Category: Cultural Identity

Language has an extraordinary amount of power to both reflect and shape an individuals identity. Significant use of words and phrases can be effectively put together to form characters and their personality. Choice of language helps to show experiences and tells the readers wholly what the character is like. The power of language can also demonstrate to the readers their attitudes, tonality, posture and attributes that can also reflect from their collective identity to how they act. Language can create an understanding as it can be used to reveal, challenge, and disrupt assumptions, stereotypes and beliefs about individuals and or their culture.

Henery Lawson uses the power of language in multiple of his short stories that really focus on outback Australian culture. Due to how Lawson wrote his stories in the late 1800s there is a large difference from what he saw Australian identity was at the time to what it is now. The language he used was remarkably different and living style was very different this was probably due to how the federation of Australia had not occurred yet in the time he wrote these stories so the Australian Identity and Culture had not been officially set. In two of his short stories, he goes over some major themes that were very prevalent at the time. In his short Story ‘Dovers Wife’ he writes about gender roles and in ‘Our Pipes’ he focuses on smoking.

In the 1800s men earnt the money for the house and were seen as the boss of the house. While women were responsible for housework and taking care of children and her family. Lawson shows this gender role by completely reversing this in his short story ‘Dovers Wife’. In the late 1980s, it was usual for the men to leave their families for long periods of time due to their job as drovers. So while the males where away herding sheep the women would have to step in charge and take the males role of head of the house. The way Lawson has written the wife to become in charge disrupts the gender expectations, especially in the unforgiving outback they are set in. The family’s home is described to be placed in a “Bush all around” to exaggerate to a hyperbolic degree of the stereotypical Australian outback which demonstrates the vast, rugged land. As the family lives in a harsh environment, the wife of the house is constantly battling different elements of nature and having to come over different difficulties. The different issues the wife comes across are not normal circumstances that bushwomen are traditionally supposed to deal with. The wife’s strong and determined mindset shows her determination to keep her family safe, particularly when faced with one of the most deadly threats at the time. “Snake! Mother, here’s a snake” the exclamatory language shows concern and fright in the son’s voice. The snake is not only just an animal but is a symbol of evil that is a danger to the family, it represents the extent to which nature is unpredictable and how the wife had to be able to act fast and keep her family safe. Keeping the family safe is stereotypically the male’s responsibility but this highlights the false reality of gender roles. The impact of language has helped constructed stereotypes which have given the power to shape behaviour and form the identity of women in that time.

The role of a caring, stereotypical mother is also present in another one of Henry Lawson’s Short stories. In his story ‘Our pipes’ The protagonist Mitchell, his mother is seen as the stay at home mum that helps with the housework and cleaning which is proven as he says “Mother was at work out in the kitchen at the back, washing up the tea-things…’ because of her duties as a mother she has been positionally represented as away from the central business partaking and instead doing stereotypical feminine tasks. The mother and the wife contrast two really different lives, the drover’s wife goes against all stereotypical roles of a bush woman whereas the mother in ‘our pipes’ is a very stereotypical woman that’s voice is generally not very important and is often ignored.

In Henry Lawson’s ‘our pipes’ the mother is very concerned and gets mad about how Mitchel continues to smoke much to her despise. Even though smoking at the time was acceptable his mother still did not approve. ‘You’ve been smoking!’ again the use of exclamatory language reveals to the audience she is not that thrilled about him smoking, and he knows by the heated exchanged conveyed with the exclamation mark. The smoking theme shows a change in old Australian culture compared to the present. Now in society smoking is seen as a bad thing but in the short story it is reversed and the father was proud of the son for smoking. “I started smoking first when I was about fourteen or fifteen’ (…) ‘And what did your old man do when he found out that you were smoking?’ ‘…he seemed to sort of brighten up” expresses how it was such a different time where smoking was more acceptable. The father gives him a positive colloquial expression and further a personal anecdote for Mitchell. Smoking connects him with his father and is something they can share together, much to the mother’s disapproval. Smoking in the 1800s was a way to prove adulthood and growing up because it was a way to engage with other adults and show maturity. Sitting around smoking is not stereotypically Australian but if smoking was replaced and it was sitting around drinking it would be more presently accurate but is still showing Australians stereotypically gathering around to share stories. listening and taking part in smoking with his father and other adults Creates a special experience in Mitchell’s youth and also impacts his language and shapes his views and beliefs. Him growing up and listening to his dad will create similar views shaping his identity and his collective identity.

