almost always immediately assume guilt. Perhaps the school principal was going to hand out rewards, but much of western society conditions people to expect the worst, and they feel pangs of guilt. So much of western thinking is wrapped up in guilt. Wars are justified on the basis of establishing guilt.During the opening days of the Gulf War, the American government spent many hours and millions of dollars determining if Saddam Hussein was guilty. Once they thought they had established that he was guilty of committing atrociti es they had the right to take military action against him. Throughout the war, they continued to make statements about Mr. Hussein's deranged mental state and irrational actions. All of this helped justify the war. In fact, all during the history of western civilizations, wars have had to be justified, and each side identifies the other as being the ‘bad guys. But some things are not easy to chart between right and wrong. Is a hungry child stealing food guilty? Should he be punished despite his hunger? These questions disturb us, because we feel that everything in life must fit somewhere between guilt and innocence. In fact, western association with guilt has gone so far as to provide an avenue for people to develop guilt complexes. They feel guilt for what they have done and also guilt for what they have not done. They even feel guilt for what others have done. People who struggle with a guilt complex can even be overcome with embarrassment and feelings of guilt from the acti ons of others.The flip side of guilt is innocence, righteousness, and exercising rights. As I mentioned, â€Å"I'm OK, you're OK† is an important philosophy in western culture. In order not to point a finger at people, western society continues to expand the limits of what is acceptable activity. By making homosexuality acceptable, they help thousands of people avoid feeling guilty. This alone is enough to convince many people in western society that it's OK for people to be homosexual. In fact, almost anything is tolerated as long as it doesn't hurt another person.I have been surprised to discover that many people in our western world believe that our fixation with right and wrong is not only normal, but also the only correct way to think. They assume that anyone, who does not think in these terms, does not think rationally or logically. In order to understand guilt-based culture, we must go back to Greek and Roman times, and examine the origin of this pattern of thinking, a nd discover how this has had an impact on society and religion. The Roman Connection The Roman Empire has come and gone, leaving us with a few ruined cities, and a wealth of stories about conquest and heroism.While most of what the Romans accomplished has disappeared, there is one facet of Roman life that has impacted the west, right down to the present. It is the Roman law, or the ‘pax romana' (Roman peace) which was brought about by everyone obeying the Roman law. Roman law introduced the concept that the law was above everyone, even the lawmakers. This idea was not totally new. The Jews under Moses understood this. Greek politicians developed a similar plan with their city-state, but with laws that were man made, not divine. The Romans, however, perfected the system, and put it into widespread use.They developed a type of democracy known as the republic. They put in place a complex legal system that required lawmakers, lawyers, and judges. This Roman system of law left a tr emendous impact on western society. Even to this day, much of the western legal system is still built around the basic Roman code of law. Western civilization today is littered with references to the Roman Empire. Much of their coins, architecture, and language have Roman roots. Legal and economic theories are so filled with Romanisms that westerners no longer see them for what they are.They have become so much a part of their mental furniture, that few people today question them. As an example, Roman law during the Roman Empire assumed that the individual's rights were granted by the state (by government) and that lawmakers can make up laws. Under Roman law, the state was supreme, and rights were granted or erased whenever lawmakers decided. This philosophy is sometimes called ‘statism. ‘ Its basic premise is that there is no law higher than the government's law. Roman politicians were not the first to invent statism but hey did such an effective job of applying it, tha t the Roman Empire has become the guiding star for politicians in the west. Statists see the â€Å"pax romana,† the period in which Rome dominated the Mediterranean world, as the golden days of statism. The known world was â€Å"unified† and controlled by one large government. This unification was symbolized in Roman times by something known as the  fasces. This was a bundle of wooden rods bound together by red-colored bands. In ancient Rome the fasces was fixed to a wooden pole, with an ax at the top or side. This symbolized the unification of the people under a single government.The ax suggested what would happen to anyone who didn't obey the government. The Roman fasces became the origin of the word fascism. During Roman times, pax romana (the Roman peace) meant, â€Å"do as you are told, don't make waves, or you will be hauled away in chains. † Roman Law was supreme. In contrast to this, there was the