Realism is a very powerful theory in the study of international relations. The theory claims that states pursue their own interests in the international system.
The international system dictates the foreign policy of a state implying that changes in the international system would probably affect the foreign policies of a state. The theory states that the international system is anarchical since it lacks the central authority.
The main role of the central authority should be to resolve issues in the international system. Therefore, each state is concerned with its own affairs. The main interest of states is to maintain national security.
A state would only intervene in the international system if its national security is threatened. For instance, the theory argues that states form military alliances to strengthen their military power.
This means states are never concerned with resolving the security problems in the international system. States rarely cooperate because of mistrust and suspicion (Art and Jervis 67).
Scholars have come out strongly to support or critic realism theory. Ann Tickers criticism is mainly on the role of gender in the formulation of foreign policies. Unlike the realist theorists, she argues that human beings are not fixed.
Human behavior changes according to the environmental context. Therefore, she observes that even though states strive to achieve their national interests, they are forced to give in to the demands of other actors in the international system. This happens only if conditions demand for adjustment.
On his part, Alexander Wendt came up with a theory referred to as social theory. The theory rivals the realist approach as regards to foreign policy formulation. The scholar concurs with the fact that states pursue national interests.
However, he notes that culture is another aspect that influences the decision making process. He termed cultural rivalry as cultures of anarchy , which means some shared beliefs influence the formulation of foreign policies. He notes that the culture of various states change with time.
Therefore, there is no permanent enemy or friend in the international system. He also notes that human nature is dynamic, unlike the postulations of realist scholars who believe that the international system rarely changes.
Francis Beer and Robert Hariman conducted an analysis to determine the validity of realism. They note that there are other powerful units in the international system, which influence the states behavior. For instance, the emergence of powerful MNCs undermines the sovereignty of states.
In the US for example, public opinion is an aspect that can no longer be neglected when it comes to the making of foreign policy. The two scholars note that the relationships among states are complex.
Immanuel Wallerstein came up with the world-system theory, which states that resources influence the decision making process among states. He notes that the core controls the affairs of the world while the periphery is always oppressed.
From the views of the above scholars, it can be noted that states exist according to the Hobbestian state of nature where life is brutal, anarchic, quarrelsome, and short-lived.
However, individuals agreed to form a common government that would end the brutal life in the state of nature. In the international system, the scholars differ on whether a leviathan exists. Tickner disagrees that a leviathan exists.
She notes that the weak state will always be oppressed while the rich will always have its way. The same view is held by Immanuel Wallerstein who notes that the core controls all major economic activities in the world.
Alexander Wendt notes that war in the international system has been commercialized. This prevents the aggressors from attacking the innocent states.
Francis Beer and Robert Hariman oppose the idea that the state is the only important unit in the international system.
Works Cited
Art, Robert, and R. Jervis. International politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issue. Boston: Longman, 2011. Print.
The notion of higher criticism was introduced by Eichhorn (1752-1827), who defined it as the discovery and verification of the facts on origin and value of literal works with special attention being paid to the internal characters. Higher critics refer to the historical facts and, for this reason, higher criticism is often called the documentary hypothesis. Higher criticism of the Old Testament is based on the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution can be true. Higher criticism examines the historical origins, the dates of writing, and authors of different Biblical books. Thus, higher criticism, as the science of the Bible, is a study of the literal structure of the books, the Old Testament in particular. The study of the books of the Bible requires the ability of the scholar to understand the meaning of the words. Thus he has to be a believer in God.
Without faith, the scriptures cannot be explained, and without scholarship, the historical origins cannot be investigated.
The meaning of higher criticism
Higher critics hold that Pentateuch is based on the four completely different writings (the primary resources), including the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Code. Each of these books was composed in different periods of time prior to the death of Jesus Christ. According to the higher critics, these documents are the source of the different traditions of Hebrews. It is believed that the conjecture of these four writings was composed by Moses. However, higher critics reject this assumption and note that the conjecture was written by the so-called Redactor, who introduced the new information, harmonized the flow of writing, and wrote additional documents. Later, the Pentateuch was revised and rewritten several times by other anonymous writers who are not known to modern historians.
Higher critics agree that the four documents are inconsistent and incomplete. However, it is not clear how much information is missing and when and by whom it was removed.
Despite the many disputes among higher critics, they all assume that Pentateuch was changed by several redactors and new materials were added by unknown writers. There is evidence that these writers have not only misapprehended the original writings but have also misrepresented them in the revised works.
The reader of the Old Testament might get the impression that most of the information presented in the books is contradictory and could not take place historically. Higher critics strive to locate the colored impressions added by writers and renew the valuable elements of the supportive documents. Most of the stories of the Pentateuch are regarded by higher critics as trustworthy but partially legendary. For example, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are considered to be written based on myths and legends. Higher critics deny the historical value of these chapters because there is no archeological proof of the Patriarchs existence.
Arguments of higher critics
Higher critics strive to explain the Biblical scriptures relying on historical evidence and literal analysis. It can be noted that modern higher critics deny faith because they promote the idea that miracles and prophecies do not occur.
Moreover, Biblical stories are contradictory inside. The fact that there are many contradictions in Bible is the main reason why higher critics believe in multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. For example, in Genesis 14:14, it is written that Abram has led the group of people to the city Dan, while it did not exist at that time it came into existence only at the time of Judges (Judges 18:29), which is a long time after the death of Moses.
Moreover, higher criticism is based on the assumption that Bible editors lived many years after the events they described have occurred. Redactors have rewritten the information they gained from different sources (oral traditions, proverbs, and exhortations passed from generation to generation, as well as already written materials). It is argued that higher criticism devalues Biblical writings, even though the initial aim was to improve the understanding of the holy writings. Here are some of the assumptions raised by higher critics:
Pentateuch consists of four books (J, E, D, and P)
Genesis 1-11 is a myth (is not proved by historical and geographical facts)
The book of Isaiah was composed by more than two writers
The experience of Jonah is an allegory with religious meaning
Gospels is the collection of stories put together by religious leaders
Another important argument discussed by higher critics is that there is no single line in Pentateuch about Moses being the author of it. For example, Moses is traditionally considered to be the author of the story of the monarchy (described in the Pentateuch), while Moses was already dead at that time and could not write about the events which took place after his death. There is more evidence that the texts initially referred to the authorship of Moses were written by many contributors.
For example, the contradiction is also found in the story of Noah: Genesis 6:19 Noah is told to take the two pairs of every animal, while in Genesis 7:2, he is ordered to take only seven pairs of clean animals and birds.