The language throughout the short stories written by Henry Lawson all have the power to shape and construct a sense of identity. Text impacts what audiences interpret about identities. The strong theme of gender roles and motif of smoking used in ‘the drover’s wife’ and ‘our pipes’ and in other works by Lawson reflect identity especially in with the use of textual forms and conventions, with the help of language structures and features to communicate key information, ideas, values to demonstrate the power language has to shape individual and collective identity.

Culture and language are indivisible. Language is culture. They are components of one system. Losing one’s language is losing one’s distinct cultural identity. Through our language, we generate our customs and traditions distinct from others, thus building our own identity.

‘The French Quebecoise’ is a term used to portray the people of Quebec. Understanding its history, the threats and challenges it is facing, the government’s strategies to preserve its unique identity, as well as weighing the benefits and drawbacks of its preservation to our current time will help us appreciate its value for preservation.

History of French in Quebec

Quebec is a well-known French speaker, distinct from other French-speaking nations. In the 15th century, Jacques Cartier arrived in Gaspé, where the first French settled. After a lengthy war involving the British and French militaries, New France was defeated in the mid-18th century. French settlers in Quebec lost contact with France, which isolated them from the European French. In the year 1960, Quebec had undergone a major change with the Quiet Revolution, known as Révolution tranquille. This ends the sociocultural and political control of the Roman Catholic Church. This leads to the social development control of the Quebecois in its provincial territory. The said revolution identifies Quebecois identity, which is linked to its language – the French Quebecois.

How Does the French Language Represent Its Culture?

Quebecois are known to have an accommodating and adapting attitude. They did not only welcome the French language and culture but built their distinct identity from it and introduced it to the French-speaking world. Up to date, they continue to adapt to changes and keep their divergent culture. They show their reverence and love for its language. Despite the invasions of the British and Americans, they were able to keep and nourish their language. This can be seen with the laws and programs created by the government to promote its language and maintain its distinct cultural uniqueness.

Threats to French in Quebec

Various threats are challenging the emergence of the French language in Quebec. One of the main factors is education. The promotion of the advantage of learning English to become globally competitive attracts students, especially adolescents, to enroll in English schools. Next is the continuous arrival of non-French speakers to the region (assimilation and acculturation). As more and more non-French speakers arrive in the area, French speakers tend to adapt by speaking English more and more, and this could slowly and unnoticeably decrease the number of French speakers. Apart from its geological location, the dominance of English culture and language on social media has an enormous impact on its people. It is observable that some words in English are now replacing and being used often, such as char (auto), lumières (lampe), librairie (bibliothèque), and many others.

Safeguarding the French Language

The Quebec government continues to promote the French language to all immigrants in the region. In November 1969, Bill 63, known as Loi pour promouvoir la langue française au Québec, required children of English-speaking immigrants to go to French education to acquire operational comprehension of the language. In 1974, Bill 22 declared French as the official language of Quebec which requires immigrants to enroll in French schools. And in 1977, Bill 101, Charte de la langue française was initiated by Camille Laurin, the bill made the French language the second official language of Canada. This makes the French language authoritatively used in communication, commerce, and the workplace in Quebec. It also mandates that all immigrants from different countries and from other provinces in Canada have education in French, except if they have a reciprocal agreement.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the French Language in Quebec

Quebec has a diverse program that helps its immigrants to adapt well to the region. It is not only promoting its language but more of its culture and preparing them to be competitive in Quebec’s market. Learning the language gives the immigrants confidence in communicating with the French Quebecois and effectively integrating with them. However, the French language also scares professional immigrants that they cannot practice their profession because of the language proficiency that needs to be met. The language also scares potential investors. Thereby, they are strained to move to other provinces. These professionals and investors can be an asset to the Quebec market. It is also a burden to some parents since they cannot help their kids with their assignments as they themselves cannot speak the language. The number of English schools is fewer and they are expensive, thus adding to their burdens. Finally, the government is paying a generous amount of money to French learners. This money could be invested or be placed into more valuable needs of its people.

