The Alternate Universe of Second Life free essay sample

When is the last time you thought carefully and not a number cruncher to do math? When is the last time you strolled to the corner store, rather than driving the two squares up the road? I mean a few people would be lost on the off chance that they didn’t have their PDAs. Is the world coming to depend on innovation for everything, even joy? Are individuals utilizing innovation as a break from this present reality? Isn’t that why individuals take excursions? Individuals don’t read books during their recreation time any longer since that would be exhausting and also tedious. We live in a quick paced world and on the off chance that you don’t keep up you’ll be abandoned with the AM/FM hand radios. That is the reason we have our costly PCs, I Pod’s, level screen TVs, and quick vehicles to take us anyplace our psyches want. We will compose a custom article test on The Alternate Universe of Second Life or on the other hand any comparable theme explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page Jessica Bennet and Malcolm Beith composed a fascinating paper called â€Å"Alternate Universe†. The paper is around a 3-D virtual world called Second Life. You can do anything you need in this world, even fly. You could be a specialist, an artist, a creator, what ever fulfills you. You can even discover genuine affection on Second Life by dating different symbols, which are what your characters are called. The potential outcomes are unfathomable with what you can do in this virtual world. You’re sitting joyous beyond words and all you need is your PC. All you need to never really part of what some would call their fantasy is join, make a character just as you would prefer and begin carrying on with your second life online with a great many others around the globe. This isn't only a game to sit back for certain individuals. Individuals are paying attention to this game very, they’d wager their lives on it. The creators give a model saying that one individual really stated, â€Å"I’d preferably beg in the city over leave Second Life. † (Bennet and Beith 15). This individual would prefer to ask in the city than at any other time leave Second Life. How needy have we become to the delightful components of innovation? There are eight millions clients on Second Life, every one of them living what they wished their genuine truly was, on the web. Bennet and Beith disclose to us that by â€Å"2011 four of each five individuals who utilize the web will effectively partake in Second Life, or some comparable medium,† with the goal that imply that â€Å"1. billion out of 2 billion web clients will have discovered new lives online†. These clients are spending between eighteen to thirty hours seven days playing, or living, Second Life. They disclose to us that clients commonly invest their energy maintaining their business, celebrating, and meeting new individuals. In the event that you can really bring in genuine cash in Second Life, who needs a genuine activity in any case? Bennet and Beith give us instances of how two individuals bring in their cash on Second Life. â€Å"Anshe Chung is a virtual land noblewoman with a genuine fortune. (Bennet and Beith 3). They disclose to us how Chung has a business called Anshe Chung Studios run by her symbol called Ailin Graef. Her organization fabricates homes and afterward sells or leases it to other symbol for a chunk of change. She even has sixty individuals on her staff that works for her. She was Second Life’s first mogul. The other model is of a genuine Pathmark division supervisor multiplying his every day pay by opening up an attire store where he plans garments for other symbol to purchase with genuine cash. The creators cause it to appear you haven’t had a genuine activity till you’ve had a Second Life work, it’s that simple. No set hours, or manager to reply to simply â€Å"click and drag†. Envision getting up toward the beginning of the day, still in your night robe, you sit before the PC for express a few hours, check how much cash you’ve made off your Second Life, perhaps plan another virtual wedding outfit, or a form a four story house and afterward put it in the virtual market, return to rest and afterward do it once more in a couple of hours. The creators cause it to appear just as this is the ideal interchange life. You can make companions, and make all the cash you need while never going out, yet they neglect to make reference to the things that you will lose by carrying on with this life-social aptitudes and life outside your home. They are advancing this virtual world with a major red standard that says â€Å"Pick me! † They disclose to you how one lady turned into a tycoon, and they put the thought in your mind, â€Å"well possibly I could do that as well, that sounds awesome†, however they quickly notice how much cash she needed to contribute to make that million. Individuals are so handily influenced, particularly with the manner in which the economy is, they will take a stab at anything to bring in cash. Individuals hear cash and dollar signs light up in their eyes. On the off chance that that’s what they creators were attempting to do they were unquestionably fruitful. The creators likewise reveal to us that a few organizations are additionally utilizing Second Life as a component of their workplace. â€Å"Some are holding staff gatherings where symbols speaking to workers can talk about thoughts by means of text, email, or Skype, in a beefed up virtual office. † ( Bennet and Beith 17). A few organizations are utilizing it interface with clients. Like IBM, Sears, Circuit City, and Nissan all associate with clients through Second Life. Nissan even lets you â€Å"test-drive† a vehicle on a â€Å"virtual track† so you never need to go out. What has befallen up close and personal cooperation with representatives and clients? It’s not that they can’t do it or don’t have the opportunity, it is only simpler to utilize the PC. Along these lines we can be partaking in our conference and making supper. For what reason do the creators cause it to appear as though that is such something to be thankful for? How might it be in any capacity better test driving a vehicle online than really doing it, all things considered? I feel that the creators go a little over the edge in attempting to persuade their crowd that Second Life is extraordinary. I can’t see that numerous individuals concurring with it being smarter to test drive a vehicle online than, all things considered. Are we so exhausted with our lives that we believe we have to purchase virtual things (I. e. garments, vehicles, houses) for an anecdotal character that should speak to you. I don’t have the cash to purchase a genuine vehicle and individuals are purchasing virtual vehicles for their symbols. In spite of the fact that the cash proportion isn't the equivalent, it is still cash spent on something that you will always be unable to contact, or hold. Cash that could have been spend topping off your gas tank, or on staple goods. One US dollar is worth 270 Linden dollars. The creators discloses to us that â€Å"on a common day clients burn through $1 million purchasing virtual garments, vehicles, houses, and different products for their avatars,† and that â€Å"by the year's end clients will have spend around 125 billion Linden dollars in Second Life (about $460 million). † I truly don’t believe that my cash would be all around spent on the off chance that I purchased a virtual island for $1,395 as the creators reveal to us that one individual did on eBay. The writers compose so openly about cash. They talk about cash like everybody has such an extensive amount it to simply squander on this phony life. Who has one million dollars lying around? They do make it a point to state that one US dollar is worth 270 in counterfeit cash (Linden dollars). Indeed, that is a major expansion from one dollar to 270 however its not genuine cash, so why not one dollar for every 1000 Linden dollars? At long last it is all phony things that you are purchasing with this phony cash that you are utilizing REAL cash to buy, which the creators don't make it a point to make reference to. On the off chance that I can’t feel my feet in the sand, swim in the sea or drink a genuine martini on it, I am not getting it. It insane to think this virtual world, loaded up with virtual things, is making us more joyful individuals. I wonder what less lucky individuals who don’t have a PC do? I think some are only glad to be perfectly healthy. So a PC costs about state $1000, or more in the event that you need an extremely decent one. Possibly get a versatile one for somewhat more and afterward you we can convey our second existence with us. Our entire life is starting to spin around this little box lets out data. Individuals are beginning to depend increasingly more on it for their association with the world. I mean why work, date, or associate with companions when you got your PC in a touch of conveying case that contains your Second Life. I imagine that the creators work admirably in promoting all the frosted up things that Second Life brings to the table however they neglect to make reference to what Second Life could do to a world if everybody depended on it. Individuals wouldn’t need a vocation, or companions, since Second Life gives that all from the solace of your home. Bennet and Beith do say that â€Å"Some pundits are uncomfortable with individuals getting an ever increasing number of social exercises online,† yet they say four sentences regarding it and afterward proceed onward to the following subject. They don’t make it a point in their article to make reference to the negatives things. They do this since they are expert virtual life so they trivialize what's going on. All their beneficial things exceed the awful, so they choose to quickly make reference to it. They cause it to appear who needs social abilities or a genuine activity when you have this cash? Envision an existence where nobody leaves their homes and Second Life turns into their reality?