The purpose of higher criticism
Higher criticism is not faith-denying; it strives to find the explanation to the doublets in Old Testaments, to the contradictory stories and different language styles. These would not be found in the text was written by one person. Peter Enns agrees with the assumption that Pentateuch was written by different authors and was revised many times. It can be the case that Mosaic Code leaves the space for modifications that might be required by the new lifestyle of people[6]. Higher critics understand the importance of time, authorship, and origin of Biblical writings to the believers. The purpose of higher criticism is not merely the literal analysis of the texts but the investigation of the texts belonging to the historical and religious fields.
Pentateuch, as the collection of writings, tells the story of Moses life in the third person, which indicates that Moses did not codify himself in the Biblical stories. Historically and legally, Pentateuch could not be written at the time of Moses, and Moses is not the author of it. At the same time, higher critics do not reject the assumption that at least some parts of the Pentateuch are Mosaic. The problem with finding the true author lies both in historical and religious sciences: at the time when Pentateuch was written, most of the traditions and stories were passed orally, while from a religious perspective, the idea that Old Testament was not written by Moses but was rather revised by unknown writers is not accepted either by Church or by believers.
Fallacies of higher criticism
Higher criticism is rejected as valid by many religious leaders, historians, and literal analysts. The first fallacy of higher criticism is based on the fact that the various authors of the Pentateuch are not known (neither their names nor their origins); they are imaginary and, therefore, cannot be referred to as historical figures. The second fallacy of higher criticism is the overdependence of higher critics on evolution theory and the history of religious literature. As Franklin Johnson has noted, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. Thus, the higher critics initially accept the hypothesis of evolution as valid, as the true story of humankinds creation, while rejecting the validity of Biblical creation story.
Moreover, higher criticism refers heavily to archaeological findings and to the assumption that at the time of events described in the Pentateuch, all of the traditions were passed orally. The recent archaeological discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets indicates that long before the exodus was written, people possessed writing skills and were able to record the events. Higher criticism could help to understand the Bible better, but it will not be accepted by the believers because higher criticism undermines the foundation of the faith (Bible as the Word of God) and holds that all of the Biblical writings are composed by humans and revised by unknown writers.
In conclusion, modern Christians do not hold Bible being 100 percent accurate, and higher criticism is even taught in seminary. Higher critics are partially successful in proving that the Bible is not accurate historically, but they do not deny the religious value of this book. It really does not matter what type of flame covered Moses on the mountain; it is not important whether it was the sunlight or the bush blossom; the only thing which matters is that he has heard the voice[9]. In other words, higher criticism holds that the Bible is historically false, but at the same time, it is religiously right. It is not important whether the Bible is historically accurate as long as it teaches the intended religious lessons.
Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament, an Introduction. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Enns, Peter. William Henry Green and the authorship of the Pentateuch: Some historical considerations. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (2002), 1-18.
Hague, Canon. The History of the Higher Criticism. Chapter 1 in Volume 1 The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Baker Books (revised 2005)
Johnson, Franklin. Fallacies of the Higher Criticism .
Long, V. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Moss, A. Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory . The Catholic Encyclopedia XI. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
Pratt, Jr. He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Students Guide to Interpreting Old Testament. Brentwood: Wolgemuth and Hyath, 1994.
The Fallacy of Higher Criticism. Editorial 19, no. 1 (1984).
Canon Hague, The History of the Higher Criticism. Chapter 1 in Volume 1 The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Baker Books, 2005).
Pratt, He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Students Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Narratives (Brentwood: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1994), 43
Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, an Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 37
The Fallacy of Higher Criticism, Editorial 19, no. 1 (1984)
Eissfeldt, 38
Peter Enns, William Henry Green and the authorship of the Pentateuch: Some historical considerations, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (2002), 12
A. Moss, Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory, The Catholic Encyclopedia XI (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911), 1621
Franklin Johnson, Fallacies of the Higher Criticism .
V. Long, The Art of Biblical Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 121.
Agnosticism is a word that was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley and he used it to describe the group of people who took a neutral stand on the argument between theists and atheists. For many centuries, religious scholars and philosophers argued over the Gods existence.. (Carroll, 650) This argument is separated into two groups.
One group argues that God exists while the other group disputes this. However, the twist in the argument began when agnostics surfaced with a new perspective to the entire issue at hand. Agnosticism is non committal to the existence of God or not. It rather argues about the lack of substantial evidence to prove that God actually exists or not. Thus, agnostics do not take sides in the argument about whether God actually exists or not. They are perceived as neutralists when the argument about Gods existence ensues. (Carroll, 202)
This essay is a literary criticism of agnosticism. Every situation in life has two sides and you can either disagree or agree with a particular side. The argument about the Gods existence only has two sides and any rational person can only choose a particular side to the argument. Agnosticisms argument about lack of substantial evidence to back Gods existence or dispute it is just a digression.
Making decisions in life is sometimes a demanding task and some people tend to shy away from making firm decisions. Due to the fact that God is unseen, it takes a lot of courage to serve him whole heartedly. (Tacelli, 219) Concerns and fears have been expressed about the argument that has ensued between theists and atheists.
Caught in the fierce argument between theists and atheists, agnostics decided to take a neutral stand on the issue. (Tacelli, 320) At one time or the other in our lives, we are required or compelled to make difficult decisions. But in the case of agnostics, indecision is one of the primary reasons why they have taken a neutral stand in the argument between theists and atheists. (Tacelli, 602)
Theists have believed in God for many centuries regardless of the tense argument surrounding the issue. Their faith in God supersedes every other issue and it has worked perfectly for them for a long time. (Ratzinger, 768) There are times or situations when their faith in God is tested. But these difficult situations are perceived as norms of life and it is expected that an individual who has faith in God should hold on strong to him during this trying times.
Showing resilience and perseverance is always encouraged because; theists believe that overcoming difficult situations measures a persons faith in God. (Ratzinger, 621) However, atheists use these difficult situations as an example of Gods absence in the world but this does not in any way deter theists because, it is a decision they have made. Also, theists believe that, the presence of problems in a persons life does not connote the absence of God. (Ratzinger, 457)
Theists have held on to their faith in spite of criticisms while, atheists have also refused to believe in the presence of God in spite of the number of miracles they have witnessed. These separate and respective groups have maintained their positions because; it is their decision to believe what they choose to believe. Agnostics have been unable to take a stand in the issue due to their inability to make a decision and it is advisable that agnostics emulate theists and atheists.