Conclusion

Preserving language means preserving culture. Language adaptation and learning a new language are of great help in making its people internationally competitive. The Quebec government is on the right path in protecting its language. Creating laws and making sure of their implementation, as well as providing substantial training and encouraging people to use and speak their native language, promotes its preservation and keeping its identity.

Discuss reasons why some social groups are more likely to find themselves in poverty

An essay by George Gill

Poverty is an issue that has permeated every society since civilization began. The ancient Greeks and Stoics had their theories about how to mitigate its effects and proceeding societies have attempted to do the same, however, poverty still exists, and it seems ironic that in a world where somebody can die through obesity, others die through starvation. Poverty not only substantially attenuates one’s quality of life, but it also has detrimental effects on an individual’s Psychological health and the way they are perceived in society. In this essay, I will explain and discuss why some social groups are more prone to poverty by firstly discussing the different types of poverty and definitions, before proceeding to discuss why poverty has not been eradicated.

There has been intense debate on what constitutes poverty and the definitions have often been ambiguous, many have tried to operationalize and stratify poverty, therefore, before we discuss why some social groups are more likely to find themselves in poverty, we must first elucidate what defines this term. Firstly, poverty is measured as being either absolute or relative. Absolute poverty is measured with a poverty line – individuals or households that reside below this poverty line are defined as being in poverty, it is predicated on the idea of subsistence: do individuals possess the required resources to maintain an adequate existence? Do they have access to necessities such as food and water? If the answer is no, they are below the poverty line. Conversely, advocates of defining poverty as relative believe that it can only be measured in conjunction with the standards of a particular time and place—relative poverty; according to Peter Townsend (1928-2009) “poverty must be related to the needs and demands of a changing society” if a person is lacking in what other people take for granted they are in poverty. Sociologists also argue that poverty cannot merely be defined as a paucity of material possessions Townsend believed that we should study poverty according to the amount of resources individuals have available. The definitions of poverty have also been debated and sociologists have found it increasingly difficult to define absolute poverty. In 1995 the Copenhagen World Summit defined it as being “a condition of severe deprivation of human needs” However this definition was soon criticized for again being inconclusive: “Everyone needs food, but the test of what can be considered food changes from society to society” (Spickler 2012). In reaction to the debate about what constitutes poverty, the budget standards approach was posited which hypothesized that calculating the costs of purchases necessary to raise an individual or family out of poverty would be a more adequate way of evaluating poverty. This methodology which has been used very often to analyze absolute poverty in Britain came under criticism however, and as many argued that this would require judgment and a tendency to generalize about the income necessary for an individual, it would therefore be an unviable option. Despite this, it does allow sociologists to study whether benefits do help citizens and to what extent. Rowntree (1871-1954) studied issues such as poverty avidly and in 1899 he organized one of the first comprehensive studies of poverty in the UK. In his study, he created a list of household items that individuals required and recorded how many families could afford them. Those who could not afford these household items were in poverty. Although many supported Rowntree’s perspective, he was criticized as he was under the assumption that, for example, food, the cheapest option was always available. Another criticism of his study revolved around the fact that his studies were frequently undertaken by individuals who had no recognition of an impoverished lifestyle. In response to sociologists such as Rowntree—in 1979 Townsend who measured relative poverty decided to create a deprivation index. In this study, he asked the households a series of questions, for example, have you had a holiday in the last 12 months? If the participants received less than 150 marks on this index they were in poverty. Although this did give policymakers an idea of whether individuals were engaged in the customs of society it did not consider individual choices about whether people could participate due to a lack of wealth or choice. This argument was supported by David Piachaud (1981) who believed that the only way to completely eradicate poverty was for everyone to eat the same and do the same things which is not possible in a multicultural society.