Burkean Parlor Definition and Examples

Burkean Parlor Definition and Examples The Burkean parlor is aâ metaphorâ introduced by logician and rhetorician Kenneth Burke (1897-1993) for the ceaseless discussion that is going on at the point in history when we are conceived (see underneath). Many composing places utilize the similitude of the Burkean parlor to describe community oriented endeavors to help understudies improve their composition and as well as view their work as far as a bigger discussion. In a persuasive article in The Writing Center Journal (1991), Andrea Lunsford contended that composing focuses displayed on the Burkean parlor represent a danger just as a test to the norm in advanced education, and she urged composing focus chiefs to grasp that challenge. The Burkean Parlor is likewise the name of a conversation segment in the print diary Rhetoric Review. Burkes Metaphor for the Unending Conversation Envision that you enter a parlor. You arrive behind schedule. At the point when you show up, others have since quite a while ago went before you, and they are occupied with a warmed conversation, a conversation unreasonably warmed for them to delay and outline for you precisely what it is. Indeed, the conversation had just started some time before any of them arrived with the goal that nobody present is able to backtrack for all of you the means that had gone previously. You tune in for some time until you conclude that you have gotten the tenor of the contention; at that point you put in your paddle. Somebody answers; you answer him; another goes to your safeguard; another adjusts himself against you, to either the shame or satisfaction of your adversary, contingent on the nature of your allys help. In any case, the conversation is relentless. The hour develops late, you should leave. What's more, you do withdraw, with the conversation still energetically in progress. (Kenneth Bur ke, The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action third ed. 1941. Univ. of California Press, 1973) Dwindle Elbows Yogurt Model for a Reimagined Composition Course A course would never again be where everybody begins on a boat together and shows up at port simultaneously; not a journey where everybody begins the principal day with no ocean legs and everybody is attempting at the same time to become acculturated to the waves. It would be increasingly similar to the Burkean parloror a composing place or studiowhere individuals meet up in gatherings and work together. Some have just been there quite a while working and talking together when new ones show up. New ones gain from playing the game with the more experienced players. Some leave before others. . . .A capability based, yogurt structure makes increasingly motivator for understudies to contribute themselves and give their own steam to learninglearning from their own endeavors and from criticism from educators and companions. For the sooner they learn, the sooner they are to get credit and leave. . . .Given this structure, I speculate that a critical portion of gifted understudies will, trut h be told, remain for longer than they need to when they see they are learning things that will assist them with other coursesand see that they appreciate it. It will regularly be their littlest and most human class, the just one with a feeling of network like a Burkean parlor.  (Peter Elbow, Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching. Oxford Univ. Press, 2000) Kairos and the Rhetorical Place [W]ithin an explanatory spot, kairos isn't just an issue of expository observation or willing organization: it can't be seen separated from the physical elements of the spot accommodating it. Furthermore, a logical spot isn't simply a question of area or address: it must contain some kairotic account in media res, from which talk or expository activity can develop. Comprehended all things considered, the logical spot speaks to a spot bound fleeting room which may go before our entering, may proceed past our leaving, into which we may even lurch uninformed: envision a genuine Burkean parlorphysicallyand you will have envisioned one case of an explanatory spot as I have attempted to build it.​ (Jerry Blitefield, Kairos and the Rhetorical Place. Pronouncing Rhetoric: Selected Papers From the 2000 Rhetoric Society of America Conference, ed. by Frederick J. Antczak, Cinda Coggins, and Geoffrey D. Klinger. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002) The Faculty Job Interview as the Burkean Parlor As the competitor, you need to envision the meeting as a Burkean parlor. As such, you need to move toward the meeting as a discussion in which you and the questioners make a community oriented comprehension of the expert relationship that may result from the meeting. You need to stroll in arranged to have a brilliant discussion, not set up to give a proposition defense.​ (Dawn Marie Formo and Cheryl Reed, Job Search in Academe: Strategic Rhetorics for Faculty Job Candidates. Pointer, 1999)

Leader vs. Boss The 6 Major Differences

Leader vs. Boss â€" The 6 Major Differences “Remember the difference between a boss and a leader; a boss says “Go!”- a leader says “Let’s go!”  â€" E.M. KellyThe above quote is just one of many highlighting the differences between a boss and a leader. The terms can often be used interchangeably, but if you start analyzing what makes a boss and a leader, you’ll start noticing differences. In today’s competitive world, being a leader rather than a boss can boost a team’s performance and guarantee success for the organization. But considering how often people mix these terms, it’s important to study the divergence of the core elements that make a person either a boss or a leader.In the below sections, we’ll look into the definition of a boss and leader; what it is that makes and determines your role. Before concluding, we’ll present the six major differences between the two roles in areas such as approach to work and the communication styles.DEFINITION OF A BOSSBoss is a word that tends to evoke negative responses. When we describe someone as ‘bossy’, we generally don’t imply the person is behaving extremely positively. While we might consider ‘boss’ to be a more negative word, what does the actual definition of the word state? The Oxford Dictionary defines the noun as “a person who is in charge of a worker or organization”.Therefore, being a bos s is a specific status and the person will hold a higher position to the people he or she is in charge of in the organization. In a way, being a boss refers to a specific position of power and whether you like it or not, a boss will have power over his or her subordinates because of this role.The word should also be examined through the lens of the verb ‘to boss’, as it can help define the differences between a leader and a boss more clearly. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the verb is informally defined as to act to “give (someone orders in a domineering manner”. A boss, through his position of power, tells the subordinates what to do and expects the subordinates to act accordingly. A boss gives orders and supervises people, making sure the people he or she is in charge of will do the job as required.Essentially the defining features of the word ‘boss’ are direct. The word is defined by clarity and power. Being a boss is a position requiring the ability to provide i nstructions and orders, ensuring people do the things the boss tells them to do. Bosses don’t ask or prefer certain actions, they expect and they tell what needs to be done. If you strip down the role of a boss into its most basic form, the position is all about supervision. A boss is required to tell the subordinates what is needed and to ensure the needs are adequately met.DEFINITION OF A LEADERA leader, on the other hand, is a word, which gets a more positive response from people. We tend to say things like “he was a natural leader” or “she was a great and accomplished leader”. The association with the word is more positive and the word is often used only in the context of people we revere or look up to.The Oxford Dictionary defines the noun as, “a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or a country”. The difference to a boss is not necessarily apparent in the word. After all, a leader is also in a commanding role and has the ability to tell others what to do. But when you examine the verb from which the word is derived from, you can see the subtle differences at play. The verb ‘to lead’ is defined as an act to “show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them”. Unlike a boss, a leader is thought to be someone who advices the subordinates and who doesn’t just bark orders, but actually does the acts he or she is waiting others to do.A leader is never just a person who instructs and uses power provided by the position. He or she will guide and support the employee to reach the required end objective. A leader will tell, and more importantly show the direction and be a part of the journey to get to the destination. While the focus is still on getting the required jobs done, the emphasis with a leader is not solely in the result but also on the process.Therefore, compared to the essence of a boss’ job, a leader is not there to tell what needs to be done. A leader must show what the j ob ahead is and be of guidance during the tasks. In a way, a leader’s role is more motivational rather than supervisory. With the guidance and support, a leader becomes the foundation of keeping the subordinates motivated to follow the path. WHAT ARE THE KEY DIFFERENCE AREAS?By examining the definitions of the words, you’ll already be able to notice the intricacies at play. While at the outset the two words can seem rather similar and interchangeable, the closer examination highlights differences that give both roles a different meaning.So, what are the key areas separating bosses from leaders? The major differences between the two can be divided into six core areas of the focus, the driving force, the approach to work and objectives, the source of their authority, the communication and delegation style, and their accountability.Difference #1: The focusWhen it comes to an organization, the key consideration is often the focus of the organization. What is it for and why? The unde rlying focus is what drives an organization, but also the individual to perform the required tasks. The focus gives direction and largely determines the approach to work. So, what is the focus for the two?For a boss the end objective is profit. A boss is in a role, which is about guaranteeing the organization the best financial results that’ll help guarantee the continuation of the business. That’s behind the boss’ interest in supervising things getting done. The boss is not interested in how the subordinates get from Point A to Point B because the result is all that matters. If you are able to achieve the goals and do it in an efficient manner, then the boss is happy as this guarantees the organization enjoys a profit. The orientation of the boss is about achieving the goals, often because a boss might be accountable to others, just as the subordinates are to him or her. If the boss fails to get his or her subordinates to achieve tasks and provide financial results, then his or her position might be in danger. In short, a boss is interested more about the outcome not the process.On the other hand, a leader is focused on changing people and the organization. The ideal situation for a leader is to achieve change, a transformation of the organization being A to being B. For the leader, the objective is always about achieving the vision he or she has set for the specific company. The vision is always transformative and creating better financial results is never an end, but rather something that might occur in the process. Leader is interested in helping the subordinates grow as employees and as people. Instead of placing attention on the outcome, the leader will be more interested in the process and the people behind it.Difference #2: The driving forceThe different focus and orientation of the boss and the leader are also evident when you examine the driving force behind their actions. What makes a boss or a leader work hard and perform to the best of his o r her abilities? How does each of them guarantee the subordinates are doing what they are told to do?For the boss, the motivation stems from the focus on standards. These standards are often determined by the their ability to enhance productivity and profitability within the organization. An organization might use Process A because it has evidence this helps maintain high-levels of productivity and therefore, bring the organization the most profit. The boss is interested in finding the best standards and then maintaining their appropriate implementation. The supervisory role means the boss is extremely careful in ensuring the subordinates hold onto the set standards in their performance.The leader is driven by the values they hold dear. The leader will have a vision, which is mainly driven by the values and principles of the leader. As mentioned above, these are not money-driven objectives, but often deal with the kind of business values the leader would like to see implemented. The leader’s vision could be about sustainability or customer service, and these values will be the motivation for the leader’s action. The way a leader leads is determined largely by his or her personal values that have become tangible with the business. Again, the leader is not interested in what processes might be used to perform the tasks, as long as the subordinates keep the values as part of the job.Furthermore, a boss differs from a leader in the way they hope to motivate the team. The boss’ attempt to control and to motivate the workforce is about rewards and punishments. More often than not, the tendency is to focus on the punishment side, with the subordinates being closely monitored to ensure they don’t do things outside of the standards provided. For a boss, the worst thing the subordinate can do is to stop following the processes, as this could mean productivity and profit are not obtained. Therefore, there is a level of intimidation to ensure the subordinate will follow the procedures.Leader’s approach to motivating the workforce is rather different. The leader emphasizes inspiration as a motivational tool. The leader wants the subordinates to feel driven by the same vision guiding his or her actions, making the vision something everyone in the team is hoping to achieve. A leader can use different inspiration tactics, but often the rewards are at the core together with personal growth plans. A leader wants to offer something positive to the