Fear of Commitment
Taking sides with either theists or atheists would mean commitment to the chosen side regardless of the consequences. Theists believe in God and they are passionately committed to their course while atheists are unbelievers and they are equally committed to their argument. The commitment of each side is passionate and time tested. (Ratzinger, 412)
Another reason why agnostics claim a neutral position in the argument between theists and atheists is the fear of commitment. As already aforementioned, taking a position with a particular side would require absolute and unquestioned loyalty. (Bayme, 300) But it seems the agnostics are not ready for this kind of commitment and loyalty thus, they prefer to hide under the pretext of been neutral. Having faith or believing in anything requires an individual to make a decision about such an issue.
Thereafter, such an individual pledges his/her loyalty and commitment to it. Anything short of this or contrary to this can be termed as just a digression. Agnostics are a literal example of this since they fail to make a decision and be committed to what they really want. (Bayme, 623)
While theists and atheists are engrossed in a serious argument, agnostics decided to be non committal to any particular side and this has afforded them the opportunity to watch from afar how the drama unfolds. This means that apart from agnostics been indecisive, the fear of commitment is also another reason why they claim to take a neutral stand. (Bayme, 209)
Agnostics lack braveness
In life, serious minded people usually have to make serious decisions no matter how hard or difficult such decisions might be. (Ratzinger, 712) After making such a decision, they spend the rest of their entire life fighting that course which they have chosen. Although in the process of fighting or following a particular course, there are also setbacks and side effects that arise on the way.
These setbacks and side effects sometimes affect the individual or people fighting a particular course and this makes it extremely difficult for people to fight for a course. In other words, this means that it takes a lot of boldness and courage to make a decision and stay committed to it therefore, only brave people do it. (Ratzinger, 645)
Theists and atheists unlike agnostics are courageous enough to make decisions about what they believe or think and they stay committed to their respective courses. This is a display of braveness and it is a trait which the agnostics do not portray. (Bayme, 672) Theists do not see God yet they believe strongly in his presence and existence while, atheist on the other hand refuse to change their mind that God actually exists.
Even the miracles they witness are unable to make them change their minds. Both sides are able to hold on to their respective beliefs because; it is their decisions, they are committed to it and above all they are brave enough to face whatever criticisms or problems that come their way as a result of these decisions. (Bayme, 731)
Conclusion
With the aforementioned examples, it is very glaring that been an agnostic is as a result of the reasons mentioned above and not the misconception of been neutral. The actual reasons why people hide under the cover of been agnostic are; they cannot make decisions as such, they are indecisive. (Bayme, 340)
Also, they are afraid of making any serious commitment and lastly, they are not brave. These are the real reason why people are agnostics when it comes to the issue of Gods existence and not the flimsy excuse about lack of substantial evidence. When it comes to the issue of believing in something, it is either you believe in it or not. There is no neutrality in such a serious and delicate issue. (Bayme, 414)
Scientific evidence and evidence which a court of law accepts are human perimeters to judge. These same perimeters cannot be used to measure or ascertain the existence of God as agnostics claim. Moreover, these perimeters are known to have failed in the past times without number thus cannot be used as the final methods the pass judgement or draw conclusions.
Theists use miracles as an example of Gods existence and presence in human lives while atheists simply dismiss that as norms of life. It is expected that the agnostics take a stand with either side or rest their case. Religious scholars and philosophers who argue for against the existence of God are brave and courageous. (Tacelli, 444)
Agnosticism is an unserious position to take on a serious position to take on a serious issue like the existence of God. With all the examples given above, it can be inferred or concluded that, agnostics are people who are unserious, indecisive and are afraid of making commitments. They are also people who are not brave thus, agnostics claim to take a neutral stand when theists and atheists argue using the flimsy excuse about lack of substantial evidence to prove Gods existence or dispute it. (Carroll, 112)
Works Cited
Bayme, Carol. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Victorian Age. (Vol. 2B) 8th ed. New York: Norton, 2003.
Carroll, Robert. Agnosticism: The Skeptics Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2009. Print.
Fr. Tacelli, Ronald. Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God: A critical Review. London: Intervarsity Press, 2007. Print. Ratzinger, Joseph. Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions. Ignatius Press. 2004. Print
In the following essay, the first part will compare and contrast, the rhetoric of legal philosophy as described and exemplified by legality and normative jurisprudence. The answers will focus on the double meaning of rhetoric philosophy, audience common ground, topics, methods, and the intended effects.
The second part of the essay will examine the work of Scott Shapiro and Robin West in their critique of Dworkins best light analysis. This part will also examine the similarities of their arguments on how Shapiro would frame Wests arguments in terms of roles and trust management.
Part One. It is imperative for one to understand the distinction between legality and normative jurisprudence. Legality in nonprofessionals language is the strict observance of laws in an inflexible way. It is following the rule of the law especially the natural law strictly without considering the circumstances that may need flexibility and different set of actions.
The normative jurisprudence on the other hand is of the argument that laws are for the purposes of containing the society and they are prone to change depending with the time and the circumstances.
This is because the laws in place are for the common good of human beings in positioning members of the society for success in their daily operations. The following points exemplify the differences and the similarities of various views as explained by different scholars.
Double Meaning of Rhetoric Philosophy. The rhetoric is an art of persuasion and its use in philosophical arguments is imperative in shaping discourse in the society. The rhetoric is imperative in the legal and normative jurisprudence as it gives the society information on the best manner of jurisprudence to apply in their governance and in legal judgments.
The rhetoric as part of the jurisprudence provides the arguments and the various opinions, which are important in representing the various parts of the society. The legal rhetoric expressed by different legal scholars from the Thomistic school of law have always supported the legalistic jurisprudence arguing that laws are set for the common good and that the laws set by the society need alignment with the divine laws.
Legality jurisprudence is of the argument that stands for the need and the necessity of incorporating the divine laws as part of the society. The rhetorical persuasions permeated through the religious discourse have provided the opportunity for legalistic proponents to exert their influence in the society.
This has seen the incorporation of the Judeo Christian aspects in the modern legal law. The legalistic rhetoric persuades the importance of having those laws as part of the society.
On the other hand, the normative jurisprudence rhetoric leans towards attainment of hegemony between those who believe in legalism and those who support independence. The normative rhetoric persuades the society to view that laws are flexible and they only help people not to go to the extremes.
They argue that laws inconsistent with the common good are also inconsistent with natural justice whether divine or human. The liberal rhetoric advocated by the liberal lawyers is that the unjust law is not a law at all. Legislation of laws intends to avail justice to all human beings and failure of law to meet the criterion makes it inconsistent.
The rhetoric of legal philosophy examines the audience and their differences in paying attention to the discourse. The audiences are the individuals who pay attention to the discourse and their position in the society. The legalistic jurisprudence audience supports the moral and the legal absolutism expressed by the law.