old way of obeying the supreme ruler. Under this system , the word of the ruler was law. With the Republic, the Romans elevated law, so that it was above the ruler. Now everyone, even the emperor of Rome had to obey the law. The law, not the ruler determined if people were innocent or guilty.It is interesting to note, that as the early Christian church developed and grew, Roman law also had an impact on Christian theology. Since Roman law interpreted everything in the terms of right versus wrong, early Christians were deeply influenced by this thinking. Early Church Theologians Tertullian,  the early church father who first developed a code of systematic theology, was a lawyer steeped in Roman law. Using his understanding of law, and the need for justice, guilt, and redemption, he laid the basis for Christian systematic theology, as it would develop in the west.Tertullian was born shortly before 160 AD, into the home of a Roman centurion on duty in Carthage. He was trained in both Greek and Latin, and was very much at home in the class ics. He became a proficient Roman lawyer and taught public speaking and practiced law in Rome, where he was converted to Christianity. In the years that followed he became the outstanding apologist of the Western church and the first known author of Christian systematic theology. Basil the Great  was born in 329 AD, and after completing his education in Athens he went on to practice law and teach rhetoric. In 370 AD, Basil, the awyer, became Basil the Bishop when he was elected bishop of Caesarea. During his time as Bishop he wrote many books in defense of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Basil's training in law and rhetoric gave him the tools he needed to speak out in defense of the church. Next came  Augustine  who was born in 354 AD into the home of a Roman official in the North African town of Tagaste. He received his early education in the local school, where he learned Latin to the accompaniment of many beatings. He hated studying the Greek language so much th at he never learned to use it proficiently.He was sent to school in nearby Madaura and from there went to Carthage to study rhetoric, a technique used in Roman law for debate. He then taught legal rhetoric in his hometown and Carthage until he went to Milan in 384 AD. He was converted in 386 and became a priest in 391. He returned to Africa and became a prolific writer and bishop. No other Christian after Paul has had such a wide and deep impact on the Christian world through his writings as Augustine. Ambrose  was born around 340 AD, in Gaul. When his father, the prefect of Gaul, died, the family moved to Rome where Ambrose was educated for the legal profession.Later, he was appointed civil governor over a large territory, being headquartered in Milan. Upon the death of the bishop of Milan in 374, the people unanimously wanted him to take that position. Believing this to be the call of God, he gave up his high political position, distributed his money to the poor, and became a bi shop. In 374, Ambrose demonstrated his ability in the fields of church administration, preaching, and theology. But as always, his training in Roman law enforced his views of guilt and righteousness. Have you noticed the impact that law and lawyers had on the development of the early church?This trend did not stop with the early church. Reformation Theologians John Calvin  was born in 1505 in northeastern France where his father was a respected citizen. He studied Humanistic Studies at the University of Paris, and then law at the University of Orleans, and finally at the University of Bourges. Sometime between 1532 and 1533 he converted and adopted the ideas of the reformation. The writings of John Calvin, the lawyer and theologian, have had a tremendous impact on our society. Calvin was not alone. Arnauld Antoine the French  theologian (1612-1694), studied at Calvi and Lisieux, first law, then theology.He was made a priest and doctor in 1634. Arnauld spoke out against the Jesui ts and his writings added to the impact of the reformation. There are more examples of theologians who were also lawyers, such as  Martin Luther, but this list will suffice to point out that legal thought and expression had much to do with the development of the theology of the Early Church and the Reformation. Each of these church leaders continued to develop the relationship between Christianity, as it was known in the west, and the legal understanding of guilt, justice, and righteousness.These lawyers were concerned with establishing guilt, or innocence, and they brought this emphasis with them, into their theology. And so the western church that developed used this theology to build their civilizations. In the ensuing years, new nations in the New World would be founded on the theological basis developed by these church leaders. The United States of America was founded on these principles. The American founders attempted to establish a nation built on the Roman principle of a republic, and on the early church's understanding of right and wrong.Today, it is interesting to notice that there are many non-western sources who link guilt-based culture with Christianity. In October 1999, Isaiah Kalinowski, the Opinion Editor for the Jordan Times, wrote an article entitled â€Å"The Shame Culture that is Wabash. † In this article he pointed out: â€Å"†¦ guilt culture is due largely to Christianity. A shame culture is one in which individuals are kept from transgressing the social order by fear of public disgrace. On the other hand, in a guilt culture, one's own moral attitudes and fear of retribution in the distant future are what enforce the ethical behavior of a member of that society. From Kalinowski's perspective, guilt-based culture is linked to Christian theology. This is an unfortunate misrepresentation, as the Bible was written in a shame-based setting and speaks to all cultures and worldviews. On the other hand, Christians, must recognize the incredible impact that guilt-based culture has had on their history and understanding and interpretation of the Bible. The Eastern Scene Christianity in the east, however, developed differently. Eastern theologians did not use Roman law as a vehicle for interpreting the gospel.Rather, the eastern world was caught up in the shame-honor relationship that was prevalent in societies scattered from the Middle East to the Far East. Eastern Orthodox theology didn't deal directly with sin, guilt, and redemption. Chrysostom,  the early church theologian for the Eastern Church, was born about 345 AD into a wealthy aristocratic family in Antioch. He was a student of the sophist Libanius who had been a friend of the Emperor Julian. This man gave him a good training in the Greek classics and rhetoric that laid the foundation for his excellent speaking ability.After his baptism in 368, he became a monk in the eastern churches. Chrysostom rose to being an outstanding preacher, even winning t he acclaim of the emperor. Today we have a record of around 680 of Chrystostom's sermons and homilies and I am told that he never once preached on justification. In the end, he was banished because he spoke out so sharply against the views of the western theologians. In the same way,  Islam,  which rose to prominence around 600 AD, teaches that God remains over all, and that law is in his hands, not the hands of lawmakers.The Qur'an enforces the principle that God is overall with the story about Pharaoh and how he was shown Allah's â€Å"mightiest miracle, but he denied it and rebelled. ‘  The Pharaoh quickly went away and summoning all his men, made to them a proclamation. ‘I am your supreme Lord. ‘  The Qur'an then tells us that Allah â€Å"Smote him,† and goes on to warn, â€Å"Surely in this there is a lesson for the God fearing. † Therefore it would be unthinkable to a Muslim, that a lawmaker could make a law that is over all. This is wh y Islam presents both a religious and a cultural pattern for people to live by. God dictates both moral laws and civil laws.Western Historians Roman law and thinking has also impacted the way we westerner look at history. The danger comes, when we westerners take our Roman understanding of civilization and culture and apply it to those who do not have a Roman-based culture. We fruitlessly spend untold hours and incalculable amounts of energy explaining to what motivates people and shapes society, when in truth, we don't understand the real principles of the other culture. The answer to this dilemma is quite simple. We westerners must put our Roman, guilt-based understanding of culture and history aside, and strive to understand other worldviews and their thinking.Then we need to return to our history books and discover what is happening in a society that is not pre-occupied with right and wrong, or guilt and innocence. Fear-Based Cultures As we drew near to the jungle village, the s ound of drums could be heard. Drawing closer, we could see people dancing and withering on the ground. A man approached us and explained that they could not go further. The village was doing a sacred rite to improve the economy and bring more trade to the area. We were escorted away and not given a chance to introduce why we had come to their village.Later we heard that a human sacrifice had been offered to the spirits that day. In another situation we arrived in a village when a rain-making ceremony was about to begin. They were invited to watch. A black bull was led to the edge of the village where it faced the direction from where the rain would come. The animal's throat was cut and it fell over on its left side, to the delight of all. This indicated that the sacrifice was acceptable. The men then cut up the meat and cooked it. As the meat was cooking, an old man began to shout out a prayer to the spirits for rain. Soon everyone joined in.After the meat was eaten, the shouting tu rned into dancing. The villagers danced all afternoon until the rain came. It rained so heavily that everyone had to run for shelter. Did the rituals bring the rain? To the natives it was obvious and there was no way that we rational westerners convince them otherwise. As these two stories illustrate, there are many people in the world today whose lives revolve around their interaction with the spiritual world. They believe that gods and spirits exist in the universe and they must live in peace with these unseen powers, either by living quietly, or by appeasing these powers.Based on their worldview, these cultures and peoples view the universe as a place filled with gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, and ancestors. Man needs to live at peace with the powers around him, and often man lives in fear. This fear is based