Frankenstein-society Essays - Frankenstein, English-language Films

Frankenstein-society Jhova Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley is a compound novel that was written during the age of Romanticism. It contains many typical themes of a common Romantic novel such as dark laboratories, the moon, and a monster; however, Frankenstein is anything but a common novel. Many lessons are fixed into this novel, including how society acts towards the different. The monster fell victim to the system commonly used to characterize a person by only his or her outer appearance. Whether people like it or not, society always summarizes a person's qualities by his or her physical appearance. Society has set an permanent code individuals must follow to be accepted. Those who don't follow the "standard" are hated by the crowd and banned for the reason of being different. When the monster ventured into a town"...[monster] had hardly placed [his] foot within the door ...children shrieked, and ...women fainted" . From that moment on he realized that people did not like his appearance and hated him because of it. If villagers didn't run away at the sight of him, then they might have even enjoyed his personality. The monster tried to accomplish this when he encountered the De Lacey family. The monster hoped to gain friendship from the old man and eventually his children. He knew that it could have been possible because the old man was blind, he could not see the monster's repulsive characteristics. But fate was against him and the "wretched" had barely conversed with the old man before his children returned from their journey and saw a monstrous creature at the foot of their fa ther attempting to do harm to the helpless elder. "Felix darted forward, and with supernatural force tore [the creature] from his father..." . Felix's action caused great inner pain to the monster. He knew that his dream of living with them "happily ever after" would not happen. After that bitter moment the monster believed that "...the human senses are insurmountable barriers to our union [with the monster]" and with the De Lacey encounter still fresh in his mind along with his first encounter of humans, he declared war on the human race. The wicked being's source of hatred toward humans originates from his first experiences with humans. In a way the monster started out with a child-like innocence that was eventually crushed by being constantly unwanted by society . His first encounter with humans was when he opened his eyes for the first time and witnessed Victor Frankenstein, his creator, "...rush out of the laboratory..." . If physical appearance were not important then the creature would have had a chance of being accepted into the community with love and care. But society does believe that physical appearance is important and it does influence the way people act towards each other. Frankenstein should have made him less offending if even he, the creator, could not stand his disgusting appearance. There was a moment however when Frankenstein "...was moved..." by the creature. He "...felt what the duties of a creator..." were and decided that he had to make another creature, a companion for the original. But haunti ng images of his creation (from the monster's first moment of life) gave him an instinctive feeling that the monster would do menacing acts with his companion, wreaking twice the havoc! Reoccurring images of painful events originating from a first encounter could fill a person with hate and destruction. We as a society are the ones responsible for the transformation of the once child-like creature into the monster we all know. The public needs to know that our society has flaws and they must be removed before our primal instincts continue to isolate and hurt the people who are different. With such a large amount of technology among us, some people may wonder why such an advanced civilization still clings on to such primitive ways of categorizing people.

