Theories

A major theory of inequality is the one propounded by Karl Marx who argues that social inequality is not natural but stems from the construction of the unfair capitalist system. Marx sees the workers or the proletariat as being exploited for their labour by those that own the means of production

Marxists see social inequality as manifested in the fact that workers do not benefit from the wealth that their labour produces instead Marx claims that they are 1’pauperized’. The poorer working classes get poorer whilst the rich enjoy getting richer this is illustrated by income inequalities all over the world; the poorest 20% of people in the USA have seen their incomes fall by 19% whilst the top 5% saw their incomes rise, in Australia the richest ten per cent of the population owns about half the nation’s wealth in the USA its over two thirds.

A limitation of Marx theories on inequality is that it only focuses on economic inequality. Many sociologists would agree with Marx that economic inequality is the most significant form of inequality at the moment whilst acknowledging that economic inequality and social inequality, as we live in a modern multi- cultural capitalist country are inextricably linked and are affected significantly by gender, racial, religious and ethnic inequality. Ethnic background is both an indicator and factor of social inequality.

In Australia for example, Aborigines are over represented in the working class as well as underclass and under-represented in the top stratification of earnings and class. Social inequality thus seems to be a consequence of ascribed status: of the status that our skin colour our gender and/or our social class confers on us. Arguably there is scope for social mobility in our current system as our ascribed statuses can be overshadowed by our achieved status especially as we are not generally ascribed to a lower cast iron status at birth that prevents social mobility (unlike the untouchables in the caste system in other cultures) Theoretically we can ascend the social ladder, however low we start, as there is equality of opportunity. This is the view propounded by functionalists such as Davis and Moore. Our achievements in our meritocratic system determine the social position that we hold.

Davis and Moore acknowledge that there are perhaps socially unequal jobs yet they are all important for society to function. Thus to maintain society each role needs to be filled so ‘effective role allocation’ is an essential functional perquisite. However as some jobs require more skills and training than others there is a need for differing social and financial incentives to entice people to undergo extensive training and take up such jobs. Davis and Moore assert that role allocation and thus people’s socio-economic status is fair as it is based on merit, those in the top roles earning the most are those that are best equipped for their role. Whilst Marx sees the current system as exploitative Davis and Moore see it and the inequality that accompanies it as legitimate and functionally advantageous to society.

Such a theory though, does not take into account gender and racial inequalities or concepts such as culture capital old boys club and the glass ceiling

The culture capital theory suggested by sociologist Pierre Bordieu explains that the education system prises and is geared toward the culture of the middle and upper classes thus those from a working class background find that the skills and knowledge derived within their culture is ‘devalued’ and they therefore do not have equal opportunities to excel academically which of course restricts their employment choices and socio-economic position in the future. We can see therefore that inequality is institutionalised, as Marx alludes to in the labour market, and that education is perhaps the first agent of stratification.

M. Tumin has also criticised Davis and Moore by condemning their notion of functional importance as questionable and too vague. It ignores the differential of power. According to Tumin differences in pay and prestige will be affected by, and often reflect differences in the relative power of groups and individuals in the labour market rather than the job’s actual functional importance. Therefore differences in pay can actually be more a reflection of the relative strength of the workers’ union and bargaining potential rather than of functional importance e.g. coal miners and farm labourers.

Davis and Moore suggest that inequality is universal as it can be identified in all societies. Such views would suggest that inequality is not eliminable. Marxists ideas contradict this view. Marx claimed that inequality could be eliminated with the development of class consciousness and the abandonment of capitalism however the Soviet communism model proved that in the modern world this was untenable. Equality came at a high price- by the collapse of communism in 1989 equality had come to mean people simply had equally low living standards. Economic and social equality came at the expense then, of basic human rights, the sociologist Peter Saunders stated socialist societies are2 ‘always more repressive than the capitalist ones since they must get people to fulfil their role without the incentive of economic rewards.’

However it is clear that the Soviet system was successful in reducing and even eliminating inequality in many spheres of life. Even if it didn’t respect human rights in all cases, it guaranteed basic needs such as housing employment education medical care and even holidays.

3The satellite states had embraced capitalism after communism expecting to reap the economic benefits of a capitalist system in fact, living standards actually fell. Russia, after communism rapidly transformed from an almost standardized society to one that was plagued by socio-economic polarisations, according to Goskomstat, the income ratio between the wealthiest 10% of the population and the bottom 10% was about 4:1 in 1990 by 1996 it had sky rocketed to 13:1. Women’s rights have also regressed significantly in Russia currently approximately 80% of the unemployed in Russia are women.

Such evidence seems to support a Marxist framework of inequality as not inevitable but sustained by a capitalist system.