subordinate â€" an opportunity for the person to grow because of buying-in on the vision. Instead of threatening and intimidating the subordinate to action, a leader wants to provide a challenge and to offer positive rewards as part of the deal.Difference #3: The approach to work and objectivesLeaders and bosses also have a different approach to working and setting objectives. The approach stems from the contrasting views in regards of what drives them and where the focus lies.A boss approaches work in an administrative fashion. As mentioned earlier, the boss could be described as a supervisor, as his or her approach is about informing the subordinates about the task at hand, directing them about how the task should be done and monitoring the subordinates to ensure the end objectives are achieved. The boss takes a dominating approach to work, expecting the subordinates to follow his or her instructions as strictly as possible. A boss would have outlined a plan and accepted certain processes, which he or she will anticipate the subordinates to follow.The rigid approach to work does mean the boss needs to be highly qualified to set objectives. Being a boss doesn’t mean you need to be the toughest or the meanest to bully people into submission. A good boss has set out the practices because he or she has the knowledge to understand it is the best method. Information is crucial to being a boss and the subordinates are expected to perform tasks as told, because the boss should know th e best.A boss can, of course, be wrong, but the emphasis is on the boss knowing why things work. A subordinate is not therefore presumed to provide any insight into the tasks or help set the objectives. Furthermore, the boss doesn’t show or guide during the process. The instructions are meant to be so clear and the subordinates properly qualified in order to guarantee the proper implementation. The boss will provide the tools and the resources, but won’t typically participate in the process other than in a supervisory role.The approach is rather different with a leader. A leader approaches the work through innovation and collaboration. Since change is the driving force and the vision is the focus of the leader, the approach is to transform and shake things around. It is not about creating the most efficient routines and sticking with the processes that have been proven to work the best. The premise is to find new ways to do things and find new, equally beneficial, routes to the objectives.Therefore, the leader is not there to tell the subordinates how a task should be performed. Instead, the leader might ask the subordinate to be part of coming up with a new idea. This doesn’t necessarily mean the leader wouldn’t be the only person to set the objectives, but rather the leader is not fully aware of the processes. The leader will show how things might be done, instead of stating his or her way is to proven method to use.A leader will support and show, challenging the subordinates to be as immersed in the work as he or she is. The process is much more collaborative and the processes aren’t as rigid. The leader will be hands-on with the work. In essence, the leader approaches work as an opportunity to teach and to empower the subordinates. Each task and project is thought to be a way to boost the knowledge and traits of the workforce, not just a process to obtain goals. It is always about the bigger picture, not the objectives at hand. The talk below by Tom Peters is a good example of the importance of leaders setting the example: Difference #4: The source of authorityOne of the core elements bosses and leaders share is the fact they both have authority. Authority, which is defined as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”, is key to any position of power, but the two roles differ in how they achieve this right and the ways they continue to hold on to it.The boss gets his or her authority from the position. It is the spot in the hierarchy of the workplace providing authority. In essence, a boss is an authority figure because of a title. Anyone higher in the so-called workplace hierarchy can be a boss. Therefore, anyone getting into a position of hierarchy, where other employees have less authority or power, will become a boss. The authority comes from external sources, such as the title and the position, not in any real capability or the boss’ inner ability to influence the subordinates.It doesn’t mean the boss won’t be qualified for the position; just that his or her ability to influence is not why he or she is in the position. The boss might be the most qualified person for the technicalities of the role, but not necessarily the best at leading. Generally, it is about seniority, being higher in the seniority ranking within the organization. The authority is also not reinforced or provided to the boss by the subordinates. The subordinates take directions because it is the job’s role to tell them what to do â€" it doesn’t necessarily mean they enjoy the authority, but they accept it since the work hierarchy gives the boss the power. A boss will also maintain this hierarchy and it will be inevitable in the workplace â€" the boss is on top and the subordinates are treated differently because they aren’t equal.On the other hand, a leader receives his or her authority from an internal place. In fact, a title doesn’t make anyone a leader and you can show leader ship even if you are lower in the workplace hierarchy. A leader has authority over subordinates because the subordinates hand it to him or her. They do this because they believe in the leader’s ability to take charge and change things around. In essence, a leader can get authority because they are able to communicate their vision and inspire others to follow. You could view it through an example of a politician, who is elected because the message resonates with the voters.A leader’s authority is often something requiring reinforcement and real evidence. In order to maintain his or her authority, the leader has to provide results and continue to motivate the subordinates. If the subordinates lose trust in the leader, he or she will most likely have to find a new way to communicate or leave. The leader will have authority, but this authority is not emphasized or used to create an unequal work environment. In fact, the leader will treat the subordinates equally, not based on any ti tle or position. His or her own authority of power doesn’t put him or her in a special position within the team.Authority might not seem as important to a leader than to a boss, but you can’t perform in either of these roles without clear authority. To understand the importance of authority in leadership, the YouTube video below explains well, why influential leaders can’t influence without authority. Difference #5: The way to communicate and delegateAnother big area where the behavior is different is the ways leaders and bosses communicate and delegate. Communication can have a positive or a negative impact on teamwork, with the person in power holding an important role in ensuring the communication enhances teamwork rather than diminishes it. So, what is the difference when a boss communicates and when a leader does it?As the definition of a boss described, the communication style is often commanding and telling in nature. A boss will tell the subordinates and since the appr oach to work emphasized administrative qualities, the communication is often one-sided. The subordinate is not expected to be an active participant in a discussion, as the boss doesn’t emphasize the need to conversation. The nature of communication is built on directions, with the subordinates being able to ask clarifying questions or arising possible problems in their ability to achieve the tasks. Ultimately, the boss’ communication is about getting the message across â€" what the objective is and how to get there â€" and not learning or listening to what the subordinate has to say.Furthermore, a boss uses communication as a way to delegate tasks and responsibilities among his or her subordinates. The approach by a boss is task focused and the boss is in charge of the decision who does what. The nature of being a boss is increasingly about the ability to delegate the tasks in a manner that helps boost productivity and profitability, i.e. ensuring the best people are performing the tasks. In it’s essence, the communication style of a boss is based on delegation and telling. The boss will provide subordinates with responsibility, but will keep hold of the overall reins during the projects. The authority will always remain in the hands of the boss.A leader’s style to communicate is much more participatory, no matter how much power in decision making the leader has. A leader will be interested in the opinion of the subordinate and generally, focuses on ensuring communication is based on discussion. Collaboration and feedback are typically the building blocks of a leader’s communication style. A good leader should focus on emotional intelligence and the ability to not only to speak, but also to listen what the subordinate is saying. Since the focus on leadership is to change things, the communication is often more about inspiring the subordinates and leading by example. A leader doesn’t tell, “Do this”, but focuses more on showing how things could or should be performed.In terms of delegation, leaders are not only delegating responsibility, but also authority to a varying degree. A leader might give guidance on the overall objective, but allow the subordinate to figure out his or her own way to achieve it. Therefore, there is delegation in the leader’s communication as well, but it tends to be a rather more in-depth form of delegation and not just a provision of tasks to do. Whereas, a boss delegates responsibility to subordinates, a leader hands out authority. Leader doesn’t feel the need to control everything, but is comfortable in giving away power to his or her subordinates.Difference #6: The level of accountabilityFinally, accountability is a core area where leaders differ from bosses. The condition of responsibility, together with the way the two roles share accountability in the group, indicates the major differences in being a boss and being a leader.As mentioned above, a boss delegates responsibility and therefor e, places accountability on the shoulders of the person performing the specific tasks. Because the accountability is shared, the subordinates might take the blame for when things go wrong. The rigid procedures and emphasis on standards can mean the boss finds it easy to find the person at fault. Essentially anyone who doesn’t follow the exact orders from the boss can be accused of failing the project. For a boss, there isn’t any point of self-reflection, during which he or she would analyze whether the subordinates were perfectly equipped to perform the tasks. If there is a failure, it is because someone didn’t follow the procedures in the correct manner laid out by the boss. In terms of failure, a boss tends to focus on finding the person or mechanic at fault. The emphasis is on having someone accountable for the failure, not so much the understanding of what went wrong.Interestingly, a boss doesn’t share accountability as much when it comes to success. While failure is bla med on the inability to follow the rules, success is down to the implementation of great procedures. The focus is on the procedures, not necessarily the subordinates who followed them. The idea is that anyone could follow the rules as long as the procedures are efficient. Therefore, when success takes place, the boss has succeeded in creating the perfect procedures.But for a leader, the full accountability is on the leader’s shoulders. While the leader will share responsibilities and decision-making with the subordinates, the leader is ultimately responsible for any failures. Failures in the project are always an opportunity for a leader and his or her team to learn. In terms of the leader, he or she will focus on examining whether something could have been done better. Did he or she provide enough support? What was the underlying reason for failure? These are self-reflective questions, which the leader wants to analyze.Furthermore, the leader wants to find solutions to fix the fa ilures instead of blaming the subordinates. The ethos of learning from mistakes is at the heart of the leader’s strategy. Accountability for a leader means admitting mistakes, but not dwelling on them. Perhaps most importantly, a leader is not afraid of being told how he or she can improve. As mentioned earlier, a leader will self-reflect and listen to criticism rather than just give it.In addition, a leader will share success with the team instead of thinking it was all down to him or her. A leader understands the whole team must work efficiently and everyone is an important part of the team â€" success isn’t achieved by a single person, but through teamwork.FINAL THOUGHTSWhile a boss and a leader can seem similar titles of a person in power, when you start examining the definitions and roles deeper, you’ll notice differences. Being a boss is essentially about gaining a specific position in an organisation and the objective of a boss is to achieve goals with efficiency. Being a leader is not as much about holding a certain position, as it is about creating a vision and gaining the respect and trust of the subordinates. While leaders need to gain the trust of subordinates and ensure they are inspired to follow him or her, a boss simply uses his authority of being in a powerful position and gets subordinates on board through fear or intimidation.It’s also important to note a boss and a leader diverge on the approach they take on achieving success. The boss is not interested in changing the status quo, which means the emphasis is on following procedure and creating an administrative way of leading. On the other hand, a leader is constantly looking at how things can be improved and changed.Therefore, the leader’s role is to empower subordinates and help them grow as well. For a boss, this doesn’t matter, as the current methods and processes are sufficient to receive results. A leader will need more ambition and the tools to ensure the subordinates are inspired and motivated to think big. The difference, therefore, is largely psychological; the vision through which they see the world.Essentially, someone in the position of a boss can be a leader as well by focusing on the above elements. In the end, the difference is about the approach you take on treating your subordinates and the objectives you set for yourself â€" do you want to lead others and change things for the better or are you happy to just direct and command?