Studies have shown that a particular social group does correlate with rising levels of poverty. Women, according to the equal opportunities commissioning report are 14 percent more likely to find themselves living in households with incomes 40 percent lower than the national average. Even more disconcerting is that almost half of all women in the UK have an average income of only £100 a week. However, it is worth noting that in a recent study carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), it has been shown that women in their 20s are earning more than men of the same age. Although inequality does indeed influence such statistics there may other reasons behind such findings. Men and Women have different proclivities. Psychologically speaking women on average search for professions that require more empathy and interpersonal skills; this would explain why the overwhelming majority of students enrolling in courses in social sciences such as Psychology are women, men, on the other hand, are drawn to things, another reason why fields such as engineering and IT are so male-dominated. Despite women being more likely than men to find themselves in poverty, (Lister 2004) the Department of Work and Pensions has substantiated evidence of a reduction in the levels of poverty experienced by women: in 2012 figures showed that 20 percent of women are considered to be living in poverty and 19 percent of men (Haralambos). Women also have a propensity to be overlooked in households; ‘Hidden Poverty’ hypothesizes that in a household an individual may be earning an above-average salary, while the other individuals living in that household may remain poor. Ethnic minorities are also overwhelmingly vulnerable to poverty. In fact, in 2007 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that ethnic minorities are twice as likely to find themselves in poverty. This was corroborated in a study, which used 60 percent of the median after housing costs as a cut-off point. The study showed that all ethnic minority groups had a higher propensity to poverty than whites. These statistics were compounded for individuals from Bangladesh and Pakistan of which 65 and 55 percent are below the UK poverty line respectively opposed to 20 percent of white citizens. There has been abundant research into why this may be the case. Sociologists argue that most ethnic minorities seek jobs in specific markets which subsequently creates marker segregation. These jobs are believed to be in declining fields such as industrial factories. Roger Lawson (1995) hypothesized that many ethnic minorities face social exclusion engendered through xenophobia and racial prejudice, precipitating a feeling of isolation and lack of citizenship in society which perpetuates a reluctance to enter the job market with individuals from divergent backgrounds (Byrne, 1999). However, the reverse has also been reported to be true with many claiming that ethnic minorities tend to exclude themselves from the rest of society for cultural and religious reasons which has also engendered animosity and friction between many social groups. Lack of health and well-being has also been a major contributor to poverty among ethnic minorities with many living in poor housing and confined spaces with up to 10 individuals.

What are the reasons for this? In the 18th century when studies of poverty were either non-existent or at a rudimentary stage, most sociologists took a very individualistic perspective on poverty and blamed the poor for their dire conditions and emphasized the idea that the reason many face such averse circumstances a not caring for their well-being. In 1971 Sociologist Hebert Spencer accused the poor of being ‘lazy’ and believed that the poor should not be helped subsequently, coining the famous phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’. Spencer thought that poverty was an essential component of society and without it, the desire to work would be eradicated. After Spencer’s theory, many began to advocate the idea that cultural poverty was the root cause. In 1959 John Lewis introduced the term ‘the culture of poverty’. He believed that individual behavior characterized by marginality, dependence, fatalism, and a reluctance to participate and integrate into society was transmitted from one generation to the next in a cycle of deprivation which he names a ‘design for living’. Murray (1989) theorized that there is also an Underclass that exists in society who are not considered to be in poverty, but have acquired ‘deplorable behavior; through inherited values’ However, many have refuted the culture of poverty argument as being deterministic and have instead theorized that poverty emanates from situational constraints on individuals which as consequence preclude any participation in society. If these constraints were removed, they would seize the opportunities given to them. This has been supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which states that there is little evidence for cultural poverty but there is for situational poverty. Firstly, humans are industrious and it is hard to believe that if the constraints of poverty were removed individuals would not seek meaning in their lives, and one of the ways of finding this meaning is via one’s work, which makes it difficult to support Spencer’s claim. However, despite this, it is possible that without the constraints of poverty, one may seek a more desirable profession that would instigate further competition for higher-paid jobs, which the Marxists would say is why poverty exists. Society tends to favor those with economic strength and for this reason, it is not in the interest of those in power to remove the constraints of poverty. It is also abundantly clear that culture is transmitted from generation to generation and a feeling of apathy and fatalism may also be transmitted, however, it is also true that the environment an individual resides in determines who they may become in the future and if the situational constraints are not removed an individual will not see the light which guides them to a change of mentality.