Marxists claim that a capitalist society is maintained through divide and rule. Thus when a class ‘stopped being a class in itself and started being a class for itself’ then the group could recognise their inferior social position, class solidarity would develop as the class recognised their shared interests and goals and they would then act together to displace the bourgeoisie. However because inequality is so multilayered class divisions are easy to maintain as differences in gender and race also generate inequality thus even if class differences were eliminated these would persist and perhaps increase.

Blackness has historically been classed as inferior, perceived inferiority has been harmful since those who see themselves as superior usually hold the legal power and status in the society and can therefore cement in law the inferiority of the blacks or other ethnic groups. Loury calls for4 ‘major structural remedies to speed up progress toward racial equality’ which will in turn reduce the economic inequality that ethnic minority groups face.

The New right perspective argues that social inequality has persisted throughout the ages; Saunders states that ‘there has never been a completely egalitarian society’. Every society has its male and females, rich and poor it’s big and small and it’s old and young. In this absolute sense there is some truth to the assertion that some degree of inequality is inevitable.

However inequality itself is unequal it varies with time and culture which validates the theory that inequality is socially constructed and thus can be eliminated. In Britain granted we have moved from the stark extremes of inequality of slavery in imperial Britain but only to an ‘acceptable’ economic and social inequality that is institutionalized within our capitalist system, unequal access is built into the structures that support and maintain our contemporary society.

It can be argued that the current degree of inequality is not advantageous to society and a reflection of unequal talents in society as Davis and Moore claim nor is it an inevitable product of the capitalist system as Marxists argue; it is a matter of choice. Through the lax way we regulate corporations compared with the harsh regulations placed on workers unions, how we distribute the tax burden and how we set wages. We limit the power of workers thus limiting their socio-economic position.

The Egyptian pyramid construction theories range from simply outlandish to impossible. Almost all Archaeologist and some engineers take a stab at a theory sometime during their career. None have been proven and all are simply an educated guess. No one knows how the pyramids could have been built without today’s heavy machinery. It seems Impossible for any group of men to move a 2. 5 ton block from the quarry to the construction site and then manage to lift Into the alarm to stack It precisely on top of each other without machinery and surveying tools. Doesn’t It?

In order to understand the size and magnitude of these pyramids, for example, the great pyramid of Gaza. This pyramid stood over oft tall and was the largest recorded structure in the world for over 3,800 years. It was made from roughly 2 be a mystery without modern day tools. Whoever built the pyramids employed a technology that far surpasses modern technology In most cases. Some say that present day engineers and architects are at such a complete loss as to how they were built and most admit they remain one of the most complex, sophisticated and receives built structures on earth.

Some say that a select group of architects and engineers are at such a loss that they have turned to alien technology as the only possible answer. Theory; aliens built the pyramids, not man. People that believe this theory often base it on the fact that Egyptians had no knowledge of math or geometry and the fact that the pyramids align precisely with the constellation Orient’s Belt. “Gaza consists of two almost equally tall pyramids and a smaller one which is only 53% of the height of the other two. The belt of Orion consists of two almost animally bright stars, and one with only 50% of the brightness of the other two.

The smallest pyramid is the one which deviates from the diagonal, as does the dimmest star. ” (Mohammad, 2013) It is also impossible to explain how the pyramid of Gaza is aligned perfectly with the magnetic north pole since they had no use of a compass, especially since it had not even been vented yet. How can anyone explain how they moved such massive blocks of stone without the wheel, it also had not been vented yet. These all are interesting facts that say something out of this world helped the

Egyptians build the pyramids, but the most astonishing one was when a reputable Egyptian Archeologist, Dry Ala Shaken told an audience that there might be some truth to the theory that aliens were involved in the construction of the great pyramids of Gaza. In a statement during an interview Dry. Shaken replied to a question from Mr.. Mark Novak that implied that there may be OF technology within Its structure with the following statement “l cannot confirm or deny this, but there Is something Inside the pyramid that Is “not of this world. ” Dry. Shaken has failed to elaborate on is comment which leaves all of guessing. Michael Cohen, 2010) There are two theories close In similarity that most modern scholars believe to be possible, the external ramp theory and the Internal ramp theory. The first theory, the external ramp theory, Is based on the men pulling the large stone up a ramp that would Increase In height as the pyramid did. “Historians speculate that the stones were dragged up inclined ramps made of compacted rubble bonded and made slippery theory is it is believed to be impossible for the men to pull the stones up a ramp rater than 8% grade, this would mean the ramp would have to be over a mile long.

There is not room, and there is not such a ramp on the Gaza plateau. Because the single straight ramp theory Just doesn’t work many have opted for an optional ramp theory. The internal ramp theory combines both theories. It is believed that the bottom third of the pyramid had a single straight ramp that the blocks were dragged up. The internal ramp theory is based on the fact that the incline would never exceed 7%. This would be accomplished by building a ramp that wrapped the inside of the Truckee, similar to a spiral staircase.