This audience advocates for the absolutism of the law, as formulation of law is an advance action to contain acts of injustice. It holds the view that the law is fair to those who are just and unjust. This jurisprudence audience commonly exists in religious circles where absolutism in matters such as marriage, and sexuality permeates. It holds the opinion that just laws apply to all people whether the people ascribe to those beliefs or not.
The normative jurisprudence audience on the other hand is more liberal and radical in their view of the law. The law should consider what is just for the majority and what is just for the minority. The hegemony arrived at by the two is the law.
The audience of this is usually the minority groups especially the political minorities and the religious minorities who may be at a disadvantage for their different opinions and lack of numerical strength to support their rhetoric.
Common ground refers to those aspects where both the legal and the normative jurisprudence have similar views or opinions. Both the conservative and the liberals have common agreement. The first aspect where both the legalistic jurisprudence and the normative jurisprudence concur is that of the need for law in the society.
Both schools of thoughts acknowledge that the society cannot exist cohesively without structure and mechanisms of justice. They agree there is need to have laws and structures of legislating the laws and organs of implementing the laws in the society. The two schools of thoughts also concur on the fact that laws address issues of justice and fairness in the society. Justice in this case is fairness to all.
They concur that it is imperative to ensure that the laws apply to all people. No one should be above the law set in the society, as this is the basis of justice. They agree that mechanisms set to incorporate or to formulate laws governing the society should incorporate all and sundry such that anyone who contravenes the laws made by the society does not offend an individual but the society.
There are topics, which elicit conflict in the application of both the legal and the normative jurisprudence. One of the major topics arousing interest and conflict from both the legal and the normative jurisprudence is in the issue of abortion. The interpretation concerning the sanctity of human life is a topic of interest to the advocates of the legalistic jurisprudence.
The legalistic school advocates that human life is sacred and terminating it at will is a crime and unjust even for the unborn baby. The legalistic school is rigid and at times, there are rhetoric and arguments on which life need preservation in cases where both the life of the mother and the unborn baby are in danger.
The liberal school on the other hand argues that there are circumstances where the law of sanctity of life depends on the circumstances, as the law should always consider circumstances under which the action happened. This rhetoric on this topic is yet to tone down and there are various positions advocated by the proponents of each side of the divide.
The other topic, which elicits conflict between the two aspects of jurisprudence, is that of the gays rights in the society. Civil laws in many countries prohibit same sex marriages. The legalistic jurisprudence school is against such marriages due to its strict adherence to natural laws that a man should marry a woman and likewise the female ought to marry the opposite sex.
The normative jurisprudence takes a different stand on this issue where it considers the sex orientation of the individual thus the normative jurisprudence considers same sex legal depending with the sexual orientation of the individuals.
The other topic of interest in this school of thoughts concerns capital punishment imposed on offenders of capital crime. The legalistic jurisprudence advocates for capital punishment as fair way of punishing capital offenders. The normative jurisprudence on the other hand sees capital punishment as contravention of the justice by doing injustice to the offender and by denying the offenders the right to live.
Various methods of rhetoric have been applied to persuade members of the public and the judicial system to ascribe to any side of the divide. The rhetoric used in the legislative processes is a way of articulating law philosophical positions. Lobbying for support of the two philosophical positions in law is a method in which rhetoric is used.
Part 2. This part explains Shapiros and Wests criticism on the work of Dworkin. To examine Shapiros and Wests criticism on the work of Dworkin it is imperative to understand the best light analysis. According to the Dworkins argument, law is real and integrity characterizes it. For law to have the integrity it deserves it must have two aspects. The first one is the legislative integrity and the second one is the adjudicative integrity.
According to Dworkin, a law must have the necessary integrity in its legislation process. The legislation process must have integrity when making the laws. The process must be representative of the society as a whole for the laws made to have the support and include all the aspects of the society. The other part of legislation integrity is that it must make laws that are consistent with natural justice.
When lawmakers adhere to the ideals of the integrity of the law in their political process of formulating it then the adjudicative process starts. The adjudicative process is imperative as it deals with implementation as well as application of the laws set (Dworkin 56). According to Dworkin, the adjudicative process must start with pre-interpretation of the law where the judge gathers all legal materials and precedents related to the case.
The second process is that of interpreting the law. When making the interpretation the judge must ensure that, the interpretation is based on the facts as well as the data gathered in pre interpretative stage. After examining the data, the judge must have justification of the decision shown in the best light (Dworkin 32).
Shapiro and West however criticize this view for a number of reasons. The first is the irrelevance of the consistency of the principles used by the judges when adjudicating cases. Shapiro argues that following the precedents, which were decided long ago under different times makes the circumstances different, and advocates that the adjudication should be as per the present circumstances.
Shapiro argues that the law is not integral on its own but it acts as a guiding principle that may change as per the discretion of the judge. This expression by Shapiro does not require judges to base their justifications on the entire law but on the best frit of their convictions (Shapiro and West 43).
The other criticism is on the Dworkins stand especially the issue of inclusion of the moral principles as part of the analysis. However, at this point Shapiro and West take different positions. Shapiro advocates that natural justice need basis on the moral principles. This principle concurs with the Dworkins argument on the need to have moral laws of natural justice as part of entire laws.
Shapiro is an advocate of ethics where ethics are the means through which the society adopts moral principles. The moral principles outline what is ethical and what is unethical.
However, the argument of West is that laws are social thesis of the society, which is from the norms advocated for in the society rather than from the specific moral laws. This leaves it open for the members to decide which moral laws to choose as part of their laws compared with the inclusion of the moral law in the entirety of the law.
The other aspect of their criticism is on the roles and trust management where West and Shapiro criticize Dworkin for the leaning on legalistic side on the roles and trust management in legal terms (Shapiro and West 17). Dworkin argues that trust comes out of strict adherence to the ordinances set by the members of the society and that it is lost through failure to adhere to the rules (Dworkin 78).
This is especially when there are individuals in the society who go unpunished after breaking the rules. West argues that trust comes from the agreement to change the laws when instances arise for flexibility to allow discourse to change. Shapiro refers to ethics by the members of the society as the best means of having trust (Dworkin 87).
Conclusion
The awareness concerning jurisprudence and various schools of thoughts, which shape the discourse on the Rhetoric of law philosophy, are imperative for both the layperson as well as legal practitioners. The awareness of the two schools of thought assists law practitioners to decide the opinions and the thoughts which to advocate for in the rhetoric.
Shapiros criticism on the work of Dworkin provides an opportunity to analyze the discourse on positivity and that of law as integrity. Law as integrity has usually gained support of all quarters although currently positivity has gained popularity due to its leniency on some issues of morality, as it does not bend towards conservatism but towards liberalism.