As alluded to above there are many reasons as to why poverty has not been eradicated. The heterogenous concepts of poverty determine how much exists in society, however it is believed the problems are more profound. With the rise of Globalisation, many have lost their jobs as the industrial sector has declined. It has also been hypothesized that in conjunction with this post-Fordist era, an increase in the number of women working has made the job market even more competitive. As stated above Marxists believe that any changes in the provision of welfare are futile as long as the capitalist system is in place. Others have attempted to resolve this issue by offering support to individuals. This was witnessed under the New Labour government which proposed a ‘Hand up and not a handout’. Notwithstanding, many modern-day Scholars such as Jordan Peterson believe that as humans have always lived in hierarchies of competitivity, it is inevitable that there will be those at the bottom who are invariably affected by poverty. This idea is akin to that of Herbert Spencer and later realized by the New Right government of Margaret Thatcher. To conclude, I believe that it would be fair to intimate that the reason why some groups are more vulnerable to poverty is a question with an answer that is complex and has to take numerous factors into account. Thankfully, it is an issue that has been addressed more often than antecedent eras, despite this it still exists and more needs to be done to eradicate a problem that has afflicted civilization since time began.

Bibliography:

1. (‘Women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age, study finds’, 2019)
2. Your Bibliography: Women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age, study finds. (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
3. HARALAMBOS, M. (2018). AQA A-LEVEL SOCIOLOGY THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES: HARPERCOLLINS Publishers.
4. HARALAMBOS, M. (2018). AQA A-LEVEL SOCIOLOGY THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES (pp. 256, 257). [Place of publication not identified]: HARPERCOLLINS Publishers
5. Who is at risk of poverty? (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/who-risk-poverty
6. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/10/10/faces-poverty-social-racial-factors/37977173/
7. Who is at risk of poverty? (2019). Retrieved 22 November 2019, from https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/who-risk-poverty
8. Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research. (2019). Retrieved 22 November 2019, from https://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/definingandmeasuringpoverty.html
9. Samples, C. (2019). Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx on Poverty and Inequality. Retrieved 22 November 2019, from http://assignmentpeg.blogspot.com/2015/08/herbert-spencer-and-karl-marx-on.html

Abstract

This research is being conducted to analyze how language plays its role in determining, manipulating, adjusting and influencing human’s thoughts and perception. Research was conducted in University of Gujrat, using a survey method. Fake statement was presented as a fact and point of view were given in its favor. To check the influence of language in thoughts, forty samples were taken. Sample was taken in the form of two variables, males and females. Results support that language influences human’s thinking style and as compared to males who have more rationalistic approach, females are easily convinced through language. In fact females don’t need more justifications to agree.

Introduction

Language is an evitable element in human life. Language provides us with the path for transmitting and conveying our opinions, it broods new point of views, polishes our personality and plays a role as a tool to express ourselves. It helps us to understanding of this complex world and simplifies our interactions with other people for our survival. Language is the medium of human’s interaction, Broditsky. The root of the human’s existence in this complicated world is language. Whorf (1956), came up with the idea of language relativity in which it was proposed that language guides our way to experience this world. It determines human’s way of perceiving world; language structure influences our world perceiving mechanism. As according to the point of Lera Briditsky it comes to surface that we find different languages are encompassed with the use of different genders, tens, words etc. perceive the reality differently. Human’s thoughts and concepts are envisioned by language they use. So it explores the notion that our thoughts are directed and influenced by our language, Ervin-Tripp (1967).