By using this method the blocks were pulled up the bottom 1/3 straight external ramp, they were then pulled inside and pulled up an internal ramp. It is believed that the reason there is not an external ramp in existence today is because it was categorized by using its blocks to create the top the 2/3 of the structure. This theory seems to be the best possible solution on how the pyramids were built, but it still doesn’t explain how it was done with such precision and accuracy, which many believe will always remain a mystery.

The Energy Corporation is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing to the community. Our organization is made of 400,000 members as I am a part of the board of directors. One of the directors has asked to address himself as a director of the Energy Corporation to personal potential clients. I have been asked to review this matter. Before giving the rest of the board a review I shall look into the perspectives of philosopher’s theories on ethics.

The first philosopher I will bring up is Emmanuel Kant. Kant was one of the most influential philosophers of western philosophy. In Cant’s perspective, the sole feature that gives an action moral value is not the outcome that is attained by the act, but the cause that is behind the action. So in this case if the director is trying to make himself seem important or his actions benefit him more then the company then Kant wouldn’t agree with this decision. His actions should be pure and for the best interest of everyone.

When thinking about this situation we can discuss Practical Imperative. “Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means. (Kant). Individuals or groups of people are not to be used unjustifiably in demand to acquire your goals or pursue an edge or unfair benefits. People have rights that shouldn’t be violated. In other words Kant would ask, “Do my actions respect the goals of human beings rather than Just using them for my own purposes? ” If not then it’s not prohibited. Simply that using others for ones benefit is wrong.

If the action is what is seems to be, then Kant would identify it as Hypothetical Imperative. The goal is not based on pure reason but based on desire. For example if someone wants to confident in a class hen they have to study hard. If this director wants to address himself as a director he has to earn that privilege. I believe that Kant would approve this action only if the action was not for the director’s benefit in any way which seems difficult. A person with a different view will give his perspective on the situation and his view on ethics, this man is John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill was the most well-known and influential British moral philosopher of the nineteenth century. Mill concentrates on consequences of actions and not on rights or ethical opinions. Mill is known for his ethical theory of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is explained by examining the outcomes of actions and comparing those decisions with what would have occurred if some other action had been performed. Mill believes that the measures of an action can evaluate agents not the act that is committed. Mill focuses on the Principle of Utility.

Principle of Utility is defined as an action that can be allowable if and only if the consequences of that act are at least as moral as those of any other action existing to that agent. So relating this to the situation the director hasn’t done any wrong because he may have the same goals as us. According to Mill if no other actions or decisions can be made then there is nothing wrong with the director’s request. Mill states that everyone’s happiness is taken into account, and given equal weight (SIS). Mill’s theory describes that happiness is to be spread amongst many people.

It seems that Mill is describing that when someone is making a decision that the decision should bring happiness and if it does then it is right. He believes there is no limitation on consequences. All of the happiness and unhappiness must be taken account in an action no matter how timely it can be. After listening and eating about Mill I believe that he would let the director have his way. For that reason I believe he wouldn’t mind because he would think that his decision wouldn’t cause unhappiness to others. After all, the director is helping the organization in the long run.

We all have the same goals and are trying to achieve the same things. Thought we can’t predict the consequences of everything this seems to have minor unhappiness. A decision in this situation needs some moral reasoning. The perfect person for that is Lawrence Goldberg. Lawrence Goldberg born in the state of New York was known for his contribution to the stages of moral reasoning. The stages of moral reasoning consist of 3 levels which are Pre-conventional, Conventional, and Post-conventional. His studies suggest that overtime everyone progresses with their moral reasoning.

Though people cannot Jump stages overtime they make their way to the later stages. So according to the studies from Goldberg adults should have a better grasp on moral reasoning. The theories show that adults have gone though some stages and should be able to make better decisions. The level Goldberg believes that society is in is second conventional stages. The first level is an attitude seeking to be approved by others. The second stage is one focused on abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. So thinking about all of this in the current situation makes us think critically.

If according to Goldberg we abide to our duties then requesting permission address oneself as the director of the organization is connecting to the duties. Goldberg would use his moral reasoning to understand the perspective of everything and find the good in the situation at hand. “At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences” (Goldberg). Goldberg would believe that the decisions of each individual member of the board are for the best interest of the organization.

Goldberg would allow the director to continue with his request because if the director is in a part of the chart of moral reasoning then his actions must be in the best interests of others. “Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society’ (Goldberg). When we make decisions we want to make sure there is a Justice behind them. Maybe applying the Justice theory can help understand the situation. John Rails theory of Justice revolves around two fundamental principles.

The first principle promises the right of each person to have the most general basic right agreed with the liberty of others. The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. The Justice Theory focuses on what it sounds which is not to treat others unfair, the individual rights of others come before cooperate needs. Rails would say that we are in the Original Position. In this Original Position we are self-interested cantonal people that are motivated to select in a knowledgeable and progressive way for whatever seems beneficial for ourselves.