This discourse is imperative in informing legal practitioners on the various points of view existing in this field and enables them to make an informed decision on the side that they will incline to in their legal practice. It also informs the legislators of the importance of having a legislative process that is representative and full of integrity.
Works Cited
Dworkin, Ronald. Laws Empire. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1986. Print.
Shapiro, Scott and West, Robin. The Difference that Rules Make in Analyzing Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
Steered by Terrence Malick, Days of Heaven is an affirmative piece of masterwork, set in the dawn of the twentieth century in America. Malick qualifies in presenting the then weird conditions of America that fueled economical change. The film sets in during a time when industrialization was on the rise.
It is a time when people were yearning for the long-awaited days: the days of heaven, when the world was to take a new shape of economy. Marxism theory underscores the theme of this movie that, social conflicts between the rich and the poor fueled the social change that America underwent along her the path to capitalism.
Economic Forces
Malick successfully creates a picture of a society that bears two categories of people, powerful (the owners) and the powerless (the workers). Abby and her Boyfriend Bill exemplify the powerless class while the wealthy lonely owner of a wheat farm stands in for the powerful lot.
This follows since the two poor jobless lovers end up seeking refuge from the rich farmer. According to them, he is more powerful than they are. Worth noting is that the two groups of people are not depicted with equal attention. The powerless class draws lesser attention from the movie compared to the powerful.
For instance, Linda says &we used to roam the streets. There were people suffering of pain and hunger. Some people their tongues were hanging out of their mouth (Malick). These words are symbolic in that, they refer to the poor countries that end up in crises, only for the powerful countries like America to ignore their cries. However, when the reverse occurs, all of them must respond. I admire the Bourgeoisie because this group stays on top of the world watching the others serve under its commands.
On the other hand, the proletariat class is subject to sympathy because it has to struggle to cope up with the standards of the former group. In fact, Dirk asserts, The foreman, riding in a buggy, chides everyone to work hard, while the owner sits in a padded chair in the middle of a field (Para. 14).
The powerful people have their power because they own vast lands and are rich. However, they deny it to others in fear of competition as well as the fear of losing the work force, which they get from the powerless class. Malick symbolically shows a fight between Bill, a worker, and a wealth man to show that this power comes through violence.
Materialistic Values
Concerning the then distribution of power and wealth,the 1916 setting of this movie tells it all. It pictures America as the only powerful and wealthy nation assuming the front line in World War I. The author provides sufficient evidence of conspicuous consumption.
The film is set in a time when electricity and expensive things were rare. &the owner sits in a padded chair in the middle of a field (Dirk Para. 16). The workers, earning $3 a day cannot afford a padded chair; therefore, the owner only intents to show his wealth, hence a conspicuous consumption.
The society brought to light by the author value things to convey their social status and not their usefulness. The scenario between the farmer and the workers exemplifies the social value this society places on things as opposed to their usefulness. The farmer owns a gothic mansion but when the workers are tired of working in the wheat farms, they can only camp outside the star-lit night and not in the mansion. It is of no use to them.
The work done by the powerless lot is not a product of the culture that produces it. The taking by force of poor Bills girlfriend by the rich man symbolizes how the culture on study delights in things from elsewhere and not in its own products. Bill bases his decision to persuade his girlfriend to fall in love with the rich man on material rather than spiritual reasons. The two want to benefit economically from the wealthy man.
Class Conflicts
The characters employed in the film picture two different social classes. There is the class of the poor workers like Bill, Abby, and Linda and that of the wealthy men like Robert Wilke, the rich rancher. The two classes are in a struggle with each other. Each class wants to develop itself economically.
For instance, Bill tells his girlfriend never to give up the fake love affair because he knows what he expects in return. Just have to get fixed up first. Things are not always gonna be this way (Malick). On the other hand, Abby feels oppressed following the advantage that the rich man makes out of her, which is no more than a manipulation of workers. It is worth noting that this bourgeoisie lot manipulates the less powerful through religion. For instance, Linda says, Unless one is&saved by Gods mercy in heaven& (Malick).
The powerful lot wants the less powerful people to think that it can save them if they serve it but Linda comes in to declare God as the only savior of humanity. There is a sufficient evidence of alienation and fragmentation in the film when the workers are warned not to enter in the owners houses. As the films unfolds, when Bill protests against the charges subjected to Abby because of her poor work, he fears being fired showing how the working class admits their powerlessness.
Conclusion
The Days of Heaven is a must-watch masterpiece for any person interested the economic history of the current powerful countries like America. People tend to think that the power that America boasts today came in overnight; however, Malick shows the struggles and conflicts Americans faced as the economy walked down the path to capitalism. It is an informative piece of composition.
Works Cited
Dirk, Tim. Days of Heaven Review, 2004. Web.
Malick, Terrence, dir. Days of Heaven. Twentieth Century Fox, 1978. Film.
Robert Lowell is one of the most prominent poets of America after World War Two. He is called the father of the confessional poetry. Lowell had led a depressive and turbulent life. He had spent most of his time treated as a mental patient. Being a heavy drunkard he took refuge in writing which he also took as means of earning a living. He married thrice and led a disturbed life. The literary figures who influenced his work included Tate, Ransom, Robert Frost, Browning, Hawthorne and Melville. His literary fame came with the winning of awards such as the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, Harriet Monroe Poetry Award and the Guinness Poetry Award. The aim of this paper is to provide a brief sketch of the poet. I intend to discuss the genre in which Lowell has excelled the most. I would also like to discuss his literary style and common themes. Towards the end I will discuss the views of other literary figures about his poetry.
In an online article Contemporary Literary Criticism (2009) it is stated that Lowell was born in 1917 in the family of intellectuals that included prominent names such as poet and critic James Russell Lowell and the poet Amy Lowell. He began his writing career in school days where he was taught by the poet Richard Eberhart. He continued to write throughout his life and accepted it as a mean to earn a livelihood. He died in 1977 and left some unfinished work behind.
Literary Genre
In Robert Lowells book, Jeffrey Meyers (1988) believes that Lowells reputation as a literary figure developed in four stages. His fame as a poet reached its height when he received the Pulitzer Prize for Lord Wearys Castle in 1947. He won the National Book award in 1960 after releasing the work Life Studies. The award confirmed and further helped him develop his reputation as a poet. He influenced many future poets to write confessional poetry. In the mid 60s Lowell became prominent with his protest against the Vietnam War. He marched with Norman Mailer towards the Pentagon and campaigned with Senator Eugene McCarthy. He also refused to attend the White House Art Festival. These activities made him a notable person and in 1970s when he was producing literary work more in quantity rather than in quality, he was already known as a celebrity and a great poet of his time. His prominent literary works include Land of Unlikeness (1944), Lord Wearys Castle (1946), The Mills of the Kavanaughs (1949), Life Studies (1959), and The Dolphin (1973).
