Our presentation

I thought our presentation went okay. There were, of course a few hiccups along the way and this reflected in our final project, but overall I thought our whole approach and preparation was a complete success. We divided the different sections of the presentation between us equally and researched them seperately as this enabled us to collect a wide variety of notes and intersting information on the subject. Throughout the weeks leading up to our main, and final presentation we decided to meet up and discuss our findings. Therefore, we were electing one person to teach the rest of the group about a topic that they had recently researched and understood to be important and relevent to the main body of the essay. When the day of the presentation came we met up before hand and ran through our speaking parts and made sure everyone was comfortable with their role. Finally we all proof read the information one more time and mutually agreed that it was correct.
Incase nobody asked us reletive questions at the end of our presentation we decided that we would prepare some in advance. Both, Sophie and I prepared a question each which solemnly related to our section of the text. Both of which were answered. Orinally we were going to include a drama type sock puppet display highlighting some of the main features of our presentation, but eventually due to the lack of time within the presentation and time we had to prepare; we had to scrap that idea in order to put across facts and information.
Overall I think that we all worked well within the group and we all prepared equal parts to the presentaion, our delivery was good and we all became confident speakers. I personally, learnt alot from this excercise as well.

Ruth 0806900

After performing the presentation, it can be concluded that multiculturalism does more harm than good. In the United Kingdom, supporters of the current Labour government's approach have described it as having defended the rights of minorities to preserve their culture, while also seeking to ensure they become fully particpatory citizens that is, integrating without assimilating. Critics say the policy fails on all accounts: If social conditions and racism become barriers to the integration of minorities, then multiculturalism does not properly function. There is now a lively debate in the UK over multiculturalism versus "social cohesion and inclusion."


Bibliography

no name. (no date). Multiculturalism. Available: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/multi_culture2.html#Criticisms_of_multiculturalism_in. Last accessed 01 December 2009.

Lovepreet kaur
0814904

In my view it sort of is. Racism is a term that 'scares' people and is not politically correct. Whereas multiculturalism does not sound threatening or offensive. We will never be a fully integrated society as we always form our own cliques. People who are against multiculturalism could be deemed racist because they are saying they do not want foreigners in their country. There is not really such thing as an American for instance as America is made up of imigrants from every country in the world. I don't see how you can avoid not having a multicutural society are we all supposed to stay in our own countries and never leave them? If we did that then we would never be introduced to other countries culture and foods. Multiculturalism i think makes the world more interesting and diverse. Countries such as Holland are scared of been taken over by immigrants and losing their identity but i dont think this could ever happen. I agree there should be tighter laws on immigration but everyone is supposed to be equal arent they? Sophie Kuzyk

Multiculturalism

We decided to do our presentation on multiculturalism.Multiculturalism is a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multiethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country's borders. As a policy, multiculturalism emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, one of the most forceful critics of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who feared the world-wide ethnic revival of the late 1960s would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. Her philosophy considered multiculturalism and monoculturalism to be culturally determinist collectivism (i.e., that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that: 1) it undermines the concept of free will, and 2) the human mind (according to her philosophy) is a tabula rasa at birth. But it is also true that the human mind is born without any culture, and that in nearly all societies attempt to condition their citizens culturally. What is distinct about multiculturalism is the assertion of an identity, aside from the nationally imposed identity, allowing for individuals within minority cultures to exercise more free choice than they otherwise would in a universalist society.

Lovepreet Kaur
0814904

Baudrillard - Violence with a Multicultural Society

For the presentation, we decided to go along the lines of a simple presentation with the injection of a couple of video and relevant images and examples.
Since my last post, I have been very busy renting books from the library and doing Internet research on Baudrillard and his views on multiculturalism. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Baudrillard's whole thought revolved around the theory of 'Radical Otherness' and 'The Code'. He explains how society such reject identity, as it is not 'real'. Through rejecting the ideas of identity and what we have that makes us individual, we put an end to the growing hate which is inevitable in society. This is the hate that would eventually lead to violence within the world and smaller communities.
Multicultural societies are more prone to violence and hatred, because the differences are more than obvious to the naked eye. eg. Black/White, Christian/Muslim, British/German.
It is important to understand these sort of differences are those that influence violence because these are the most obvious.
The most common form of violence and hatred that we experience within the world is 'Racism' - race is not only a physical difference but it also holds a belief difference.
Violence and Hatred that comes from racism creates social harm - and transmits negative vibe into the whole society. Race, for example also carries a stereotype (some of these stereotypes are seen as negative) - and therefore it becomes another reason behind violence. The conclusion to this statement would be: Race / Stereotype = Violence and Hatred.

We have decided to do our presentation about Multiculturalism and that it does more harm than good. There are three of us in the group and one of my tasks is to find a video to put into our presentation. We are including Baudrillard's view on multiculturalism and he states that it keeps people apart and it produces particular hatred of indifferent. He also talks about code, you can do what you want but you have to be within the code. I have found one video by the Dutch politician Wilders, who has been banned from Britain because of his extremist views on Muslims. Muslims in Britain have even protested for his murder!