Leading to the Difference Principle which is described as “Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both, to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity'(Rails). The Difference Principle means that society may start projects that require giving curtain people more power. Though this can only happen if two conditions are met. The first Ewing that the project has to improve the lives for the people who are now worst off.

For example raising the standards to live so the less advantaged are better off. Second, access to the advantaged positions is not blocked by discrimination according to immaterial standards. So after discussing the Justice Theory it seems that in certain situations giving power to others is appropriate. In doing this everyone else’s rights are not being taken away. In the long run the decision to let the director to continue with his request will indeed benefit the organization in the end. It is in this certain situation that all of the conditions are met. Justice is happiness according to virtue” (Rails).

Justice will bring happiness to others and everyone around it. As human beings we all have rights. Rights to life, a right to choose, a right to vote, to work, to be free. Rights are entitlements in which we can perform certain actions. Talking about this is all leading to the Rights Theory. We are all people and we have rights. If others affect our rights then things are unethical and can be illegal. “Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014).

In accepting our rights we accept our freedoms. Having a right is the ability to determine what others may and or may not do and to exercise authority over certain aspects of situations. The use of authority can be exercised as long as no rights are being violated. Maybe the director is using his authority in his request in speaking with the personal potential client? The director has a right to make his request from his position. No one can take away that right from him. If his request does impact the rights of another person then the request is not allowed and is unethical.

Everyone has rights and so does the organization. A person who says to another ‘l have a right to do it’ is not saying that it is not wrong to do it. He is claiming that the other has a duty not to interfere” (Razz, 1994). I feel this quote can open doors to the situation. It says that you may have the right to do something which is k but can confuse if the act is wrongful to others. The director does have a right to say he is a director of the organization because he is a human being and its part of his natural rights as a person of the company. Yes it is his right but is it ethically right?

It only takes one person to make something ethically or morally wrong. If none of the other directors in the organization have a problem with the situation then it can be considered ethically acceptable. All of these theories have a lot of ideas and beliefs. I believe after reading about all of the theories about ethics and moral reasoning it gives insight and enlightenment on many situations in the business community. It is easy to make a quick decision and settle with it. As fast as the decision may be it could be making a mistake even faster. All of these theories force different perspectives.

Kant would approve this action only if the action was not for the director’s benefit in any ay which could seem difficult. It’s one thing if it was a regular business but the fact that the organization is non-profit changes things. It changes people’s perspective about the business. Non-profit does what’s best for the community. I believe Kant would approve of the request. I believe Mill wouldn’t mind this request because he would think that his decision wouldn’t cause unhappiness to others. If it did cause any it isn’t enough to outweigh the good from it. The directors’ request will help the organization in the long run.

Goldberg would believe in moral reasoning to guide the road of directors to make the right decisions for the organization. The Justice Theory would allow the request because sometimes it allows an individual power for the greater good. Finally though the Rights Theory everything would be allowed as long as no rights are violated. So after all of the theories I hope that all of you can follow my ideas. I find that the request is for the best of the organization. Ethically the cause behind the request outweighs the bad. We are a non-profit organization and we are made of many people and that is hard to miss.

We all have the same goals and ideas or bettering the community. This response describes to everyone why the request should be allowed.

What are the methods of the historians and how do they compare with other methodologies:

First of all, we have to know what is the definition of history:

It is a branch of knowledge dealing with past events, political, social, economic, of a country, continent, or the world. It is an orderly description of past events. It is also a train of events connected with a person or thing.

Secondly I will define what is a method. It is 1) a system, orderliness, 2) it is a way of doing something 3) doing things with 4) it is a science or study of something.

The differences between the facts of the past and historical facts:

We all know, or think we know, what a fact is: a reliable piece of information, something we know to be, in the common sense meaning of the word “true”. We also know, or think we know, what an historical fact is. Give examples. These are facts, definite pieces of historical knowledge, close perhaps to the natural scientific knowledge the nineteenth century historians wanted to use as their model of knowledge.

But these facts are only the start of history, only the foundation on which history is built. History is not the facts of the past alone but the processing of these facts into a coherent, meaningful interpretation of the past with which these facts are concerned.

“History is the interpretation of these facts, the processing of them into a narrative with causes and effects.”

These facts, these pieces of information about the past are important to historians. Historians must be certain of their accuracy, must have confidence in their integrity before they can confidently interpret them for their contemporaries.

Historians collect their facts from whenever they can. Certain historical facts, mostly those obtained from archives, may be collected directly by historians themselves. Historians can visit public records offices or churches and examine historical documents directly.