on a number of different things. First, man fears man. Tribal wars are endemic, with captives becoming slaves or, sometimes, a meal for cannibals. Whenever tribes encounter people from outside of their own group, they approached them with suspicion and fear. Secondly, these people fear the supernatural.All around them events are taking place that can only be explained by the supernatural. Much like the ancient civilizations, they have developed spiritual explanations for how things work in this world. If crops fail, then specific gods or demons are responsible. If sickness comes, then other gods or demons are responsible. If a tribe fails in battle, it is because of the activity of a god or demon. Sickness is often viewed as a god reaping revenge. Everything in life, even romance, is somehow attributed to the activities of gods or demons. The struggle that these people face is simply one of needing power.Using their voodoo, charms, and other methods, they seek to gain control over other people and over the controlling powers of the universe. The paradigm that these people live in is one of fear versus power. At the end of the 19th century, E. B. Tylor attempted to understand the difference in thinking between Europeans and other peoples living in Africa and South America. In his writings he coined the word ‘animism' from the Latin word  anima  for ‘soul. ‘ He saw the animistic worldview as interpreting everything from a spiritual philosophy rather than a materialistic philosophy.Many sociologists of Tylor's era saw mankind moving from an ancient worldview based on the supernatural to a modern worldview based on science and reality. Dave Burnett states in his book  Unearthly Powers,  that H. W. Turner later advocated the use of the term primal religion, meaning that â€Å"these religions both anteceded the great historic religions and continue to reveal many of the basic or primary features of religion. † Almost everywhere you find animists or primal religions you find people living under the influence of a fear-based culture.Burnett goes on to state, â€Å"Power can be understood in many ways: ph ysical, political, economic, social, and religious. The secular worldview tends to regard all power as originating from within the material world. †¦ In contrast, primal worldviews see such powers not only as being real within the empirical world but as having their primary origin outside the visible world. † In this way, those whose lives operate in the fear/power paradigm see themselves living in a physical world that co-exists and is influenced by unseen powers. These powers may be present in people or animals or even in inanimate objects like trees or hills.In some cultures, powers may be perceived in personal terms such as we would use for living beings. These powers are often regarded as having their own particular character, feeling, and ability to relate to others, and often, even have a will of their own. Like people, they may be angered, placated, or turned to in time of need. Power is an important concept in fear-based cultures. In the Pacific Islands it is oft en called ‘mana,' while the Iroquois of North America call it ‘orenda,' which particularly refers to the mystic power derived from a chant. The Eskimos have the notion of ‘sila,' a force watching and controlling everything.The Chinese have the concept of ‘fung shui,' or the powers within the earth and sea. In folk Islam the term ‘baraka'  (blessing or holiness) sometimes embraces many of these concepts. In most fear/power cultures, the main way of dealing with a power is to establish rules to protect the unwary from harm and procedures to appease those powers that are offended. These rules and procedures are generally referred to as taboo. Taboos come in the form of things like special people, forbidden or unclean foods, sacred objects, special acts or rituals, and special names.Appeasements are usually made in the form of sacrifice or dedication to the invisible powers. These powers can take various forms, such as: ghosts, demons, ancestors who live around people, spirits in trees and rocks, and totems (clans associated with certain animals or inanimate objects. ) In order to deal with these powers, rituals are established which people believe will affect the powers around them. Rituals are performed on certain calendar dates, and at certain times in someone's life (rites of passage), or in a time of crisis.In order to appease the powers of the universe, systems of appeasement are worked out. They vary from place to place. Some civilizations offer incense while some offer their children as sacrifices to gods. However it is done, a system of appeasement, based on fear is the norm for their worldview. Wherever this system of appeasement comes into being, religious persons come to the forefront to control these systems. In some cases they are known as priests. In other cases they are known as witch doctors, or shamans. Whatever their title, their role is the same. They are the ones who hold power.Often they are the only ones who u nderstand the needs of the gods or demons, and they are the ones through whom the demons or gods communicate. In every fear-based culture, the pattern is much the same. The witch doctor, priest, or shaman controls people through the use of fear. They are very effective in their roles, and as a result, whole cultures and