Leader vs. Boss The 6 Major Differences

Leader vs. Boss â€" The 6 Major Differences “Remember the difference between a boss and a leader; a boss says “Go!”- a leader says “Let’s go!”  â€" E.M. KellyThe above quote is just one of many highlighting the differences between a boss and a leader. The terms can often be used interchangeably, but if you start analyzing what makes a boss and a leader, you’ll start noticing differences. In today’s competitive world, being a leader rather than a boss can boost a team’s performance and guarantee success for the organization. But considering how often people mix these terms, it’s important to study the divergence of the core elements that make a person either a boss or a leader.In the below sections, we’ll look into the definition of a boss and leader; what it is that makes and determines your role. Before concluding, we’ll present the six major differences between the two roles in areas such as approach to work and the communication styles.DEFINITION OF A BOSSBoss is a word that tends to evoke negative responses. When we describe someone as ‘bossy’, we generally don’t imply the person is behaving extremely positively. While we might consider ‘boss’ to be a more negative word, what does the actual definition of the word state? The Oxford Dictionary defines the noun as “a person who is in charge of a worker or organization”.Therefore, being a bos s is a specific status and the person will hold a higher position to the people he or she is in charge of in the organization. In a way, being a boss refers to a specific position of power and whether you like it or not, a boss will have power over his or her subordinates because of this role.The word should also be examined through the lens of the verb ‘to boss’, as it can help define the differences between a leader and a boss more clearly. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the verb is informally defined as to act to “give (someone orders in a domineering manner”. A boss, through his position of power, tells the subordinates what to do and expects the subordinates to act accordingly. A boss gives orders and supervises people, making sure the people he or she is in charge of will do the job as required.Essentially the defining features of the word ‘boss’ are direct. The word is defined by clarity and power. Being a boss is a position requiring the ability to provide i nstructions and orders, ensuring people do the things the boss tells them to do. Bosses don’t ask or prefer certain actions, they expect and they tell what needs to be done. If you strip down the role of a boss into its most basic form, the position is all about supervision. A boss is required to tell the subordinates what is needed and to ensure the needs are adequately met.DEFINITION OF A LEADERA leader, on the other hand, is a word, which gets a more positive response from people. We tend to say things like “he was a natural leader” or “she was a great and accomplished leader”. The association with the word is more positive and the word is often used only in the context of people we revere or look up to.The Oxford Dictionary defines the noun as, “a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or a country”. The difference to a boss is not necessarily apparent in the word. After all, a leader is also in a commanding role and has the ability to tell others what to do. But when you examine the verb from which the word is derived from, you can see the subtle differences at play. The verb ‘to lead’ is defined as an act to “show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them”. Unlike a boss, a leader is thought to be someone who advices the subordinates and who doesn’t just bark orders, but actually does the acts he or she is waiting others to do.A leader is never just a person who instructs and uses power provided by the position. He or she will guide and support the employee to reach the required end objective. A leader will tell, and more importantly show the direction and be a part of the journey to get to the destination. While the focus is still on getting the required jobs done, the emphasis with a leader is not solely in the result but also on the process.Therefore, compared to the essence of a boss’ job, a leader is not there to tell what needs to be done. A leader must show what the j ob ahead is and be of guidance during the tasks. In a way, a leader’s role is more motivational rather than supervisory. With the guidance and support, a leader becomes the foundation of keeping the subordinates motivated to follow the path. WHAT ARE THE KEY DIFFERENCE AREAS?By examining the definitions of the words, you’ll already be able to notice the intricacies at play. While at the outset the two words can seem rather similar and interchangeable, the closer examination highlights differences that give both roles a different meaning.So, what are the key areas separating bosses from leaders? The major differences between the two can be divided into six core areas of the focus, the driving force, the approach to work and objectives, the source of their authority, the communication and delegation style, and their accountability.Difference #1: The focusWhen it comes to an organization, the key consideration is often the focus of the organization. What is it for and why? The unde rlying focus is what drives an organization, but also the individual to perform the required tasks. The focus gives direction and largely determines the approach to work. So, what is the focus for the two?For a boss the end objective is profit. A boss is in a role, which is about guaranteeing the organization the best financial results that’ll help guarantee the continuation of the business. That’s behind the boss’ interest in supervising things getting done. The boss is not interested in how the subordinates get from Point A to Point B because the result is all that matters. If you are able to achieve the goals and do it in an efficient manner, then the boss is happy as this guarantees the organization enjoys a profit. The orientation of the boss is about achieving the goals, often because a boss might be accountable to others, just as the subordinates are to him or her. If the boss fails to get his or her subordinates to achieve tasks and provide financial results, then his or her position might be in danger. In short, a boss is interested more about the outcome not the process.On the other hand, a leader is focused on changing people and the organization. The ideal situation for a leader is to achieve change, a transformation of the organization being A to being B. For the leader, the objective is always about achieving the vision he or she has set for the specific company. The vision is always transformative and creating better financial results is never an end, but rather something that might occur in the process. Leader is interested in helping the subordinates grow as employees and as people. Instead of placing attention on the outcome, the leader will be more interested in the process and the people behind it.Difference #2: The driving forceThe different focus and orientation of the boss and the leader are also evident when you examine the driving force behind their actions. What makes a boss or a leader work hard and perform to the best of his o r her abilities? How does each of them guarantee the subordinates are doing what they are told to do?For the boss, the motivation stems from the focus on standards. These standards are often determined by the their ability to enhance productivity and profitability within the organization. An organization might use Process A because it has evidence this helps maintain high-levels of productivity and therefore, bring the organization the most profit. The boss is interested in finding the best standards and then maintaining their appropriate implementation. The supervisory role means the boss is extremely careful in ensuring the subordinates hold onto the set standards in their performance.The leader is driven by the values they hold dear. The leader will have a vision, which is mainly driven by the values and principles of the leader. As mentioned above, these are not money-driven objectives, but often deal with the kind of business values the leader would like to see implemented. The leader’s vision could be about sustainability or customer service, and these values will be the motivation for the leader’s action. The way a leader leads is determined largely by his or her personal values that have become tangible with the business. Again, the leader is not interested in what processes might be used to perform the tasks, as long as the subordinates keep the values as part of the job.Furthermore, a boss differs from a leader in the way they hope to motivate the team. The boss’ attempt to control and to motivate the workforce is about rewards and punishments. More often than not, the tendency is to focus on the punishment side, with the subordinates being closely monitored to ensure they don’t do things outside of the standards provided. For a boss, the worst thing the subordinate can do is to stop following the processes, as this could mean productivity and profit are not obtained. Therefore, there is a level of intimidation to ensure the subordinate will follow the procedures.Leader’s approach to motivating the workforce is rather different. The leader emphasizes inspiration as a motivational tool. The leader wants the subordinates to feel driven by the same vision guiding his or her actions, making the vision something everyone in the team is hoping to achieve. A leader can use different inspiration tactics, but often the rewards are at the core together with personal growth plans. A leader wants to offer something positive to the subordinate â€" an opportunity for the person to grow because of buying-in on the vision. Instead of threatening and intimidating the subordinate to action, a leader wants to provide a challenge and to offer positive rewards as part of the deal.Difference #3: The approach to work and objectivesLeaders and bosses also have a different approach to working and setting objectives. The approach stems from the contrasting views in regards of what drives them and where the focus lies.A boss approaches work in an administrative fashion. As mentioned earlier, the boss could be described as a supervisor, as his or her approach is about informing the subordinates about the task at hand, directing them about how the task should be done and monitoring the subordinates to ensure the end objectives are achieved. The boss takes a dominating approach to work, expecting the subordinates to follow his or her instructions as strictly as possible. A boss would have outlined a plan and accepted certain processes, which he or she will anticipate the subordinates to follow.The rigid approach to work does mean the boss needs to be highly qualified to set objectives. Being a boss doesn’t mean you need to be the toughest or the meanest to bully people into submission. A good boss has set out the practices because he or she has the knowledge to understand it is the best method. Information is crucial to being a boss and the subordinates are expected to perform tasks as told, because the boss should know th e best.A boss can, of course, be wrong, but the emphasis is on the boss knowing why things work. A subordinate is not therefore presumed to provide any insight into the tasks or help set the objectives. Furthermore, the boss doesn’t show or guide during the process. The instructions are meant to be so clear and the subordinates properly qualified in order to guarantee the proper implementation. The boss will provide the tools and the resources, but won’t typically participate in the process other than in a supervisory role.The approach is rather different with a leader. A leader approaches the work through innovation and collaboration. Since change is the driving force and the vision is the focus of the leader, the approach is to transform and shake things around. It is not about creating the most efficient routines and sticking with the processes that have been proven to work the best. The premise is to find new ways to do things and find new, equally beneficial, routes to the objectives.Therefore, the