Adam Szczegielniak defines language as a standard which distinguishes human from animals. This is the language and cognitive ability of humans which stands as a unique features of human that entitles them with superior creature. Language promotes our thoughts, builds them and influences our cognitive potential. Language fabricates our memory, Loftus and Palmer (1947). We fabricates our thoughts in term of language vocabulary, we are bounded to language and flourished to flaunt with the hands of language. Language provides soul to thoughts, if there is no language there is no thought. Humans are no more than a dumb creature. Language not only infuses a soul to our thoughts but it is rich with the power of persuasion. It appears as a source that can influence , modify or alter our thoughts, Deutscher deeply analyzed Whorf’s proposal and the connectivity it has with mind and after having experiments, he put forward his conclusions that language strikes individual’s perceptions, Deutscher (2010). People are convinced only when our words have this majestic power. We convince a child for leaving a toy only by telling him that we would by him a more wonderful toy, it is an influence of language which makes a child alter his mind. We can find another very common example of parent’s behavior towards their children, that when children are at the age of 8 to 12 years, parents make their children to obey them with strict behavior, but when children are twenty above, parent’s way of talking becomes friendly and they try to behave in polite way and choose the words that seem soft. We often find a mother saying to her six years old child that she would not talk to him if he does not eat food and child get upset. It is because his mind at that level are innocent and these words influence their minds. They take that words seriously. But on the other hand when we come to the 18 years old boy or above it we find that parents talk very politely and try to convince them in a humble way. Because they think that young children become rebellious by harsh behavior and they choose those words that may produce a positive effect on their minds. Parents are mostly very careful when they talk to children. That means that language sorely linked with our thinking angle and use of different words produce different reactions which shows how language shapes and affects our thoughts. Language really modifies our perceptions. Consequences of language in human’s perception s were given a solidity by conducting a color experiment among Greeks and English people, which reeks were embedded with two different words for two different shades of blue color and English people had a failure for perceiving them differently, Because of presence of single word for blue color in their language, Gullame (2009, PDF).

To verify that language may influence and affect human thoughts, believes and perspectives, a research question is designed which is composed of a false statement “Horoscope always gives right predictions.” A comprehensive study is conducted to check the validity that if the language can change one’s thought. By examining and experimenting on people that if they can be convinced to take this statement as true through verbal persuasion, language’s role in designing, destructing, altering and persuading human thoughts tested to affirm.

Objectives

The main objective of this study to inspect the influence of language which changes thoughts, Modify them completely. The aim of study to check out that to which level language can manipulates existing thoughts, shapes residing believes, change thinking style and can spawns innovative notions in human minds. This research is led verify the influence and impacts of verbal persuasion in human cognition. The main purpose of research is justify language’s impact in human thoughts by convincing people to believe in a lame statement to acknowledge how far we can persuade one’s thought and develop one’s believe by verbal persuasion. Then, this study stands as an evidence that language has an attribute to change human thoughts and believes.

Methodology

This research was conducted in the University of Gujrat from undergraduates. 40 students of different department were chosen as the sample of this research. The age of participants lies in between 20-24. The participants were divided in two variables; males and females. 20 participants were males and 20 were females. Most of the students were from 3rd and 5th semester. We conducted quantitative research and the method used was interview survey method in which face to face interview was taken. Just for the sake to explore the responses of the people to gather more and deeper information. The views of the variables were not in the form of groups rather there was one to one interaction between the researchers and the participants. The participants kept unaware of the falseness of the statement rather the statement was presented as an astrological research. In start, participants did not believe on the authenticity of the statement. Only few females accepted it and males totally denied it. The idea of presenting this false statement to the participants was to determine that how far we can manipulate their thoughts and believes.