Sophie Kuzyk

Terrorism and Baurdrillard

On the 19^th November, I had a lecture on terrorism. Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. In the lecture, we discussed about the 9/11, when suicide bombers hijacked United States airliners and used then as bombers on 11^th September 2001. According to Baurdrillard the event 9/11 went far beyond a real attack, he believes it was an attack of mythic, symbolic and utterly humiliating proportions. Not a real event, but a symbolic “absolute event”. Baurdrillard believes that the terrorists destroyed the notion of a global world order based on universal, consensual, democratic values. Exploring these symbolic resonance, baurdrillard argues that the widespread moral condemnation following the attacks spring from a collective effort to mask our “prodigious jubilation at seeing this global superpower destroyed…they did it, but we wished for it” (lecture notes).

Lovepreet Kaur

0814904

Should Pornography be Allowed?

In week five I had a lecture on the topic, should pornography be allowed. At this time I am going to have a discussion about the conservative view, traditional liberal view and radical feminist view on pornography

According to conservative arguments for censorship pornography should be banned because its sexually explicit content is obscene and morally corrupting. By pornography conservatives usually mean simply sexually explicit material either pictures or words. Since conservatives typically view all such material as obscene. They also believe pornography is bad for society and believe it’s morally wrong. Furthermore, pornography is bad for those who consume it, corrupting their character and preventing them from leading a good and worthwhile life in accordance with family and religious values. Conservatives therefore think that it is entirely legitimate for the state to prohibit consenting adults from publishing and viewing pornography, even in private, in order to protect the moral health of would be consumers and of society as a whole. (Baird and Rosenbaum 1991)

However, the traditional liberal defence of a right to pornography rejecting both the principle of legal moralist and the principle of legal paternalism, at least where consenting adults are concerned. This is not to say that liberal defenders of pornography necessarily approve of it. Liberals have traditionally defended a right to pornography on three main grounds. Firstly, on the grounds of freedom of speech or expression, which protects the freedom of individuals (in this case, pornographers) to express their opinions and to communicate those opinions to others, however mistaken, disagreeable or offensive others may find them. Liberals have tended to conceive of freedom, including freedom of expression, as negative freedom as non interference by others rather than as positive freedom, which involves having the positive goods and facilities required to exercise the freedom. Freedom is thus something that individuals have just so long as there are no coercive external obstacles notably, physical or legal restrictions in their way. However protecting porn in terms of rights to "free speech" and "privacy" ignores the fact that the public and private distinction is not the same for women as for men. Men's speech is protected while porn normalizes "the terror that enforces silence on women's point of view”. (Week 5 lecture notes)

On the other hand Radical feminists are against pornography arguing that that pornography exploits women and that is violence against women. Furthermore they believe that legislation is needed because of its connection to rape and rape is violence. Further basic elements of rape are present in all heterosexual relations. Also they believe that sexuality is the source of male oppression and porn are the cause of men’s sexuality.

References

Baird, R. and Rosenbaum, S. (eds.), 1991, Pornography: Private Right or Public Menace. Buffalo: Prometheus.

no author. (no date). should pornography be allowed. Available: https://wolf.wlv.ac.uk/lssc/61007/PH2004%20Lec%205%20Pornography.ppt?menu=297430. Last accessed 27 November 2009.

By

Lovepreet Kaur

0814904

Revaluaton of all Values

I had a lecture on 1^st October 2009 where I leaned about the revaluation of all values which is a concept from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On 27^th November 2009, I did further research within the values and concentrated more on the origin of morality. Nietzsche does not believe that we are born with a sense of morality, or that we learn it in search of living morally or virtuously. He believes that the rich and powerful created the terms of good and evil in order to distinguish themselves as better. Nietzsche believes that the word ‘Good’ originally was what the high minded, noble, powerful and superior did. And ‘Bad’ were the actions of the plebeian, the ordinary, the inferior and the masses.

References

Nietzsche, F. (no date). Revaluaton of all Values. Available: https://wolf.wlv.ac.uk/lssc/61007/NIETZSCHE.ppt?menu=237954. Last accessed 27 November 2009.

By

Lovepreet Kaur

0814904

We Met...

So, me and Sophie decided to meet on Friday and talk about our presentation and blog. We eventually decided that we would do some sort of drama (to keep the presentation interesting, and to hold the auidence's attention) and a powerpoint presentation that will go alongside the drama. To completement our performance we will also do a handout for the other people in our class, or for those who come to view the presntations.
For the presentation/drama we decided to base it on a chat show/Jeremey Kyle show, because we thought that this could also add a bit of humour as well as putting forth our knowledge on the subject matter. We thought that this type of show would be easy to portray violence and hatred, and that is why we picked it.
We are planning a meeting on Thursday and possibly Friday of this week to discuss the presentation futher and go forth our notes and plans. I think that we will also get some practise in for the drama and maybe start on the power point presentation.
We set a date with Meena and we will be doing our presentation on the Thursday of Week 11, although we aren't sure on a time yet.

Over and out.... Ruthie x

We have arranged to meet tomorrow afternoon to discuss our presentation and discuss the lecture notes. I have some ideas as to how I would like the presentation to go - for example, I would like it to have some individuality, therefore I don't just want to lecture from a PowerPoint to the group.
I would like to do some sort of acting to depict the information that I have learnt. I think that it will be interesting to hear what the rest of my group has to say about how we should do our presentation.
After discussing the presentation tomorrow I will post another blog entry, explaining the outcome of our decision, and how we plan to carry out the presentation, so that it will be successful.
Till then,

Ruthie x