people groups are held in their iron grip. Early Religion As archeologists and historians have dug through the sands of time, they have uncovered temples and signs of religious activity that reflect strong fear-based elements in early civilizations.Along with this, the structure of civilizations where rulers held absolute power reflects a fear-power base for their civilization. Kings, pharaohs, and rulers held supreme authority and wielded power through the fear that they instilled in the members of their civilization. This allowed civilizations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others to conquer wide areas of their world. While we can deduce the fear-po wer aspect in these civilizations from ancient buildings and military records, it is much harder to detect the importance of shame and honor. Shame-Based Cultures Our taxi screeched to a halt.Lying in the middle of the street was a teen-age girl, dying. She had been shot in the head four times. Just then her brother walked across the street with two policemen and stated, â€Å"There she is. I killed her because she was in an immoral situation with a man. † Under the laws of the country, the young man was innocent. He had not committed murder but had preserved the honor of his family. In another case, a girl ran away from home. Later her family learned she had married someone from another religion. They were furious. The police imprisoned the girl so that she would be protected from her family.Elderly grandmothers taunted the brother and father. â€Å"How long do we need to keep our heads to the ground in shame? Won't you do something to cleanse the shame from our tribe so we can raise our heads and live in honor once again? † The family finally agreed to pay the police a $50,000. 00 guarantee that they would not hurt her and she was released into their custody. Within hours her father and brother shot her thirteen times. The entire family was pleased that honor had been restored. The guilt/innocence perspective in which westerners live dictates much of our thinking in the west.However, not everyone in the world operates within this paradigm. As I mentioned earlier, while living in the Middle East I noticed that when the lifeguard at a swimming pool blew his whistle, the westerners all stopped to see who was guilty, but the Arabs kept right on swimming. As I observed this and other phenomena, I began to realize that Arabs and Arab society were operating in another whole dimension. Guilt did not have the same power and influence as it did in the west. While they were aware of guilt, it didn't have the same strong connotations for them as it had for me.If a policeman pulled me over, I immediately felt guilty, thinking that perhaps I had done something wrong. But when my Arab friends were pulled over, they didn't display any sign of guilt. They talked boldly to the policeman, and even argued loudly with him over the issues at hand. It was only after many years of living in a Muslim culture that it started to dawn on me that the Arabs around me were not operating on a level of guilt versus innocence. Nor were they operating in a fear versus power paradigm. I had heard much about this from missionaries living in Africa but it didn't seem to apply to the Arabs of the Levant.Rather, I discovered that Arabs were living in a worldview where the predominant paradigm was shame versus honor. Once I clued in to this, I began to explore this concept and tried to verify it on all social levels. I was amazed to discover what I found. When I would visit my friends, I would try to act correctly and they would try to act honorably, not shamefu lly. I was busy trying to learn the rights and wrongs of their culture, but somehow my framework of right versus wrong didn't fit what was actually happening. The secret wasn't to act rightly or wrongly in their culture.It wasn't that there was a right way and a wrong way of doing things. The underlying principle was that there was an honorable and dishonorable way of doing things. Every part of the Muslim culture I lived in was based on honor and shame. When I visited my friends I could honor them in the way I acted. They could honor me, in the way they acted. Three cups of coffee bestowed honor on me. The first, called ‘salam' (peace) was followed by ‘sadaqa' (friendship), and the third cup of coffee was called ‘issayf' (the sword). The meaning was clear in their culture.When I arrived I was offered a cup of coffee that represented peace between us. As we drank and talked, the cup of friendship was offered. The last cup, the sword, illustrated their willingness t o protect me and stand by me. It didn't matter if I was right or wrong, they were bound by their honor to protect me. Everywhere I moved in the Middle Eastern culture there were things that pointed to honor or shame. What chair I chose to sit in, who entered the door first, the way I expressed myself in Arabic, the very way I walked and held myself, all communicated to others around me ‘my place' in the world.The cultures of the Middle East are filled with thousands of tiny nuances that communicate messages about shame and honor. Shame is a popular topic today in western society. Shame, however is closely identified with a lack of self-esteem. Shame often stems from some form of abuse where children fail to learn trust. This is quite different from the shame