More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction summary edward said orientalism
Introduction summary edward said orientalism
Introduction summary edward said orientalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples From its beginnings, Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) has produced conflict in post-colonial studies. Does Professor Said’s theory suggest global implications and/or strategies as Culture and Imperialism (1993) argues? Or does the East of Orientalism belong only to the Middle East and particularly to Middle Eastern studies? Is there a monolithic "Othering" at work? Or do resistive pockets exist within Western imperial discourse? Perhaps the thorniest issue, however, concerns the stance from which to view global issues of imperialism and colonization. Ethical decisions—judgments, in a word—should play a large part in post-colonial theorizing and critiques. But on what basis can judgments be made? Where should accountability lie? And if there is accountability, how can it be enforced? Moreover, there has been a recent shift in the major players in the 21st century version of the Great Game. Said and Bhabha have, in characteristically fine ways, questioned the stability of the term “nation.” “National identity” may now be seen more as a “notional identity.” But does it matter any more? Does national identity even count? These questions come on the heels of global political reactions to global capitalist institutions (multinational corporations) and the global political institutions wholly owned and operated by them. By global capitalist institutions, I mean organizations like Bertelsmann, Aramco, Merck, Sony, Microsoft, Daimler-Benz, and so on. By global political institutions, I refer to the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the various protectors of Intellectual Property. Imperialism and colonization must now be looked at in terms of these global institutions, rather than in political or even cultural terms. The dichotomies first world/third world, east/west, north/south, developed/underdeveloped do not hold the relevance they once had. There are thus two issues to be faced: first, how to establish a foundational basis for ethical judgments, and second, how to theorize resistance to the new economic imperialism which has changed rather radically from the old imperialism of nation-state or region and which has rendered Samuel Huntington’s “clashes of culture” obsolete. Critics of both of these situations must ask where to look for guiding principles upon which to base judgments within a global context. I want to avoid both the hegemonic “westernization” of democratic/capitalist values and the seemingly benign cultural relativism that avoids any standards of ethical or political judgment.
“The greatest challenge to Rawls’s theory from racial/ethnic minorities could well be his insistence on basing overlapping consensus on the “basic institutions” of U.S. society: appreciations and understandings developed by the dominant group in society, but without taking into consideration oppressed peoples. Liberty, equality, and the common good are indeed important values. However, the issues is, What do they mean in the twenty-first century in a heterogeneous society integrated by others besides Euro-American males?”
The war had been enormously expensive, and the British government’s attempts to impose taxes on colonists to help cover these expenses resulted in chaos. English leaders, were not satisfied with the financial and military help they had received from the colonists during the war. In a desperate attempt to gain control over the colonies as well as the additional revenue to pay off the war debt, Britain began to force taxes on the colonies. Which resulted in The Stamp Act, passed by parliament and signed by the king in March 1765. The Stamp Act created an excise tax on legal documents, custom papers, newspapers, almanacs, college diplomas, playing cards, and even dice. Obviously the colonist resented the Stamp Act and the assumption that parliament could tax them whenever and however they could without their direct representation in parliament. Most colonials believed that taxation without their consent was a violation of their constitutional rights as Englishmen. Which is where the slogan “No Taxation without Representation” comes
John Rawls’ theory of justice is one of the most interesting philosophies to have emerged in modern times. It was introduced in the 1970s when A Theory of Justice was published. It was revised several times, with the most recent done in the year 1999. Essentially, the Rawlsian philosophy approaches justice according to the idea of fairness. The idea is that justice is a complex concept, and it could differ according to individual circumstance. Rawls contended that all of us are ignorant about ourselves and about others and, hence, we are not in a place - in such condition - to determine or apply the principles of justice. These positions allowed Rawls to address two contemporary issues that are equally important, but also tend oppose each other’s views: freedom and equality.
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
The Boston Tea Party was an important historical event that happened on the night of December 16th, 1773. This was a predicament that was between the British government and the American colonies. The number one priority of it dealt with taxes, which Britain was requiring American colonies to pay. In 1765, the Stamp Act was created by Parliament to provide money to make peach with the Native Americans and the American settlers. It was an act that was loathed by the colonists of America, and was repealed by parliament for many reasons. The government of Britain created other laws to maintain all the problems that were being forced upon; which later, the Boston Tea Part was focused on the Parliamentary Law. Americans were very up to date when it came to financial demands by the British Parliament. They were not blind sighted by the whole thing and just did what British said. In 1765, an organization that was kept on the down level, called the Sons and Daughters of Liberty was created for the British to boycott their products. With the start of 1773, assemblies of Massachusetts and Virginia had created the Committees of Correspondence, which was a group that was directed to communicate to any threats that was being shown by any of the American colonies. With that being said, parliament passed the Tea Act, which had a big part in the Boston Tea Party. The Tea Act allowed East Indian Company to undersell colonial tea merchants in American Market. It was the start of something new.
After the British signed the Quartering Act, anger filled the colonists: The British were taxing goods without the colonists’ input. “No taxation without representation,” became a common slogan for the colonists (Lukes 10). Stephen Johnson, an angry colonist, said, “Why not tax us for the light of the sun, the air we breathe and the ground we are buried in?” (Lukes 35).
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
I. As one of the interpretations of the second principle of justice as fairness, Rawls argues that “democratic equality” is the best avenue for citizens to realize their life projects, as meeting of the difference principle with fair equality of opportunity. The second principle states that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, 53). With an unequal distribution of situations, the purpose of society “is not to establish and secure the more attractive prospects of those better off unless doing so is to the advantage of those less fortunate” (Rawls, 65). The principles of justice are in place to ensure that the “assignment of rights and duties” through the basic structure of society justly distribute both the “benefits and burdens” of social and economic advantages (Rawls, 47).
In “A Theory of Justice” we are confronted with the position of “justice as fairness” and Rawls’s argument toward a more just society where everyone has equal opportunity. However, Rawls has difficulty realizing in his argument that the modern liberal society, to which he is applying his principles are in fashion gender-structured. Rawls has taken this tradition of sexism for granted, and fails to consider how his theory of justice is to apply to women, and the ‘family’. In this essay I will critique John Rawls on gender and the family, I will look at aspects of Rawls’s theory, and the difficulties that arise in regard to gender and family, because of his ambiguous language, and why they must be corrected.
John Rawls and Robert Nozick both provide compelling and thought provoking theories regarding the values of liberty and equality. Rawls focuses on both liberty and equality while Nozick theorizes exclusively on liberty. The ideas of Rawls and Nozick have multiple strengths as well as weaknesses which allow for debate and comparison between the two theories.
Colonialism was a concept of superiority of one territory over another; it was a concept that originated centuries ago. Colonialism had been put into action throughout a long line of history and did not end after World War II in 1945. Even with resistance and efforts from independent states after the war, colonialism did not disappear and continued as a dominant system. It remained and changed its form, resulted in the process of globalization, which continued to control over newly independent states following World War II. Globalization, a form of colonialism, maintained power for the system over states or regions through economic terms with the development of the World Bank, and its derivation of structural adjustments. This financial institution was formed and contributed to colonialism; it assisted in the economic affairs of colonized nation(s). Along with class, professor Manfred B. Steger's book, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, and I.B. Logan and Kidane Mengisteab's article, "IMF – World Bank Adjustment and Structural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," discussed the indirect rule of colonial powers through globalization.
... (eds.), Leviathans: Multinational Corporations and the New Global History, New York: Cambridge University Press.