leader is not there to tell the subordinates how a task should be performed. Instead, the leader might ask the subordinate to be part of coming up with a new idea. This doesn’t necessarily mean the leader wouldn’t be the only person to set the objectives, but rather the leader is not fully aware of the processes. The leader will show how things might be done, instead of stating his or her way is to proven method to use.A leader will support and show, challenging the subordinates to be as immersed in the work as he or she is. The process is much more collaborative and the processes aren’t as rigid. The leader will be hands-on with the work. In essence, the leader approaches work as an opportunity to teach and to empower the subordinates. Each task and project is thought to be a way to boost the knowledge and traits of the workforce, not just a process to obtain goals. It is always about the bigger picture, not the objectives at hand. The talk below by Tom Peters is a good example of the importance of leaders setting the example: Difference #4: The source of authorityOne of the core elements bosses and leaders share is the fact they both have authority. Authority, which is defined as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”, is key to any position of power, but the two roles differ in how they achieve this right and the ways they continue to hold on to it.The boss gets his or her authority from the position. It is the spot in the hierarchy of the workplace providing authority. In essence, a boss is an authority figure because of a title. Anyone higher in the so-called workplace hierarchy can be a boss. Therefore, anyone getting into a position of hierarchy, where other employees have less authority or power, will become a boss. The authority comes from external sources, such as the title and the position, not in any real capability or the boss’ inner ability to influence the subordinates.It doesn’t mean the boss won’t be qualified for the position; just that his or her ability to influence is not why he or she is in the position. The boss might be the most qualified person for the technicalities of the role, but not necessarily the best at leading. Generally, it is about seniority, being higher in the seniority ranking within the organization. The authority is also not reinforced or provided to the boss by the subordinates. The subordinates take directions because it is the job’s role to tell them what to do â€" it doesn’t necessarily mean they enjoy the authority, but they accept it since the work hierarchy gives the boss the power. A boss will also maintain this hierarchy and it will be inevitable in the workplace â€" the boss is on top and the subordinates are treated differently because they aren’t equal.On the other hand, a leader receives his or her authority from an internal place. In fact, a title doesn’t make anyone a leader and you can show leader ship even if you are lower in the workplace hierarchy. A leader has authority over subordinates because the subordinates hand it to him or her. They do this because they believe in the leader’s ability to take charge and change things around. In essence, a leader can get authority because they are able to communicate their vision and inspire others to follow. You could view it through an example of a politician, who is elected because the message resonates with the voters.A leader’s authority is often something requiring reinforcement and real evidence. In order to maintain his or her authority, the leader has to provide results and continue to motivate the subordinates. If the subordinates lose trust in the leader, he or she will most likely have to find a new way to communicate or leave. The leader will have authority, but this authority is not emphasized or used to create an unequal work environment. In fact, the leader will treat the subordinates equally, not based on any ti tle or position. His or her own authority of power doesn’t put him or her in a special position within the team.Authority might not seem as important to a leader than to a boss, but you can’t perform in either of these roles without clear authority. To understand the importance of authority in leadership, the YouTube video below explains well, why influential leaders can’t influence without authority. Difference #5: The way to communicate and delegateAnother big area where the behavior is different is the ways leaders and bosses communicate and delegate. Communication can have a positive or a negative impact on teamwork, with the person in power holding an important role in ensuring the communication enhances teamwork rather than diminishes it. So, what is the difference when a boss communicates and when a leader does it?As the definition of a boss described, the communication style is often commanding and telling in nature. A boss will tell the subordinates and since the appr oach to work emphasized administrative qualities, the communication is often one-sided. The subordinate is not expected to be an active participant in a discussion, as the boss doesn’t emphasize the need to conversation. The nature of communication is built on directions, with the subordinates being able to ask clarifying questions or arising possible problems in their ability to achieve the tasks. Ultimately, the boss’ communication is about getting the message across â€" what the objective is and how to get there â€" and not learning or listening to what the subordinate has to say.Furthermore, a boss uses communication as a way to delegate tasks and responsibilities among his or her subordinates. The approach by a boss is task focused and the boss is in charge of the decision who does what. The nature of being a boss is increasingly about the ability to delegate the tasks in a manner that helps boost productivity and profitability, i.e. ensuring the best people are performing the tasks. In it’s essence, the communication style of a boss is based on delegation and telling. The boss will provide subordinates with responsibility, but will keep hold of the overall reins during the projects. The authority will always remain in the hands of the boss.A leader’s style to communicate is much more participatory, no matter how much power in decision making the leader has. A leader will be interested in the opinion of the subordinate and generally, focuses on ensuring communication is based on discussion. Collaboration and feedback are typically the building blocks of a leader’s communication style. A good leader should focus on emotional intelligence and the ability to not only to speak, but also to listen what the subordinate is saying. Since the focus on leadership is to change things, the communication is often more about inspiring the subordinates and leading by example. A leader doesn’t tell, “Do this”, but focuses more on showing how things could or should be performed.In terms of delegation, leaders are not only delegating responsibility, but also authority to a varying degree. A leader might give guidance on the overall objective, but allow the subordinate to figure out his or her own way to achieve it. Therefore, there is delegation in the leader’s communication as well, but it tends to be a rather more in-depth form of delegation and not just a provision of tasks to do. Whereas, a boss delegates responsibility to subordinates, a leader hands out authority. Leader doesn’t feel the need to control everything, but is comfortable in giving away power to his or her subordinates.Difference #6: The level of accountabilityFinally, accountability is a core area where leaders differ from bosses. The condition of responsibility, together with the way the two roles share accountability in the group, indicates the major differences in being a boss and being a leader.As mentioned above, a boss delegates responsibility and therefor e, places accountability on the shoulders of the person performing the specific tasks. Because the accountability is shared, the subordinates might take the blame for when things go wrong. The rigid procedures and emphasis on standards can mean the boss finds it easy to find the person at fault. Essentially anyone who doesn’t follow the exact orders from the boss can be accused of failing the project. For a boss, there isn’t any point of self-reflection, during which he or she would analyze whether the subordinates were perfectly equipped to perform the tasks. If there is a failure, it is because someone didn’t follow the procedures in the correct manner laid out by the boss. In terms of failure, a boss tends to focus on finding the person or mechanic at fault. The emphasis is on having someone accountable for the failure, not so much the understanding of what went wrong.Interestingly, a boss doesn’t share accountability as much when it comes to success. While failure is bla med on the inability to follow the rules, success is down to the implementation of great procedures. The focus is on the procedures, not necessarily the subordinates who followed them. The idea is that anyone could follow the rules as long as the procedures are efficient. Therefore, when success takes place, the boss has succeeded in creating the perfect procedures.But for a leader, the full accountability is on the leader’s shoulders. While the leader will share responsibilities and decision-making with the subordinates, the leader is ultimately responsible for any failures. Failures in the project are always an opportunity for a leader and his or her team to learn. In terms of the leader, he or she will focus on examining whether something could have been done better. Did he or she provide enough support? What was the underlying reason for failure? These are self-reflective questions, which the leader wants to analyze.Furthermore, the leader wants to find solutions to fix the fa ilures instead of blaming the subordinates. The ethos of learning from mistakes is at the heart of the leader’s strategy. Accountability for a leader means admitting mistakes, but not dwelling on them. Perhaps most importantly, a leader is not afraid of being told how he or she can improve. As mentioned earlier, a leader will self-reflect and listen to criticism rather than just give it.In addition, a leader will share success with the team instead of thinking it was all down to him or her. A leader understands the whole team must work efficiently and everyone is an important part of the team â€" success isn’t achieved by a single person, but through teamwork.FINAL THOUGHTSWhile a boss and a leader can seem similar titles of a person in power, when you start examining the definitions and roles deeper, you’ll notice differences. Being a boss is essentially about gaining a specific position in an organisation and the objective of a boss is to achieve goals with efficiency. Being a leader is not as much about holding a certain position, as it is about creating a vision and gaining the respect and trust of the subordinates. While leaders need to gain the trust of subordinates and ensure they are inspired to follow him or her, a boss simply uses his authority of being in a powerful position and gets subordinates on board through fear or intimidation.It’s also important to note a boss and a leader diverge on the approach they take on achieving success. The boss is not interested in changing the status quo, which means the emphasis is on following procedure and creating an administrative way of leading. On the other hand, a leader is constantly looking at how things can be improved and changed.Therefore, the leader’s role is to empower subordinates and help them grow as well. For a boss, this doesn’t matter, as the current methods and processes are sufficient to receive results. A leader will need more ambition and the tools to ensure the subordinates are inspired and motivated to think big. The difference, therefore, is largely psychological; the vision through which they see the world.Essentially, someone in the position of a boss can be a leader as well by focusing on the above elements. In the end, the difference is about the approach you take on treating your subordinates and the objectives you set for yourself â€" do you want to lead others and change things for the better or are you happy to just direct and command?