Broken Window Theory

Broken Window Theory Free Online Research Papers Fixing Broken Windows was written by George L. Kelling and Catherine M. Coles to explain the â€Å"Broken Windows† theory created by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson. The â€Å"Broken Windows† theory states that if a window breaks in an abandoned building in a neighborhood and it is not fixed, then more windows will be broken and graffiti will occur. In turn, this will make honest people afraid to leave their homes, and only the mischievous people who want to cause trouble will be out on the streets reeking havoc. Thus producing crime. Fixing Broken Windows offers a very desiccated but persuasive look at how to reform the modern criminal justice system by looking at three different aspects: the rise of crime rates in the middle of the 1960’s; the fact that the police are in a reactive role; and how the â€Å"broken windows† theory actually works. The authors state that in the middle of the 1960’s the connection between fear and disorder was recognized. People felt that they had fewer defenses against crime. Rather than moving out of the neighborhoods, citizens purchased guns, knives, and animals to protect them from criminals. Decline and decay increased in many cities. Riots made people focus on disorder. People feared going to parks because they had become threatening places. Americans whites and blacks fled the inner city for the suburbs. The ones that did not purchase weapons or animals locked themselves in their homes and only left when absolutely necessary. People became frightened because the violent crime rates had more than tripled. There was an increase in conviction rates for males ages seventeen through twenty-one, found guilty of criminal acts. Also, the 60’s brought on a greater tolerance for new ideas, equal rights issues and individual expression. However, in the 60s there was a national econom ic decline that caused unemployment and resentment among many of the citizens throughout the country. In addition to these factors, there was the greater visibility of youth and youth permissiveness. Also, there was less censored media. More women began working outside the home. Divorce rates grew which caused more broken homes then before. The atmosphere of the 60s was one of vibrant nightlife. The country had recovered from the war and the 60s was a prosperous time for America. The authors also state that the police are now in a reactive role. This means that they respond to crime, rather than preventing it. Police officers stopped foot patrol and began responding to 911 calls. Many people advocate the restoration of foot patrol for all areas. Foot patrolling is called community policing and consists of two elements community partnership and problem solving. The police must increase positive relationships with citizens to improve crime control and prevention. To be successful, community-policing programs must operate on a neighborhood scale, finding solutions to neighborhood problems. Successful programs recognize that something, which works well in one neighborhood, may be totally inappropriate for another. Problems must be identified and solutions developed one neighborhood at a time. Community Policing does not propose that we stop fighting crime and disorder, but that officers employ new and innovative strategies. We must become pro-active in preventi ve rather than reactive. Enforcement is very much a part of the concept. Officers are encouraged to give warnings whenever possible; however, they are still required to make traffic stops and arrests. There is still an emphasis on drunken driving, drugs and juvenile crime. The community should not have the mistaken perception that all enforcement has stopped just because the officers are being friendly. Simply put, the â€Å"Broken Windows says that if something is not stopped while it is small, then it will grow and grow until it is out of control. The theory is actually a combination of several aspects. First, the community is responsible for the crime rate. The citizens are to try to prevent crime in their individual neighborhoods and thus will protect society. Secondly, the police officers need to be more proactive in preventing crime. The police officers need to get out and do the hard work of foot patrolling and community policing. Thirdly, it is a metaphor used to show how people can become involved in the criminal justice system. To effectively protect society from fear and disorder, police officers, communities, and the criminal justice system must all work together, to reduce and ultimately eliminate fear and disorder. Fixing Broken Windows does give a persuasive account of how to fix the modern problems in our communities concerning crime. I do agree with the authors when they say that a majority of the fear and disorder comes from the reactive roles of the police officers. If they were out on foot patrol, crime would be reduced. I also think that the communities themselves need to be more proactive when it comes to crime. Parents need to control their children and protect their neighbor hoods. I do think that all communities should enforce the â€Å"Broken Windows† theory; they would see a dramatic drop in their crime rates and not just their reported crime rates. I would advise anyone concerned with the crime rate in their community to read Fixing Broken Windows; Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by George M. Kelling and Catherine M. Coles. Research Papers on Broken Window TheoryThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationCapital PunishmentThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug Use19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresHip-Hop is ArtRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andQuebec and CanadaAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeEffects of Television Violence on Children

Problems of trust within EU integration process Essay

Problems of trust within EU integration process - Essay Example This paper explores the connection between the level of cohesion within the trans-European political and support for integration underpinned by the presence and/or lack of trust between the countries. Discussion The initial thoughts regarding European integration fostered an idealism of uniting people by launching a community of Europeans. Nevertheless, this objective can be perceived as more pragmatic than idealistic in fostering positive transactions. The identity cleavage (manifest along north-south dimension) within the political community linked to support for the integration (Sanchez-Cuenca 2000, p.147). This statement captures the idea of a political community as the level of cohesion among individual citizens in which individuals form part of a distinct community since they have established a social-psychological attachment with one another via greater communication, and understanding. As such, the notion and practice of European unification details an example of political, c ommunity building and support for integration linked to the establishment of a European political community (Hoffman 2006, p.108). The basis of this community features the development of positive images among fellow Europeans, which widens in-group membership. Self-interest, Trust, and cooperation Public support for European integration can be regarded as either specific (utilitarian support) or diffuses. In most cases, motivations for utilitarian support are essentially self-interest in nature while diffuse flows from a shared interest motivation. Individuals frequently avails utilitarian support in cases where the state avails acceptable outputs (that can be economic, or non-economic gains to the individual); hence, the state sustain the system via citizen support. The motivation for utilitarian support mainly stems from evaluations of the EU’s capability to avail benefits and reduce any negative impacts, inclusive of the changing role of the EU integration progresses (Muno z 2011, p.551). As such, individual’s socio-economic position within the economy coupled with expected effects of market integration plays a critical role in shaping trust levels, whereby an increase in welfare provision among member countries linked to growing support, but economic downturns presently felt in Europe is linked to dramatically lowered support levels for EU integration (Kuhnhardt 2011, p.134). According to political cohesion model grounded in social identity theory, the potential of an individual supporting integration rises with greater levels of trust in fellow Europeans (Farrell 2002, p.55). Similarly, trust in EU nationalities enhances the possibility of support, more so compared to trust in the southern nationalities owing to the latter economic development. Attachment is critical as it facilitates easier rule since it incorporates legitimacy to those that govern by the governed (Munoz 2011, p.552). Indeed, hostility towards others cultures impacts on atti tudes of EU integration given that strong national attachment minimizes the possibility that an individual will back regional integration (Herrmann 1999, p.148). Hostility towards other cultures can be highlighted as a significant factor that has impeded the admission of Turkey into EU membership. The EU cites lack of progress within Turkey’s reform as the core reason that has led to lack of progress