societies of the east where shame and fear of shame are used as controlling forces in people's lives. (As compared with right and wrong being used as a controlling factor. As western parents, we teach our children to act r ightly. If they don't, we teach them that feelings of guilt are the proper response. In a shame-based culture however, children are taught to act honorably, and if they don't, feelings of shame are the proper response. But it goes farther than just feelings. Shame and honor are positions in society, just as being right (and justified) is a position in our western culture. In the west, young people are free to act as spontaneously as they want, as long as they are within the framework of right and wrong.They can be loud, boisterous, and happy, as long as they don't break things, or abuse others. Our rule in the west is â€Å"As long as I don't hurt someone else or their property, I'm generally ok. † Young people in a Muslim setting are different. Wherever they go, they represent their families and tribes. Young people are not free to act as they want. They must always act honorably, so that the honor of their family and tribe is upheld. If they act shamefully, then the family or tribe will react against them. Shameful deeds are covered up. If they can't be covered up, they are revenged.It is the unwritten rule of the desert. The whole concept of shameful deeds can be traced back to the early Bedouin code of practice, which existed even before Islam arrived. This code, still much in existence today, affects not only the way individuals act, but also the actions of entire nations. As I have visited with people from other eastern countries, I have continued to explore the concept of honor and shame among these other countries. It has helped me understand and communicate with people from places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Japan, and Korea.In fact, I have discovered that the concept of shame and honor makes a great discussion topic. I have often asked people from shame-based cultures what are honorable or shameful acts or actions in their cultures. The discussion that follows is often highly stimulating, and usually reflects or cont rasts similar attitudes right across the shame- based countries of the world. In some cases however, there are distinct differences between cultures. As I mentioned earlier, if someone is badly shamed in an Arab culture and the shame cannot be hidden, then it is revenged, and the person responsible for the shaming is killed.In many eastern cultures, if a shame cannot be hidden, the way out is suicide. Even here, however, there are many similarities, as I have known of a number of students in Jordan committing suicide because of their poor school marks, just as happens in Japan. In order for shame-based cultures to work, shame and honor are usually attached to something greater than the individual. Honor is almost always placed on a group. This can be the immediate family, the extended tribe, or in some cases, as large as an entire nation; as was demonstrated in Japan just previous to World War Two.In most Middle Eastern cultures, honor is wrapped up with one's tribe. Everyone grows up within a tribal concept. If someone is from the Beni Hassan tribe, he thinks and acts, and dresses as a Beni Hassan. His actions reflect on the honor the Beni Hassan tribe. If he acts honorably, the Beni Hassan tribe is honored. If he acts shamefully, the whole tribe is shamed. If the act is vile enough, the Beni Hassan tribe will react, and execute the offender, even though he is a member of their own tribe, and perhaps even their immediate family.Thus the honor of the tribe is restored. Many years ago an Arab soldier's gun accidentally discharged and killed his friend and companion in the army. After serving seven years, he was released on condition that he leave Jordan. He lived for nearly twenty years in the United States, but decided to return one day to see his family. When it was learned that he had returned, several young people, some of whom had not been born at the time of the killing, surrounded the house where he was and riddled his body with bullets. Their honor was restored, and shame removed.If someone shames another tribe, tribal warfare could result, and often only the skilful intervention of a third party ends the strife. Arab lore is full of stories of how wise and skillful men have intervened in difficult situations. In fact, many national rulers gain their fame and reputation from their skills at ending tribal strife. In the Middle East two methods are recognized. First, a skillful ruler, through diplomatic efforts and displays of great wisdom, can end disputes. Solomon's dealings with the two mothers who claimed the same baby displayed the kind of wisdom that Arabs appreciate and desire in their rulers.The second kind of ruler crushes all of the tribes and by force makes them submit to himself. Peace may then rule, but once the controlling power is removed, old animosities return. This is well illustrated in the Balkans conflict where the domination of communism brought about a measure of peace. Once freedom returned however, old confl icts and animosities flared again. The storytellers who frequent the coffeehouses of the Middle East excel in telling stories of both kinds of rulers and heroes, especially heroes who can effectively deal with