Epigraphy is an interesting example of such a discipline. It is the study of ancient inscriptions: letters and words and symbols, chiselled, moulded or embossed on stones. E.g.: the Rosetta stone: it is an inscribed stone found near Rosetta in northern Egypt in 1799.

History is a selection:

Historians make history by selecting facts and processing them and it is the processing that creates history. History has been described as an enormous jig saw with lots of bits missing. Historians try to create the missing pieces. They can only do this by selecting from all the information available to them. What evidence we have for this comes, of course, from the people in the middle Ages who wrote about their own lives and times. And the people who wrote about their own lives and times in the middle Ages in Europe were monks and priests.

Imaginative understanding is an important part of an historian’s skill, but imaginative understanding varies from historian to historian. They have to imaginatively understand the minds of the older people. The only way they can do this is by using their own thought processes. Historians recognize that to portray history is impossible. They cannot really be sure of the motives of the writers of the archive documents.

“The past can only be seen through the eyes of the present”.

Historian should present their records of the past. Ranke and his fellow nineteenth century historians believed that not only was it possible to present the past “How it really was” but they also believed they were doing exactly that when they wrote their history books. The historian’s job was to collect together a proven body of facts and present them to the readers.

Is history a unique area of knowledge?

We have seen that natural sciences, mathematics and logic, and the social sciences have distinctive areas of knowledge. Can a similar claim be made for history? YES of course it can be made!!!!. One way of answering this question is to look at the work of historians. As we do this, we should ask ourselves the question ” What do historians do that scientists, mathematicians and social scientists do not do?”!!!!!.

Four different stages exists:

1) Recording: Some scholars collect records and preserve evidence from the past. If we stick to our definition of historians as interpreters of facts these scholars are not historians in our sense of the word. They are archivists and curators, collectors and preservers. E.G: Nothing is moved until photographs are taken, measurements made and meticulous records compiled of everything that is there and exactly where it is. That is the work of the historical researchers who record and preserve evidence from the past. Every objects is recorded and, as far as possible identified. The historical knowledge these Historians have is no different from the knowledge of natural science: it is empirical and of course objective. Give example of the titanic.

2) Assessment: These historians asses the evidence they have, compare it to other similar evidences that might be available and come to the conclusion that Holden’s room are indeed a unique historical event.

3) Reconstructing the past: Having assessed the evidence and accepted its importance, historians now have to use it, to infer from it and to reconstruct the past. They use evidences. Historians also are interested in reconstructing beyond the obvious. They attempt to reconstruct the values of a wealthy youth 100 years ago.

4) Interpreting: Historians ask themselves questions. They might compare the artefacts with other atifacts for instance…

Historians’ ways of knowing are distinct. They record, assess, reconstruct and interpret in a way that others scholars do not. Historians continually reinterpret the events of the past and reappraise them for each new generation.

Historical sources:

Primary and secondary sources:

The problem with the past is that it has passed. It has gone. The idea of all time past, and present, running parallel is intriguing but until we have the technology to explore other times in reality, we have to explore the past through what the past has left us, through the multitude of artefacts surviving from times past. Historians use what they term PRIMARY SOURCES as their main access to the past. Secondary sources are also available: these are sources of information provided by other historians.

Primary sources are the bedrock of history. They include every conceivable type of documents: maps, treaties, churches and temple records, imperial archive documents, letters, legal records, diaries, newspapers, catalogues and even bus tickets. They can be formal or informal, private or public, serious or frivolous. Primary sources also include artefacts.

Unlike science, say, history is often criticized for serving no purpose. We are unable to learn from history, it is argued, either because precisely the same circumstances as in the past cannot arise again in future, or because if sufficiently similar circumstances did arise, we would not be able to act differently.

In the natural sciences we have both statements of immediate observations, reporting for instance the outcome of an experiment, and general laws from which we can derive predictions. These two kinds of statements are justified in quite different ways: observational statements by perception.

The evidence, not necessarily written, which historical research is based on are the ‘sources’. Sources need not be items that go back to the time in history which is being studied, but can be texts written since then about that time: the former are called primary, and the latter secondary sources.

There are two main questions that must be asked regarding primary sources. The first of these concerns their authenticity, or genuineness. Suppose that we have, for instance, a painting of a particular historical event; then the painter may have added or omitted certain details to please his customer, or to make it a better painting, he may not have been there himself and have used incomplete accounts, the painting could even be a later forgery, and so on.

The other question concerns their completeness. We must bear in mind that the material available to us has already been systematically selected, in a variety of ways: we tend to know more about the upper classes of the societies we study, because it is largely their doings that were recorded, while we find many ruins in some parts of the world, little remains of the wooden structures that were more common elsewhere, and so on.

On one side there are those who hold that historical explanation must be like the scientific explanation of an event: to understand an historical event, we must have a general, or ‘covering’ law, so that from this law and a description of the historical situation we can deduce that the event would happen.