Lowell has also written for theatre. His trio of plays titled The Old Glory was based on the stories by Nathanial Hawthorne and Melville. Lowell accepted the fact that he used the stage to talk about his political views. He said in an interview I think what I have written is almost tame compared to what has happened&Weve just had one of the most disastrous wars we have ever fought, in Vietnam, and one of the most disastrous Presidents who has ever served, Nixon (Pg. 6).
Lowell has also translated the works from Latin and Greek languages. In doing so he stated that he aimed to bring into English something that didnt exist in English before and to discover what English language lacked (Pg. 6).
Style
An online article, Contemporary Literary Criticism , (2009) states that Lowells early poetic style was inspired by literary masters such as Tate and Ransom. His early poetry is a reflection of lots of religious symbols and motifs. This is evident in his books The Land of Unlikeness and Lord Wearys Castle. His collection of poems The Mills of the Kavanaughs was written under the influence of Robert Frost and Robert Browning. As such we see dramatic monologues, obscure symbolism, verse translations and rhetoric. This experiment is indicative of Lowells search for new poetic form. His collection Life Studies is called a major breakthrough from being formal to being personal. The poems in this collection are based on his own life experiences. In these poems the influence of William Carlos William becomes prominent with the use of free verse and colloquial tone. The same confessional mood about his personal experiences is also evident in For the Union Dead (Contemporary Literary Criticism, 2009).
Lowell has also experimented with writing loose translations of work by Homer, Sappho, Rainer Maria Rilke, Francios Villon and Baudelaire. Epic style has been adopted in the Walking Early Sunday Morning. The poems have been written as unrhymed sonnets loosely structured around the four seasons of the year. The poems are an amalgamation of historical observations, journal entries, news and private thoughts. The same style of unrhymed sonnets was continued in For Lizzie and Harriet , History and The Dolphin. These poems also carry verse portraits of historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Juvenal and Robespierre. However in the last volume Day By Day Lowell has left the unrhymed sonnet style and gone back to the old style found in the Life Studies (Contemporary Literary Criticism, 2009).
His posthumous publication Collected Prose consisted of autobiographical sketches, interviews and essays on various poets and their works. The work was unfinished (Contemporary Literary Criticism, 2009).
Common Themes
Robert Lowell became a very prominent poet of the 60s decade. The above mentioned article (2009) states that Lowells initial poems dealt with the themes related to Christianity and history. Poems such as in The Land of Unlikeness and Lord Wearys Castle are an example in this regard. The Quacker Graveyard in Nantucket is an elegy as well as a criticism on corruption and loss of innocence in America.
According to Jay Martin (in Axelrods and Deeses book) (1993) he was preoccupied with death and which is reflected in most of his poems. Death, nothingness, loss and mourning are the most prominent themes found in his poetry. Basically the childhood experiences of grief related to his parents relationship with each other and with himself led him to psychiatrists who declared him a schizophrenic . Lowell began to write about these experiences in his poetry. His autobiographical poem Night Sweat is an example of his life under the shadow of death. He writes Always inside me is the child who died/ Always inside me is his will to die. The poem is a reflection of his relationship with death. His mental condition was a subject of gossip in the literary circles. To him poetry appeared as a substitute to mother and he took elegiac themes more often in his poetry. His poem In Memory of Arthur Winslow is an elegy about his maternal grandfather whom he did not admire but his mother did. Another short poem Mary Winslow is about his mothers relative who was very demanding in her life. The poem describes the scene just after her death when the body cools. The poet compares and criticizes the woman stating that a person so demanding in life looked ridiculous after death. My Last Afternoon with Uncle Devereux Winslow is another elegy about his mothers brother who died at a young age. The poem is mixed with images of death and a young boys love for his grandfather. He talks about his Uncle who was closing camp for the winter and Uncle Devereux would blend to &one color. An online article (2009) titled Contemporary Literary Criticism states that 91 Revere Street is another example of his chaotic childhood.
Criticism
Steven Gould Axelrod (1993) comments about Lowell in the following words: one knows from every word that Lowell ever wrote that poetry was central to his existence: Nothing is real until set down in words. W. H. Auden in his essay on modern American verse defines American poetry as individualistic, democratic and Puritan . On the other hand the British poetry has been defined as more traditional, inhibiting a universe with a familiar face . In this back ground Auden states that The only Americans I can possibly imagine as British are minor poets with a turn for light verse like Lowell and Holmes; and the only British poets who could conceivably have been American are eccentrics such like Blake and Hopkins. Bruce Michelson (1983) comments about Lowells poetry in the following words: Unless we can locate clear, coherent, valid principles at the center of his art, all efforts to speak of Lowell in the usual ways, all discussions of alienation, dynamic ambivalence, apostasy, Calvinism, falling empires and played-out bloodlines may evaporate in time. And we may, consequently, lose not only our sense of Lowell but of others, confessional and otherwise, who have worked in the modes he pioneered.
To conclude Robert Lowell has proved himself as a notable poet of the post World War II era. He has given a new direction to the American poetry with the introduction of confessional poetry that has opened way for the future poets to talk about their personal experiences in poetry. Although he has left some unfinished work due to his death he is still remembered as a great poet of American literature.
References
Axelrod, S. G. Deese, H. Robert Lowell, Essays on the Poetry , Cambridge University Press, (1993).Pg. 26-51.
Although Alexander Pope and Ezra Pound wrote in different centuries to prove the success of their eras, Enlightenment and Imagism, respectfully, their works could have many things in common. The representatives of the Augustan Age valued reason and independence, while the Imagists saw individualism through the prism of simplicity and clarity. Pound was definite and scarce in her words compared to Pope, who used many abstract phrases and objective opinions. Therefore, most Imagists would have thought that Pope did not have a clear suggestion and recommended removing unnecessary discourse and sentiments in his Essay on Criticism.
The Enlightenment movement was known for the desire of poets to obtain reason in political, religious, and philosophical discussions. An Essay on Criticism, written by Pope at the beginning of the 18th century, was inspired by the necessity to change something and help people become better. Instead of giving clear reasons and explanations of the problem, many general concepts like glittring thoughts, glaring chaos, and naked nature are observed in his poem (Pope). The poet is not afraid to introduce new thoughts and compare poets to unskilld to trace/The naked nature painters (Pope). All these examples create a solid basis for criticism and the necessity to impose limitations by Imagists.