shame and restore honor.This is very different from the entertainment styles of the west, where the hero determines who is guilty, and punishes him, and right and goodness reign again. This is because in our worldview, we try to hang onto the concept that in the midst of a crooked and perverse world, right still reigns and has the upper hand. Those from a shame-based culture, on the other hand, cling to the idea of maintaining honor, in the midst of a shameful and alienated world. For many western people it is very hard if not impossible to try and comprehend a culture that is based on shame, not right versus wrong.In most western cultures, telling the truth is right and telling lies is wrong. In the Middle East, people don't think of lies as being ‘right' or ‘wron g. ‘ The question is, â€Å"Is what is being said, honorable? † If a lie protects the honor of a tribe or nation, then it is fine. If a lie is told for purely selfish reasons, then it is shameful. Thus, in the west we debate ethics, by trying to determine if things are right or wrong. In the east, they debate ethics, by trying to determine if things are honorable or not. Shame in Western Culture In the past, shame has played a role in western culture.One has only to read Tolstoy's  Anna Karenina, or any of Shakespeare's works to see the role that shame used to play. Shakespeare uses the word shame nine times as often as he does guilt. In time, however, our culture has changed and guilt has become much more important. Then, during the last twenty years, we have begun to move away from such a strong guilt-bases for our culture. Why is this? I suspect that the popularity of Freud's teachings is one reason. Sociologists generally credit Freudian psychology for the removal of guilt from western culture.Since his teachings have become popular in many universities, the concept of guilt has become unpopular and guilt has been assigned to others, such as our parents. Other factors, like the lack of responsibility within modern politics have influence young people today. Nixon and Watergate, and Clinton and Lewinsky have illustrated to people today that ‘right versus wrong' is not the only way to think. During the period of 1960 to 2000 western civilization has begun a slow but steady shift away from the ‘right versus wrong' paradigm. Today young people are very reluctant to label anything as right or wrong.Instead, things are assigned the label as â€Å"cool† or â€Å"not cool. † In the eyes of many high school students, being cool is equivalent to being honorable. Being not cool is the equivalent of shame. I believe that this slow shift in worldview is responsible for many of the differences between boosters, boomers, busters, and Generation X'rs. Shaming in History Early Roman culture started out in the fear/power paradigm. Events of nature and history were interpreted within this paradigm. The worship of a pantheon of gods carried on during their whole civilization until Christianity became the state religion.When the Romans adopted the Greek pattern of placing the law above the emperor, they began to interpret events in their society on the guilt/innocence paradigm. This soon came to the forefront of their civilization, and fear/power was pushed to the back. When the Romans conquered shame-based civilizations the people they conquered had a profound impact on their own culture. Shame was always present in Roman culture, but it slowly came more and more to the forefront and eventually into Mediterranean culture today. In republican Rome, criminals had the doors to their houses burned as a public sign that a criminal was living there.Those who had been wronged could legally follow the criminal around, ch anting and accusing him in public places. The concept of public shaming carried on into the Middle Ages, and even into Victorian England where criminals were put into stocks. These stocks were located in public places, so that the criminal would be known and shamed before all. Pillories were rife during the Victorian age, when those who were pilloried had to endure the shame of publicly having rotten vegetables thrown at them. Branding criminals was practiced in England until the eighteenth century.Brands were often placed on the hands or face, so that the criminals would be publicly shamed wherever they went. The major difference between east and west, however, is not the presence of the shame concept, but rather, the structure of society around either the group mentality or individualism. Eastern shame became much more powerful than western shaming activities, simply because in the east the shame rests on the person's group rather than the individual. Since many eastern society fu nctions in a group setting, the whole group suffers rather than just the individual.If the crime is bad enough, the group itself may oust or, for a severe offense, kill the offender. In 1999 at least twenty-five women were killed to maintain the honor of their families in the country of Jordan. Hundreds of others were killed in countries like Egypt, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. In many countries where shame-based culture is predominant, the names of criminals and those being ousted from their families for shameful activities are publicly printed in the newspapers. In western countries we tend to isolate criminals from their surroundings, and then determine