For even where history is capable of being objective, there are problems with the ‘evidence’ it is based on, as we have seen: the sources available may not be authentic, and they will certainly be incomplete. And to the extent that history is (necessarily) subjective, i.e. a matter of the position from which it is written, historical accounts or explanations are liable to the problem of bias, i.e. partiality, tendentiousness or even prejudice.

The historian cannot be objective about the period, which is his subject. In this he differs (to his intellectual advantage) from its most typical ideologists, who believed that the progress of technology, ‘positive science’ and society made it possible to view their present with the unanswerable impartiality of the natural scientist, whose methods they believed themselves (mistakenly) to understand.

For much of the time that history has been written, the work of the historian was not thought to be particularly problematic — as long as he had the right intentions, he would just try to discover the truth, and ”tell how it really was.”

The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.

History, then, is not, as it has so often been misdescribed, a story of successive events or an account of change. Unlike the natural scientist, the historian is not concerned with events as such at all. He is only concerned with those events, which are the outward expression of thoughts. …

Students may compare any two theories of personality, and are required to highlight the main similarities and differences between the two. They should have a paragraph somewhere highlighting each theory’s main propositions/ tenets in order to build a strong argument. The most common comparisons you will probably come across will be between psychoanalysis and nonprofessionals, and between psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Psychoanalysis and nonprofessionals The mall theorists for these two sections respectively are Sigmund Freud and Carl

Jung. The major similarities lie in their ideas of the preconscious (Freud) and the personal unconscious Nouns) – they need to explain this similarity a bit. Both constructs refer to the part of the psyche that contains memories, thoughts, and emotions that have been momentarily forgotten or stored away and can be recalled back Into the conscious mind. It’s not enough to Just highlight that there is a difference. Another salutary Is the Idea of the old (Freud) and the shadow (lung). Both of these constructs indicate that we possess a darker side of ourselves that is driven by animal-like impulses.

Both Freud and Jung acknowledge the existence and function of the ego. Both acknowledge the existence and functionality of the conscious mind. One of the major differences between these two theorists/ approaches Is that Freud placed much more emphasis on sexuality than did Jung. Jung also believed that our personality develops throughout our lifetime whereas Freud believed that personality stopped developing at age 18. Do not award marks for comparisons about Jung or Fraud’s personal lives – this is not relevant to the question. If other differences/ similarities have been correctly pointed out, you can reward this.

Psychoanalysis and behaviorism Behaviorism rejects the idea of the unconscious, whereas psychoanalysis is founded on the Idea of the unconscious. Behaviorist’s argue that personality develops throughout a lifetime whereas psychoanalysts argue that personality develops up till the age of 18. Behaviorist’s: behavior Is driven by experiences of being rewarded or punished for certain behaviors. Psychoanalysts: behavior is driven by internal conflicts between the id, ego, and superego. Behaviorism theory can be scientifically validated; psychoanalytic theory cannot.

A similarity between these theories is that either of them truly accounts for human agency and free will and both have been criticized on this basis Other comparisons The students may use other approaches to compare and contrast to answer the question. This is perfectly fine. The points above are two of the most common ones you are likely to be looking at. Other approaches may include the lifep approach, the trait approach, or the humanistic approach (these are the approaches they have covered so far In lectures) They may compare and contrast any two theories, as long the two theories.

It is not sufficient to only highlight their similarities or to only gaslight their differences. The main tenets of each theory are outlined below. Use your discretion in looking at how the students have made their comparisons. The lifep approach Main proponent/ theorist was Erik Erikson who was described as an ego psychologist. He was highly influenced by Sigmund Freud (psychoanalysis) and his theories and therefore we may see many similarities in their theories particularly in the stages of development.

Personality develops throughout one’s lifetime (and does not stop at 18 as Freud suggested). Erikson was much more interested in the influence of the social environment on the individual whereas his influencer, Freud, placed more emphasis on the sexual dimension of development. Erikson: psychosocial stages of development; Freud: psychosocial stages of development. Erikson criticized for male bias; Freud criticized for his sexist account of development. Both theorists believed women to be inferior to men in their development.

The trait approach Main proponent is Raymond Chattel Believed that our traits can be used to predict our behavior Surface traits = overt behaviors that people show consistently Source traits = underlying source of reface traits Chattel developed PUFF questionnaire to determine most prominent traits in an individual McCrae and Costa developed the 5 factor model of personality: openness; conscientiousness; extroversion; agreeableness; neurotics The humanistic approach Main proponents: Carl Rogers and Abraham Moscow Rogers believed that all humans have one basic need: unconditional positive regard Moscow believed that we have a hierarchy of needs, and our fixations at any one level of the hierarchy will determine the type of personality which we develop Mascots theory lacks scientific rigor

One of the long held has been to establish a model that can conveniently describe human personality and disorders therein, with the intent to use this model in the remedying of personality disorders and improving general understanding of personality. Currently, a handful of models have risen to prominence, and have thus far stood the test of time. Some models are more generally accepted than others. Support for some models seems to come and go in cycles.