Imagism was founded in the early 20th century and characterized by simple language, clarity in statements, and visualization of ideas. In other words, if Enlightenment poetry was exalted and abstract, Imagist poetry was proved to be detailed and concrete. In her poem, Pound described the character who walked in Kensington Gardens& dying piece-meal/of a sort of emotional amenia (415). There is no need to have several people with the same problem but to introduce one person and show his/her significance clearly. A similar style is observed in Amy Lowells Aliens, whose spirit crumbles at their [little people] teasing touch (46). There is no need for lengthy descriptive lines for the Imagists to create a story.
Either Pound or Lowell would use their new modernist rules to improve Popes expert and suggest focusing on one poet with a particular problem and limiting unnecessary conceit and blood excess. The Imagists do not criticize or reject the already offered ideas and literary approaches. Their goal is to prove that interesting material can be introduced within a limited portion of words. The Imagist thoughts about Popes essay would hardly be negative, just advisory to reduce complex abstract constructions.
Projectivists and Feminists about Imagists
Each century establishes new specific norms for poets and authors. In addition to their desire to share unique literary techniques, there is a burning need to find a union and encourage a meaningful movement. In the 20th century, English literature was shaped by Projectivists, Imagists, and Modernists, who had much to say about the impact of poetry on human life. Imagists like Ezra Pound and Amy Lowell, Projectivists like Robert Creeley and Denise Levertov, and postcolonial poets like Marylin Dumont and Amanda Gorman introduced interesting works. The evaluation of Projectivist characteristics in Imagist poetry and postcolonial verse allows understanding the purposes of different poetry forms.
Projectivist poets concentrated on the environment and its impact on the author and the reader. In The Door for Robert Duncan, Creeley explained the garden as the place where in the sunlight sit the Graces, which allows to imagine the place, people, and even the mood (666). Another Projectivist, Levertov, added emotions about the environment that will never smell sweeter than this/wet ground (641). Both authors would think that Imagist poetry is similar to their work because of description and feelings: a rabble of the filthy, sturdy, unkillable infants (Pound 415) or the chatter of little people (Lowell 46). The Projectivists included the Imagist approach due to their possibility to share the details and help the reader create a picture of the event and develop necessary emotions.
The same techniques may be observed in some postcolonial poems, which proves the resemblance between the Imagism and the literature of formerly colonized countries. For example, Dumont discussed the Great White Way of writing English, in which she was judged and assessed. Gorman continued living in a nation that isnt broken, but simply unfinished (qtd. in Liu). Both poets gave clear reasons for their writing and explained why their concerns and doubts matter. They live in this chaos, and Imagism is the way to share their stories in the most illustrative way.
Projectivists, Imagists, and postcolonial poets introduced different stories to help the reader understand this world with its positive and negative sides. There is no need to choose one side and enjoy its benefits or solve its problems. The world is not perfect, but there is always some space for happiness and sorrow. The techniques of different movements are never excluded but revised and used in new contexts where burning issues and themes are raised.
Works Cited
Creeley, Robert. The Door for Robert Duncan. The Broadview Anthology of Poetry, edited by Herbert Rosengarten and Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Broadview Press, 2009, pp. 665-667.
Levertov, Denise. Laying the Dust. The Broadview Anthology of Poetry, edited by Herbert Rosengarten and Amanda Goldrick-Jones, Broadview Press, 2009, p. 641.
A jury is a group of legal experts who assess the evidence and give a verdict in a court of law. There are usually twelve of them in the court. Although the jury gives its findings, judgment is made by the judge. Hence, the role of the jury is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not, but the final decision is made by the judge. This form of trial is mainly used in serious criminal cases. Although jury trials have been claimed to be non-biased applying common values, they have come under criticism for several reasons.
Discussion
The first aspect of a jury trial that has been criticized is the law on jury secrecy. This law dictates that the jurys reason for making their decision remains a secret and no inquiries can be made. As a result, innocent people have been sentenced to death because of such decisions (Burns, 2009). Why are people deprived of the right to life, freedom, or property without being told the reasons the decision has been taken? In contrast, decisions by judges are normally examined, facts and reasons are always given on the decisions made.
Another reason why I disagree with a jury trial is that jurors may convict based on personal feelings rather than on objective evidence. They may feel hurt or anger out of personal reasons, like in emotional cases (Neubauer and Fradella, 2011). For example, in cases of child rape, a death sentence may be given out of pity for the child. In other cases, some members of the jury who are parents may sympathize with the child picturing that the child was theirs and hence give an unfair verdict (Burnett, 2003). The limited role of the judge trials to abide by the jurors ruling only seems to make the system more unfair.
Jurors may be influenced by prejudice, including racial or ethnic discrimination, especially in cases where all jurors belong to a particular race or ethnic group. An example is the 1992 Rodney King case in California, in which white officers were acquitted despite incriminating videotape evidence for their use of too much force in the cruel beating of black. The jury in this case consisted of whites. It turns out that jurors may give a sympathetic and fairer verdict to a party based on political, racial, or ethnic affiliations. The white police officers were favored and consequently acquitted and this amounted to an unfair trial by the jury.
Some jurors have been known to give a death sentence to attract media and the public to be seen as competent. They may also give a quick death sentence without detailed deliberations to get through with the case.
Conclusion
Many innocent people are in prison serving death sentences due to poor verdicts by jurors. The law on jury secrecy convicts innocent rather than make reasonable inquiries into how the verdict was obtained which is a major weakness of the system. Moreover, some juries are known to contain a significant proportion of persons belonging to a particular race and this can lead to biased verdicts or discrimination. Finally, jurors sometimes deliver verdicts based on personal feelings while some lack the skills and experience required to deliver death sentences.
References
Burnett, D. G. (2003).A Trial by Jury.New York:Vintage.
Burns, R. (2009). The Death of the American Trial. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Neubauer, D.W., and Fradella, H. F. (2011).AmericasCourts and the Criminal JusticeSystem, 10th Ed. Connecticut: Wadsworth.
Self-efficacy as a concept is a notion in social theory that explains an individuals belief within their capacity to illustrate a specific behavior and the affirmation that they can undertake a given function to attain the intended result or outcome. Self-efficacy, in its wholeness, is a component of peoples abilities to illustrate specific conduct. The entire self-efficacy strategy requires individuals to become conscious of an issue and trust that the intended outcomes could get accomplished with their activities; this motivates them to continue working toward the goal. Self-efficacy is connected to the conceptual frameworks around which nursing theories are constructed.