if they are guilty.Criminals are then locked away out of sight, rather than publicly shamed in stocks in the public square. It's interesting to notice that in the Crow Indian culture in North America, mocking of some one else's inappropriate behavior effects shaming. This is sometimes called â€Å"buying-of-the-ways. † If you im itate someone else's inappropriate behavior, you are buying his ways. In some cases a person actually offers money to buy someone else's inappropriate behavior. This is the ultimate shame. In many shame-based cultures, rather than encourage others, people criticize and question others.This is seen as positive, as it keeps them from becoming too proud. In the same way, Arabs are often quick to criticize leaders, especially elected ones, if they perceive that they are too ambitious or proud. They are sometimes publicly questioned or shamed, and often they leave public life. Even new language students discover that their neighbors are quick to point out that someone else speaks better than they do, or they are asked why they speak so poorly after being there for â€Å"a whole four months! † The criticism is often meant to keep them from being proud of how well they have done.Arabs understand that the criticism may be a compliment, but the poor westerner is often crushed. Clash o f World Views As I mentioned earlier, there are three basic planes on which worldview, function. On each of these planes, there

Saving Sourdi Essays

Saving Sourdi Essays Saving Sourdi Paper Saving Sourdi Paper â€Å"Saving Sourdi† by Mailee Chai, is a story of a women name Sourdi , where her life is been arranged for marriage to a husband who will provide a lifestyle suitable to raising a family. However, she was provided with a good environment to raise their children in, and a strong man who will support their needs financially. As a young child Sourdi was really close to her younger sister Nea; They talked about things every night before going to bed. Exclusively their relationship had fell down the Drain. When Sourdi, reached time for her to become a woman. She was arranged to get married to a man named Chhay, and moves out. Even though Nea didn’t like the whole situation, she had to deal with it. The fact her sister detached from her, and they barely see each other. When Nea answers one of Sourdi’s phone call one night, Sourdi Sound like she was crying. When Nea asked what happened , she ignored her question and asked for her mom. Nea got suspicious thinking Mr. Chhay had hit her sister. So Nea gets Sourdi ex-boyfriend and told him everything, but never mentioned that she never told Sourdi she was coming over, to see what was going on. When Nea and Sourdi ex-boyfriend Duke arrived at Sourdi place, Nea sat there, waiting for a sign to go in. When Nea got in Sourdi’s House. Sourdi was surprised because, she was not expecting any company over. Nea saw a bruise in Sourdi’s face. At that moment Nea thought Mr. Chhay had hit Sourdi. Duke made a big movement by knocking Mr. Chhay in the mouth. But later on, they found out that the baby diapers had fell on her face. And the reason she was crying on the phone for mama because she was pregnant with another baby, and didn’t know what to do. When that was settled Nea was satisfied and went home.

How to Form and Use Possessive Adjectives

How to Form and Use Possessive Adjectives Possessive adjectives are used to show ownership of an item or an idea. Possessive adjectives are very similar to possessive pronouns and the two are often confused. Take a look at these examples of possessive adjectives immediately followed by possessive pronouns used in a similar sense. Possessive Adjective Examples My dog is very friendly.Her book is red.Our house is painted yellow. Possessive Pronouns Examples That friendly dog is mine.The red book is hers.That yellow house is ours. If you are unsure focus on the placement of possessive adjectives which are placed directly before the noun they modify. Possessive Adjectives Usage Possessive adjectives are used when the reference to which person or thing is understood. For example: Jack lives on this street. His house is over there. The possessive adjective his refers to Jack because of the context. Remember that possessive adjectives come in front of the noun they modify. Here is a list of possessive adjectives: I - my carYou - your dogHe - his boatShe - her familyIt - its fabric(NOT its!)We - our classYou - your jobsThey - their toys Examples: I took my daughter to the movies.Where is your house?I picked up his book yesterday.Thats her car over there.Its color is red!Our company is doing very well.Your bicycles are located in the basement.Their toys are in the closet. Possessive Adjective Checklist Possessive adjectives are used in place of proper names Place adjectives directly before the noun they modifyPossessive adjectives are very similar in usage to possessive pronouns Possessive adjectives are used when the context is clear who is in possession of an objectNote the similarity in form between possessive adjectives and pronouns Use these resources for more detailed information on other possessive forms: Possessive Nouns - For example, Johns house, the bicycles color, etc. Possessive Pronouns - For example, that is mine, this is hers, etc. This general guide to possessive forms quickly compares all three types of possessive forms.