One of the more prominent models in contemporary psychology is what is known as the five-factor model of personality. This theory incorporates five different variables into a conceptual model for describing personality. These five different factors are often referred to as the “Big 5”. The five-factor theory is among the newest models developed for the description of personality, and this model shows promise to be among the most practical and applicable models available in the field of personality psychology.

Thorough critical attention is given to the proposal that the five-factor model is in fact a great theory. As it became evident to many psychologists that, mathematically, combinations of five factors were useful in describing personality, there was a need to clearly define what these factors were. Indeed, this process led to some dissent in the ranks. One dissenter from the five-factor theorists was renowned psychologist H. J. Eysenck. Eysenck felt that, due to overlaps in the five factors and their correlates, in fact a three-factor model was more appropriate and accurate.

His theory is called the PEN model (which stand for psychoticism, extroversion, neuroticism), or sometimes is even shortened to the two factor E-IN model (extroversion-introversion, neuroticism). Many psychologists support Eysenck’s PEN model. However, of the major “factor-analytic models… the Big Five dominates the landscape of current psychological research” (Ewen, 1998, p. 141). Through extensive debating and experimenting, there is currently a general consensus in the realms of scholarly psychology as to the identity of the five factors, and their basic interpretations and values to analysis of personality.

The five factors are extroversion-introversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Extroversion has long been one of the traits that has appeared in factor-analytic models, and is one of the two traits to appear in both the five-factor model and Eysenck’s PEN and E-IN models. Extroversion also is sometimes referred to as social adaptability, though the popularity of this term seems to be waning. Extroversion is defined as a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown.

Neuroticism is the other trait to play a role in most of the contemporary factor models for personality. In some studies, adjustment is examined as a factor, instead of neuroticism. In this case, higher scores will indicate a positive result, consistent with the other four factors. This is because the term neuroticism has an inherent negative denotation (Bradshaw, 1997). The bases of neuroticism are levels of anxiety and volatility. Within these bounds, neuroticism is a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end.

Openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are all terms with which most people outside the realm of psychology are familiar. In general, openness refers to how willing people are to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas or situations. Agreeableness measures how compatible people are with other people, or basically how able they are to get along with others. Conscientiousness refers to how much a person considers others when making decisions. As with the two factors in the big five from Eysenck’s E-IN, these three are also placed on sliding scales.

These three scales, like neuroticism and extroversion, slide between their limits to give a clear picture of personality. The limits of these scales give a clear idea of their applications and are defined as trusting and helpful versus suspicious and uncooperative (agreeableness), hard working and reliable versus lazy and careless (conscientiousness), and nonconformist and creative versus conventional and down-to-earth (openness). Never the less, there are many other theorist who have evaluated the five factor theory in a much boarder aspect.

These researchers began by studying all known personality traits and then factor- analyzing hundreds of measures of these traits in self-report and questionnaire data, peer rating and objective measures from experimental settings in order to find the basic, underlying factors of personality. The big five factors of personality are five broad domains or dimensions of personality which have been scientifically discovered to define human personality at the highest level of the organization. These five over-arching domains have been found to ontain and subsume more or less all known personality traits within their five domains and to represent the basic structure behind all personality traits. They have brought order to the often-bewildering array of specific lower level personality concepts that are constantly being proposed by psychologists, which are often found to be overlapping and confusing. These five factors provide a rich conceptual frame work for integrating all the research findings and theory in personality psychology.

Three sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this problem and have indentified generally the same Five Factors. They are Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute, Cattell at the University of Illinois, and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of Health. These three sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all three sets have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned.

The Big Five Factors are commonly known as Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, also Known as ocean or canoe. Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. The trait distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth conventional people. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people more creative and more aware of their feeling.

They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. In addition, people with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interest. They prefer the plain, straight forward and obvious over the complex, ambiguous and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavours as abstruse or of no practical use. Close people prefer familiarity over novelty. They are conservative and resistant to change. Conscientiousness is the tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully and aim for achievement.

The trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Conscientiousness includes the factor known as Need for Achievement or NAch. It is obvious that the benefits of conscientiousness are high. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics.

Extraversion is characterized by positive emotions, surgency and the tendency to seek out stimulation and the company of others. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic, action oriented individuals who are likely to say “I most certainly will! ” or “Come on let’s go! ” to opportunities that will excite them. When placed in groups they are likely the first to talk, and assert themselves, just to draw attention to themselves.

However, Introverts lack the exuberance, energy and activity levels of extraverts. These individuals tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in society. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression. Introverts simply need less stimulation than extraverts and more time alone.  Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony.

Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent and trustworthy. On the other hand, disagreeable individuals place self-interst above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well being and are less likely to extend themselves for other people.

Sometimes their scepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly and uncooperative. Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety or depression. Emotional instability it is sometime called. Individuals who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood.

These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions and cope effectively with stress. However, on the other end of the scale, those who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. These individuals tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings. Frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain.

Aggression is an act of hostility with deliberate intention to harm another person against his or her will. Some psychologists believe that aggression is an important aspect of our evolutionary ancestry and it is understood better in that context, whereas others believe that aggression is best explained in physiological terms e. g. the imbalance of hormones or neurotransmitters in the brain. There are many definitions used to explain why humans/ animals become aggressive . In the social learning theory (SLT) of aggression, Bandura (1962) suggested that the expression of aggression is learnt through social learning not ignoring the fact that the potential for human aggression was biological. Bandura claimed that we learn specific aggressive behaviours for example, the form in which the aggression takes and how it is addressed to the target. Skinner, 1953 suggested that a child learns the aggressive behaviour through direct reinforcement while Bandura argues that a child learns by observing role models indirectly.

Moreover, the SLT can be used to explain other behaviours such as eating disorders, personality etc. Research carried out by Phillip (1986) suggested the daily homicide rate in the US almost increased in the following of a major boxing match this suggested that the viewers were imitating the behaviour they watched from their ‘role models’. This clear shows that the SLT can also be used to explain the behaviour of both the children and adults. This is because aggressive behaviour is witnessed at home and at school as well as through the media  reading books, watching television and listening to a certain type of music. By observing the consequences of other’s actions, children learn the aggressive behaviour indirectly. This whole process is known as the ‘vicarious reinforcement’ whereby a child learns the likely outcome of the aggressive behaviour and from that observation; they obtain the behaviour that is considered appropriate. Not only does a child learn the behaviour but the child also observes if the behaviour is worth repeating.

In the future, the child is likely to repeat the behaviour when the expectation of a reward is greater than the expectations of being punished (Bandura, 1962). Looking at the Bobo doll studies, Bandura et al found that children who watched an aggressive model became more aggressive and imitated the behaviour portrayed by the model. This is clear evidence to support the SLT for the fact a child learnt the aggressive behaviour by observing the ‘role’ model.

On the other hand, the aggression was imposed towards a ‘doll’ affecting the reliability of the conclusion because this was a ‘still’ figure that could not use self-defence. As a result to this, Bandura repeated the study using a film of woman hitting a live clown, therefore this influenced the children to also hit a live clown when given the opportunity. This can explain the cultural differences, for the fact that societies such as the US are highly violent compared to other pygmies of central Africa who manage to live in cooperative friendliness (Aronson, 1999).

These findings could be explained by the differences due to social learning whereby the different societies influence the behaviour of the two cultures. However, people also react differently in term of different situations because aggressive behaviour is rewarded in certain situations than others (i. e. Competitive sports such rugby, boxing etc. ). The appropriate behaviour is learnt for particular situations. Moreover, aggression could also be explained as a result of the loss of personal identity this could be due to the relative anonymity of being in a crowd or wearing a uniform.

The Stanford Prison Experiment illustrates this effect; this is whereby Zimbardo showed how the guards who were deindividuated by mirrored glasses and uniforms behaved aggressively towards the prisoners. The Stanford Prison Experiment is an empirical support for the deindividuated theory because it shows how the behaviour of the ‘normal’ students changed after they had been assigned to adopt the role of guards. However, the brutality could be explained in terms of the perceived social roles because they were not shown the exact way that the ‘actual’ guards behaved.

Psychologist Zimbardo believes that deindividuated people are likely to behave aggressively because the loss of a sense in the individual can lead to reduced self- restraint. This in turn leads to impulsive and deviant behaviour and a less concern over negative evaluation from others. Being anonymous in a crowd has the psychological consequence of reducing restraints and increasing behaviours that are usually inhibited. Prentice- Dunn and Rogers (1982) suggested that an increase in aggressive behaviour following deindividuation might be caused by the reduced privacy rather than public self- awareness, becoming less self-aware rather than being anonymous to others. A problem for the theory is that deindividuation does not always lead to aggression, and may actually lead to pro-social behaviour. In a meta- analysis of 60 studies of deindividuation, Postmes and Spears (1998) found that deindividuation does not always lead to aggression for example, an individual part of an angry mob is likely to behave aggressively while a member of a peace rally is likely to become to peaceful.

This clearly shows that frustration leads to aggression. Frustration determines whether aggression is effective in that situation. Dollard et al (1939) outlined the frustration-aggression theory suggesting that frustration leads to aggression and that aggression is forced by the aggression. Therefore, aggression is the consequence of generalised physiological arousal.