The Persistence of Memory - 916 Words

Alyssa Hankins Art 1300 Section 001 9-29-11 The Persistence of Memory Spain, 1931, Salvador Dali creates an abstract oil on canvas portrayal or the knowledge that is gained through ones dreams, visions, and intuition. The Persistence of Memory, 1931 portrays an abstract view of time and visions that Dali envisioned. Perhaps, his most famous work was The Persistence of Memory, which he painted in his younger years in the 30s. The Persistence of Memory, 1931, elevates the influence of the subconscious mind through fantasy like images, color, composition, and thought provoking images. Dali uses abstract images to represent a balance of altered views, conveying what is reality and what is from the minds eye. Note the mysterious rugged†¦show more content†¦Dali also used the use of two secretive elevated rectangular planes in the work which balance out the left side of the painting. A cold tree trunk standing on the largest elevated surface leads the viewer’s eyes in a circle back to where focus began at. This stub is seemingly cold and lifeless, with one time piece hanging from its outstretched limb. Dali stimulates the spectator’s mind, leading the individual on a subconscious escapade (as he initially intended during composition). The different abstract images shown in The Persistence of Memory, 1931, create a merry-go-round as each image leaves the observer in a state of wonder, drawing them in. The image of what seems to be some sort of shapeless human form brings about questions of the relevance of the images existence. Dali attempted to portray an insignificant self-image in a world possessing a significant amount of more chaos and importance. These timepieces are intended to demonstrate the importance in daily living that time and measurement play in each individual’s life. The melting watches are a profound representation that is frequently linked with hallucinations and surrealism. These images are used to convey an alternate sense of reality which takes place in human cognition, further guiding individuals away from the actuality of reality. In my opinion, Dali accurately portrays the human mind in the way that it views precisely what it favors. His extremelyShow MoreRelatedThe Persistence of M emory1062 Words   |  5 PagesRami El-Abidin Miss Hansen First Year Writing Seminar 22 February 2012 The Persistence of Memory Salvador Dali’s 1931 painting The Persistence of Memory is a hallmark of the surrealist movement. Dali famously described his paintings as â€Å"hand-painted dream photographs† and The Persistence of Memory is a prime example of that description. The Persistence of Memory depicts striking and confusing images of melting pocket watches and a mysterious fetus-like structure all sprawled over the dreamscapeRead MoreAnalysis Of The Persistence Of Memory By Salvador Dali861 Words   |  4 Pageswas known for his bizarre paintings during his time as an artist. Dali’s most famous work of art was created in 1931 and called The Persistence of Memory. This painting uses components such as color, contrast of light and dark, composition, background, repetition, and symbolism to create a compelling and deeper meaning within the artwork. The Persistence of Memory depicts a dream state in the mind. The repetition of the melting clocks symbolizes the concept of time humans exp erience while dreamingRead MoreEssay about Perceptions of Persistence of Memory773 Words   |  4 PagesPerceptions of Persistence of Memory Although visual art is looked upon differently by all, everyone has a either a favorite piece or at least something that catches their eye. Personally, I don’t have a piece of art that I would label my absolute favorite, but during a Spanish research project found that Salvador Dali’s work really stood out. â€Å"The Persistence of Memory† painted in 1931 by Dali, a highly renowned surrealist painter, is among the most interesting works I have ever seen. EvenRead MoreSalvador Dali’s The Persistence of Memory Essay1341 Words   |  6 PagesDali’s painting, The Persistence of Memory, painted in 1931. As the viewer can tell, this is a story of time and life. The memories start in the background where all is well and things are straight and calm. Moving on to the cliff, the observer possibly sees a well-behaved teenager. There is nothing horrible here that leads the spectator to gasp, and the viewer knows this person made it through that time in their life. Then the picture moves on to the age of about twenty, the memories are fond but inRead MoreAn Analysis Of Salvador Dalis The Persistence Of Memory 1931871 Words   |  4 PagesTHE PERSISTENCE OF MEMORY (1931) The Persistence of Memory (1931) was made in 1931 by Salvador Dali, the artwork is 24 x 33 cm oil on canvas painting, and now the artwork is in The Museum of Modern Art, New York. The style of the artwork is surrealistic. The subject matter is a barren landscape with melting clocks draped over unrelated objects, caricature of Dali’s face on the ground, plus a rocky headland with sea in the background. The focal point of the artwork is the strange caricature of Dali’sRead MoreThe Seven Sins Of Memory752 Words   |  4 PagesThe seven sins of memory are transience, absentmindedness, blocking, memory misattribution, suggestibility, bias, and persistence. These are all considered failures of memory. Daniel Schacter, who was the chair of Harvard University’s psychology department, taught these rules. The first being, Transience, transience is having an experience pass through our memory quickly. This is related to short term memory because it not last long nor stick with us. For example, having a short and meaninglessRead MorePersonal Identity- Philosphy1036 Words   |  5 Pagesoneself as the same person we were ten, twenty, or fifty years ago. We can define identity through our physical presence, life experiences, memories, and mental awareness of self. One can testify our persistence as a person through our existence as a person. But what makes us the same person? In this paper, I will argue for the â€Å"simple† view of the persistence of identity – that it is impossible to determine what single thing that makes us the same person over time. I will support my claim with theRead MoreThe Process of Memory Storage1562 Words   |  6 PagesMany wonder the process of memory storage. People during a day use a lot of space of the memory to storage which will be used weekly. Memory in the psychology terms means a process in which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved. When the information is encoded, it will allow the information from the outside world to reach the senses as chemical and physical stimuli forms. The first stage is when the change in information so the memory can be put into an encoding process. Second stage is aRead MoreThe Issue Of Personal Identity Essay1529 Words   |  7 Pagesof self-recognition by intimate internal referential relation to oneself known through memory and inner awareness as the best solution to the problem of the criterion for determining persons’ persisting over time. However I will first examine the views of three other influential philosophers and show why Rosenkrazt’s theory is in the end better. First we will explore Sydney Shoemaker and his theory of memory as a criterion for personal identity over time. Next Derek Parfit and his theory of psychologicalRead MorePersonal Contigu ity And Personal Identity736 Words   |  3 Pagescourse of his or her lifetime. Identification is necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another tie can be said to the same person, persisting through time. Personal continuity or also called personal persistence in psychology, is the uninterrupted connection that concerns between a particular person of his or her private life and personality. Personal continuity is the property of a connected and continuous period of time, it is also related with the person

The Exclusion Of State Immunity Privilege In Tortious Activity International Law Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2420 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Research paper Did you like this example? At present time, the only comprehensive multilateral convention on state immunity is the European Convention on State Immunity. The Convention was adopted by Council of Europe in 1972 with the aim to codify the rules of state immunity whereas many countries still followed to absolute doctrine of state immunity. Articles 1-15 contain main principles of restriction of state immunity with requirement of strict territorial nexus. Article 4 provide commercial activity exception which states that A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to an obligation of the State, which, by virtue of a contract, falls to be discharged in the territory of the State of the forum. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Exclusion Of State Immunity Privilege In Tortious Activity International Law Essay" essay for you Create order But the main particularity of this Convention is provision of exception in tortious conduct. It is stated there in the Article 11 that: A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State in proceedings which relate to redress for injury to the person or damage to tangible property, if the facts which occasioned the injury or damage occurred in the territory of the State of the forum, and if the author of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time when those facts occurred. According to this provision it is clear that jure imperii is not applicable anymore in tortious activity but the strict territorial nexus requirement shall be fulfilled. The exclusion of state immunity privilege in tortious activity is provided in the United Nations Convention of Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property as well. However, this Convention will come into force after submission of thirtieth ratification instrument. Other conventions on state immunity are very specific and relate to very narrow aspects of state immunity. Among such conventions there are, for example, the Brussels Convention on the Unification of State-owned Vessels (1926), International Convention on Civil liability for oil pollution damage (1969) and others. On the basis of provided short overview of the current legal situation on state immunity in different legal systems the conclusion can be maid as following. Adoption of legislative acts and moving away from governmental and private distinction in tortious activity make me think that common law states had more open-minded approach to state immunity. But, this distinction between the approaches of civil and common law states to restrictive doctrine cannot be essential over long time due to international conventions, which gradually establish overall united approach. But it can be found one advantage in the absence of legislative acts in civil law states. It is namely that these states are not obliged to play in the frameworks of strict legislative acts. And that is why it gives to their courts more discretion in judgments. It shall be considered below. 