A broad range of external and internal circumstances determines the degree of self-efficacy an individual has. The degree of drive that an individual possesses to accomplish their objectives is strongly correlated with their overall self-efficacy levels. Individuals with high self-efficacy can inherently motivate themselves toward doing anything they have set out to do because they believe they can do it (Tamkeen & Siddiqui, 2019). One technique to establish whether or not a person possesses a higher degree of efficacy or effectiveness is to ask them whether or not they have complete faith in their efforts and objectives.
The self-efficacy concept or theory was initially described by Albert Bandura around 1977. In a published paper headlined Self-Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory/Concept of Behavioral Change , Bandura originally proposed this idea and argued that it played a vital determinant role in peoples propensities to alter their behavior (Alimohammadi et al., 2019). Self-efficacy has been perceived as the confidence one possesses in their ability to carry out the actions one perceives as essential to accomplish important goals, as defined by psychologist Albert Bandura. As proposed by Bandura, self-efficacy is viewed as a unifying or binding theory across all forms of behavioral changes, and attitudes constitute one of the essential factors in shaping peoples actions. According to Bandura, having a high sense of self-efficacy appears to be linked to various positive outcomes, including adopting healthier behaviors, increased resilience in the face of adversities, and stress in conjunction with enhanced quality of life.
Over time, the entire self-efficacy hypothesis has been increasingly prevalent throughout nursing practices and research to understand behavior modification. Both nursing practice and nursing-based education rely heavily on alterations in patient behavior. People with a higher SET never take responsibility or blame their skills whenever they lose, whereas those with a lower SET frequently do (Shorey & Lopez, 2021). Lower SET individuals believe they can not succeed due to their lack of skills. Nurses employ the approach to help patients with health issues alter their behavior and outlook. Researchers working in healthcare and nursing have found that patients perceptions of their abilities to effect positive changes in their health behaviors are reliable predictors of long-term wellness. Several branches involving nursing science have used the concept of overall self-efficacy to better understand its connection to patient autonomy throughout managing and treating chronic diseases like cancer or diabetes.
Nursing-based approaches are conceptual frameworks for organizing information and explaining nursing phenomena. They are used to evaluate the basic philosophical foundations of nursing ideas. Therefore, nurses rely on nursing theories to back up their work for accurate results. When formulating comprehensive nursing theoretical concepts, it is essential to consider the entire searchers perspective and opinion on things philosophically (Younas & Quennell, 2019). Alberta Banduras Social-based Cognitive theory was the foundation for the self-efficacy movement. As the theory suggests, completing a task associated with a particular ability can have that effect.
References
Alimohammadi, L., Zarei, F., & Mirghafourvand, M. (2019, September 10). The effect of counseling based on Banduras self-efficacy theory on sexual self-efficacy and quality of sexual life. Women &Amp; Health, 60(4), 473486.
Shorey, S., & Lopez, V. (2021). Self-Efficacy in a Nursing Context. Health Promotion in Health Care Vital Theories and Research, 145158.
Younas, A., & Quennell, S. (2019). The usefulness of nursing theoryguided practice: An integrative review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 33(3), 540555.
Blair Kamin is one of the most famous architecture critics in the United States, and current debates regarding changes in media and the role of architecture criticism in this process are also discussed by Kamin in his works. The article Architecture Criticism: Dead or Alive? was published by Kamin in 2015 as a response to these debates, and it needs to be reviewed in this paper. Thus, the questions to be answered in this review are whether architecture criticism is viewed by the author as dead or alive and what arguments are proposed to support his standpoint. It is important to note that Kamin asserts that architecture criticism is not dead, but it has another form because of the impact of social media; thus, critics words should not be viewed as claims, but as triggers to start a discussion because critics do not have a monopoly on assessing architecture anymore.
Summary
In his article, Kamin provides a range of arguments to support his idea that architecture criticism is alive despite being changed. Therefore, the author begins by saying that statements about dead criticism are meaningless since criticism exists, but it is represented by the work of bloggers or tweeters who are inclined to use new social media to spread their ideas. Furthermore, Kamin accentuates the fact that the absence of professional critics hegemony does not mean the absence of effective criticism. As a result, it is possible to speak about the development of a new form of architecture criticism that is rather creative and dynamic while being dependent on using new media. The author develops his ideas while discussing the history of architecture criticism, explaining its purposes, presenting its approaches, and proposing ways to adapt criticism to new environments. To further discuss the authors main arguments, it is important to analyze the key points in the article in detail.
Critical Discussion
All arguments provided by Kamin in his article are oriented to supporting the view that architecture criticism develops as a dynamic phenomenon that changes depending on times and contexts; therefore, it is still alive. From this perspective, the most effective point that is accentuated in Kamins article is the authors reference to the phenomenon of open journalism and its impact on criticism. To explain how traditional architecture criticism has been transformed into debates on online platforms, Kamin refers to discussing the history of this phenomenons development. According to the author, more than fifty years ago, the principles of architecture criticism were formulated by Ada Louise Huxtable, who worked for The New York Times. This discussion adds to understanding Kamins argument because he pays attention to the fact that Huxtable has demonstrated other critics that their works should be full of judgments which are based on assessing a visual impact of a building without ideological premises. This approach is viewed by architecture critics as traditional, and it is rather difficult to accept other views that are spread today.
What is more important is that Kamin develops the idea of traditional criticism while discussing his criteria for evaluating buildings and stating the purpose of criticism. According to Kamin, it is important to focus on the quality of a building and its structure, its utility, continuity, humanity, and its association with the public. The reference to these criteria is effective to emphasize not only the nature and purpose of architecture criticism but also the authors vision of this practice. Furthermore, Kamin supports his idea that criticism exists by attracting readers attention to approaches to criticizing objects which were determined by Alexandra Lange. Thus, critics can assess an object while referring to formal criticism, experiential criticism, historical criticism, and activist criticism. It is important to note that these methods are known to the audience, and they can be easily recognized. Therefore, it is possible to state that when people observe different approaches to evaluating buildings, they are inclined to speak about the death of criticism.
From this point, Kamin develops his argument saying that modern architecture criticism is characterized by interactivity and the active involvement of the audience in the evaluation of objects rather than by traditional approaches. As a result, to emphasize the presence of a new interactive approach to architecture criticism that is based on sharing views, Kamin proposes three methods to improve modern criticism and make it more alive. According to the author, it is necessary to involve readers in discussions, initiate dialogues, and still convey messages.
Conclusion
To remain both vibrant and effective, architecture criticism needs to be adapted to modern environments as any other phenomenon. Therefore, in his article, Blair Kamin is focused on explaining why and how architecture criticism is still alive. In this context, the author refers to providing a background for explaining how traditional architecture criticism has become interactive and dynamic.