1.3. Commercial exception As laid down by the previous chapter, a state deprives its immunity in committing wrongs during its commercial activity and it would be right to consider this exception in court practice as well. By way of example in describing of this exception mostly the legislation and court practice of US will be taken. The commercial activity is defined in FSIA as either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction. According to this legal norm, it becomes clear that the commercial activity does not suppose that defendant should be commercial entity but the cause of action should be based on commercial act.[1]The relationship between state and individual or legal person does no need to be commercial (if someone understand under commercial that activity which relates to commerce) but the conduct of state needs to be based on commercial act (transaction).[2] However, the significant problem to such aspect is the conclusion how to define that the claim is based on exactly commercial activity but not non-commercial one.[3]The answer to this question would be given in the following subchapters. 1.3.1. Identification of the relevant act In establishment whether the claim of plaintiff is based upon the commercial activity it is first of all necessary to identify the relevant act.[4] According to the section 1605 (a) (2) of FSIA, the exception will be applied in case of the claim bases on commercial act. Over long period of time in the finding of the relevant act, courts have paid more its attention to the wording based on commercial act not just commercial act. They interpreted the relevant act as the particular conduct giving rise to the claim in question actually constitutes or is in connection with commercial activity.[5]In other words, courts ask to establish nexus between commercial activity and wrong.[6] Courts later modernized their guidelines on identification of relevant act and stated that the commercial act had to form the gravamen of the complaint. These both court interpretations of the relevant act found its place in the case of Saudi Arabia vs. Nelson.[7] Mr. Nelson had been employed through US Career Recruitment Company (that includes the signing of employment contract) in USA to work as engineer in the hospital in Saudi Arabia. He was arrested later and tortured for thirty-nine days in the Saudi Arabia. USA court dismissed the claim of Nelson because he did not find any connection between USA and wrong committed in Saudi Arabia. The Court of Appeals revised the judgment of first instance and concluded that the claim was based on commercial but not governmental act because the detention and torture of Nelson were so intertwined with his employment at the Hospital that they are based on his recruitment and hiring, in the Unites StatesÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¦[8]. The Judge Edward Re stipulated that Nelson would not be arrested in Saudi Arabia if he had not been hired in US. However, the Supreme Court revised the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court stated that in order to be based on commercial act, such act must form the gravamen of the complaint.[9]In other words If Nelsons action had been for breach of the contract of employment rather than a legally independent tort, his recruitment and negotiation of the contract in the United States would have been a commercial act upon which his claims were based.[10] The Supreme Court concluded that claim was based on the torture but not on Nelsons recruitment in the hospital. The Court also added that the activity of police which arrested Nelson was governmental not commercial.[11]Nonetheless, someone might argue that court dismissed the claim of Nelson in the part where he brought the claim against state-owned hospital as well and according to the argumentation of the Court it would be considered as commercial activity. In another case of Siderman de Blacke vs. Argentina[12]the Court decided the question of identification of the relevant act in the benefit of individual. Mr. Siderman was tortured and banished from Argentina. The government confiscated his business (hotel) and all property located in Argentina. It was anti-Semitism actions taken by Argentina officers. In this case if the Court considered the expropriation and other violations of human rights (tortures) as relevant acts these acts would not be recognized as commercial and certainly would not have any connection with US. But the Court stated that the claim of Mr. Siderman was based on operation of his Hotel.[13]The determination of operation of Hotel as relevant act made much easier for the Court to establish the nexus between the hotels operation (attraction of tourists) and US. On the basis of these two cases it can be seen which big problem can create the identification of relevant act. It can be assumed that it is important correctly identify the relevant act from which will depend the following question of application of immunity exception. And the big power in this identification is in the hands of courts, which shall be always motivated with the sense of making justice. 1.3.2. Nature/purpose tests The second step in establishment of commercial activity exception is identification whether the relevant act is commercial act. There is no such legal system in the world, which could describe how to determine whether the act is commercial or not. For such identification courts developed two tests: nature-test and purpose-test. In earlier cases most of courts followed to the purpose-test. A good example of application of purpose-test can be taken from the National Iranian Gas Corporation case.[14]In 1978 National Iranian Gas Corporation concluded the contract with French company Pipeline service for the pipeline construction in Iran. But the French company was not paid for their rendered services. The French company sued Iranian corporation before French court. The court of first instance rejected the claim because of state immunity. Then after reclaiming petition the Court of Appeal stated that state immunity could not be invoked because the contract is still considered as private contract to perform public project. But then again the Court of Cassation reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and stated that immunity could be granted to foreign state not only in governmental acts but also in acts with the public interest.[15]In other words it can be concluded that the court used the purpose-test. However, case-by-case courts passed to the nature-test. In section 1603 (d) of FSIA it is defined that: The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose. In other words the meaning of nature-test has been concluded according to ability of private person to commit the same act, which could be done by state as well. For example, such acts as legislating, providing national defense can be done only by state.[16] The court applied the nature-test in the above-mentioned Nelson case. As we remember from that case court rejected the claim of Mr. Nelson because it found that the relevant acts were actions of state officers and according to nature-test that alleged tortious acts were governmental.[17]It can be concluded that it was duty and authority in capacity of only state officers to keep order in the country and that is why it was considered as governmental but not commercial. However, in the opinion of Joseph W. Dellapenna the nature-test cannot be always characterized correctly by the nature of acts of modern states. For example state orders clothes for its army, should we consider this act as making contract or providing the national defense?[18]These problems could be avoided if courts used the purpose-test. But the main disadvantage of this test is that state always pursue in its actions public purpose.[19] After analyzing of both tests it can be said that both tests have their own advantages and disadvantages. And application of the correct test is in discretion of the court. However, in practice, it shows that some courts prefer to follow only to the nature-test (USA), while some courts prefer to follow only to purpose-test (French courts). From my point of view the best solution would be if courts considered both tests. For example, United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of State and Their Property offer to use two-tier approach for the determination of whether the act is commercial or non-commercial.[20]According to this test the court, firstly, need to consider the nature-test and if nature-test could not help much then to apply the purpose test only if in the practice of the State which is a party to it [the contract or transaction], that purpose is relevant to determining the non-commercial character of the contract or transaction. To sum up this chapter, it is seen that the doctrine of state immunity step-by-step appears to be more restricted in favor of individuals. Appearance of commercial exception itself announced the first victory of individuals over states. But in addition, commercial exception was developed further by creation of nature-test by judges. This test gave possibility to evaluate previously recognized non-commercial acts as commercial ones and increased chances of individuals to take the shield of immunity from states. 1.4. Tortious exception Firstly it is needed to explain the approach of author to the structuring of this main part of thesis. In the subchapter 1.2 it was considered the current legal situation in civil and common law states, among which were mostly European states and USA due to their main achievements in the doctrine of state immunity. Now it is time to consider their no less important court practice in tortious activity. More attention will be concentrated on European model because of their recent significant impact on development of the doctrine of state immunity. European model will not include torts of EU legal system. It was decided to consider the torts of EU legal system separately from European model because of the special status of EU law- above domestic law but not within of international law. Tortious exception supposes the denial of state immunity in commitment of torts, acts of state causing death, injury, damage to property. In the framework of each model it is decided to consider two types of torts: firstly, domestic torts and secondly, torts with violation of fundamental human rights. It is marked out these two types of torts in the legal doctrine.[21]Domestic torts mean such torts, which relate to the sphere of domestic tort law (libel, slander, physical distress, mental anguish, and etc.). And logically to the second type of torts relate such torts, which beside domestic law also violate international law by causing injury to life, limb and liberty of individuals and these torts themselves constitutes the violations of international fundamental human rights. In this chapter author followed to this generally accepted classification of torts however sometimes under category of domestic torts were covered such torts, which could be classified as violations of human ri ghts, however individuals did not rely on violation of fundamental human rights and limited the tools of protection of their rights by domestic law. Sometimes it will happen that in the process of describing the tortious exception some previous court decisions may be mentioned again as appropriate for the deeper analysis and clarification of new aspects.

Contemporary Art Movement Discussion Free Essays

Art movements possess varying definitions that are given by art critics, historians and even artists. They emerge from Classical period and then followed by escapes or transitions from the traditions or a mixture of two movements that eventually give birth to another movement of a period. We will write a custom essay sample on Contemporary Art Movement Discussion or any similar topic only for you Order Now Contemporary art which is personally defined as â€Å"art of the present,† encompasses a number of artistic movements; one of which is performance art, a contemporary art movement that focuses on the acts of the artists who utilize their body to demonstrate a certain work or piece of art. Art pieces that are created during the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries belong in the realm of contemporary art. These are the objects of outgrowth and rejection of modern art. When abstract expressionism’s power and drive shrinks, nouveau art movements and styles arise during 1960s and 1970s to summon and to displace the modernism in visual arts and other media (Contemporary Art, 2008). The definition of the term â€Å"contemporary art† varies from art critics to art historians because confusion lies amid the two concepts: â€Å"modern† and â€Å"contemporary,† due to the reason that contemporary art follows modern art. Therefore, no one seems to agree with regards to the exact meaning of the term because there has been no particular agreement on when â€Å"modern art† has ended (What is Contemporary Art? 2008). However, other descriptions regard it as a term that generally refers to the art crafted on the second half of the twentieth century (Harry Carlton School, 2009). On the other hand, three simple definitions cover the concept â€Å"contemporary art. † And these include the following characterization: First, contemporary art is the art created after 1945. It is the meaning that is adhered by most museums; on the contrary, historians affirm it as outdated. Second, contemporary art is art produced in our era or lifetimes. It is the definition used by general art historians; however, it is too vague for the functions and purposes. Third, contemporary art is art produced since the 1960s. It is the description that is commonly utilized by art historians and critics but disagreement materializes as to the accurate cut-off date (What is Contemporary Art? 2008). Contemporary art is comprised by a myriad of schools, styles and movements that come to the front during the mid-1960s until present. These are conceptualism, performance, installation, video art, minimalism, photo-realism, earthworks, supports-surfaces, contemporary realism, new subjectivity, London School, graffiti art, transavanguardia, neo-expressionism, Britart: young British artists, neo-pop, stuckism and new Leipzig School (What is Contemporary Art? 2008). Performance Art The concept â€Å"performance art† has commenced in the year 1960s in the United States. It is originally utilized to define and describe any live artistic incident that includes poets, musicians, artists and filmmakers. It is also referred as â€Å"Happenings,† â€Å"Events,† and â€Å"Fluxus concerts† (Esaak, 2009). The history of Performance art can be traced back to the Futurists and Dadaists who often promote their arts during the year 1910 with hilarious and shocking events. However, it is during the year 1950s when a French artist known as Yves Klein includes dragging naked women with whom he spreads and smears with paint across canvas on the floor of an art gallery. It is an accompaniment to one of his minimalist musical compositions. It is not until 1960s when performance art is acknowledged and recognized as a branch or art. Nevertheless, the term â€Å"performance art† is first used in 1970 (Performance Art, 2009). Performance art is a form of art that is concerned and focused with direct audience communication by the artists that can last from a few minutes to several days. There are cases when it is considered as a form of getting out to the institutional dominance of commercial galleries and aesthetic priorities of Modernism (Pookie and Newall, 2007, p. 225). It is the category when artists break away with utilizing only one traditional medium. Performance artists, most of the time, are exploring and seeking several artistic disciplines and creating works of art that may traverse traditional media borders such as works that comprise the aspects of theater, music and visual arts. There are also artists who are enthused in incorporating in their performance activities of everyday life and presenting it in an artistic manner (Byrd, 1998). Women in Performance Art During the advent of Performance Art, women have found their place and fame in the art world. Some of the women through the period have been known in the said branch of art. Among them are Laurie Anderson, Meredith Monk and Linda Montano. Laurie Anderson is probably the most renowned performance artist. It is in 1970 when she emerges. Her works explore and illustrate the relationship between people and technology. Her masterpieces are usually comprised of spoken text, music, projected slides and videos. She has been known for employing an array of synthesizers to create sonic soundscape and a vocoder to change the sound of her voice when telling stories of her life in the late 20th century wherein laptops and ghosts exist side by side (Byrd, 1998). On the other hand, Meredith Monk is another artist who crafts interdisciplinary theater pieces. She is a composer who deals with inventive and pioneering vocal techniques. Her works are mixtures of free elements and images that are not related to one another. However, it is the combination of those unrelated elements that make her works unique (Byrd, 1998). Linda Montano, on the contrary, is the artist who explores the nexus between art and life. Rituals for her can change one’s perception of life. During those times of her artistic development, she manages to perform life ceremonies that transpire for several years. One of her renowned work is the one in which she spends an entire year tied to another artist known as Teching Hsieh. They have been united and joined by a seven-foot length rope. They did not touch each other for the whole year (Byrd, 1998). Those are just a number of performance arts that have been executed by female artists. There are other performances and pieces that make use of their bodies as a medium on demonstrating a work of art. They reveal issues such as feminism and role of women in society. Performance arts are often open-ended and can happen anywhere. They are usually presented in a live audience and only performed once. Its theme is usually in accordance to the artist’s viewpoints with regards to the link and relationship between art and life, art and technology, people and art or anything that the artist desires to illustrate. Performance art has given way to the feminist agenda during the year 1970s. It is an individual, instantaneous and greatly effective means of communication. Women’s objective when executing and performing a piece is to create an alternative vision for women and their power and status in the world (Gaulke, n. d. ). Their pieces tend to problematize female subjectivity, evaluate personal history, and alter the position of women in society because women are usually excluded from the art world. Women artists, thus, work on different media; performance art and video art are most likely appealing because the new media has no past accounts on eliminating and rejecting women (qtd. Troy, n. d. ). Feminist performance art in the year 1970s encompasses diverse functions and purposes. Women artists never endeavor and attempt to craft a single philosophical system in their works (Gaulke, n. d. ). Their works of art are usually a mixture of different philosophies with regards to the upliftment of women’s status and role in the society, as well as its identity and belongingness in the art world. The Performance art is also an essential movement during those eras because it summons the Formalism movement (Troy, n. d. ), where artworks are confined to canvases, paints and plasters. Performance art serves an exploration to the faction between art and life. Artists have made ways to explore and discover the dynamics between artist and spectators in order to comprehend art as social and experiential (Troy, n. d. ). Analysis and Conclusion Performance art belongs in the realm of contemporary art because of three essential reasons. First, it gives birth to a new media in creating works of art. One of those media is the body by which artists, especially women, utilize in order to demonstrate a blend of philosophies on the role of women in society. Another media is the use of technology and the incorporation other traditional media such as paints and canvas while performing and executing a piece. Second, performance art bestows an opportunity for women to articulate and fight for their rights. That a woman needs not be oppressed in society. While men are superior in the traditional arts and Modernism, women have grabbed the opportunity to find ways on how to express themselves and how to struggle for their status in society. Their creations offer new perspectives on how to look at women and how to value them. They reveal and delineate their struggles and efforts in the form of performance art so that their voice, angst and activism will be heard. Third, performance art provides a space for the women to be recognized in the art world. Because women are oppressed, their talents, skills and abilities are not acknowledged. However, because of the advent of performance art, women have found ways on how to present their endowments. Performance art is not just confined to well-known female artists. There are also a number of men who execute pieces of art in order to present and to articulate their point of views in life. Performance art has given chances to ordinary people who desire to expose their artistic inclinations. Those art pieces that have been showed have helped and aided them in their artistic developments. A myriad of artists especially poets, musicians and theater artists explore, try and manage to achieve a performance art. They may be controversial, shocking, hilarious, still, for them, it is a way of communicating with the audience with regards to their outlook in life and art. How to cite Contemporary Art Movement Discussion, Papers