Though there exists no reality in that statement but we produced arguments in its favor. At initial level participants were convinced that yes sometimes our zodiac signs gone true but usually wrong. After that we gave them the examples of the lives of people. To further strengthen our point we tried to convince them by tell them the love marriage stories of some celebrities. Moreover told them about the big tragedies of the world which were predicted by the astrologers before happened. An article was also presented to the participants to change their views by saying that the article had written by s renowned researcher. The result was collected from them by face to face interview, questionnaire was used, where we could easily check the results that how much variables convinced.

Result and Analysis

The result of this research highlight that 57 % males and 67 % were females were agreed and 13% females were strongly agree. But on the other hand ratio of participants that disagreed includes 43% males and 20% females.

While the ratio before providing the references and solid arguments in favor of statement were different. 13% females accepted the statement and none of the male student accepted it.

The above table shows the ratio of participants views when they were initially told that a new astrological research explored that “Horoscope always gives right predictions.” This ratio highlights the mental condition of the participants before that references were given in the favor of the statement. All the males and majority of females were disagreed.

Then through verbal persuasion, we tried to convince participants to mould their thoughts to alter their beliefs.

This above table shows the result after the verbal persuasion. And it is quite interesting. We just took a superstitious statement and taking language as a weapon which influenced the thoughts and beliefs of many of the participants. This is transparently shown in the results.

Ratio of the above results depicts with clarity that a large number of participants received the influence of language persuasion. It affirms that language has an ability to transmute people’s beliefs.

Conclusion

Results of conducted study and gap between the ratio of pre-argumentation and after providing the participants with arguments to convince them with verbal persuasion, authenticated that language has a vital relation and connection with human cognition. Language has the ability to shape, influence, persuade, convince, alter and manipulate human thoughts, believes, perceptions and notions. Hence this study proved that language shapes thoughts.

References

1. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Cognitive psychology.43(1),1-22
2. Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. 227-31,247-8

Our society is often known to ignore others who may not fit the stereotypical criteria but do we have the right “to be blind?” How about all those starving children on the streets? Only a handful of people in the whole world would pretend to see “their needs”, are you one of them?

The King of Pop questions the meaning of personal identity upon self-reflection and responsibility through his legendary “anthem”, Man in the Mirror. Personal identities are developed from various characteristics, experiences, and traits of an individual. Multiple of those characteristics are subject to different interpretations like stereotypes, especially during our time of growth, our youth. Does our society’s criteria of identity, regarding the youths, have a place for everyone to belong?

Local sociologist, Care Chiew, provides the audience with information on the significance of identity and the role of an individual in the context of the society and culture that young people live in today.

While living in the 21st century, globalization has a profound effect on young people and causes them to continually rethink and reconsider their sense of identity and position within society. We as youths are constantly being affected by forcing to ‘fit in’ with others in our community, but what is the use of ‘fitting in’ physically when you can’t mentally? Or maybe others are not accepting your physical appearance yet the way you act and behave is just like theirs?

“…‘suspended adulthood’…”

Young people have been slapped with so many labels and misconceptions that it’s a wonder these are not recognizable daily by the people around them. What is undeniably valid is that the evidence indicates alarming levels of loss of personal identity through mental illnesses and ethical background insecurities that cause many young ones to suffer. Youth unemployment is more than 13 percent, higher education rates are increasing exponentially, and the lack of decent housing combined with low wages leaves more young people locked under the parental roof and stuck in what is considered ‘suspended adulthood.’

The song Man in the Mirror was first produced by Michael Jackson and his producer Quincy Jones, with lyrics written by Siedah Garrett and Glen Ballard, in February 1988. Jackson and his producer Quincy Jones selected this song for the album after searching for ‘an anthem’ that, as Jones believed, would bring ‘sunshine’ all across the world. Jackson was able to convey his message through the life obstacles he faced with the help of various language features, literary devices, and themes within his song.

Picture: Every day people change their identity trying to ‘fit in’. Photographer: Shutterstock

In the eighth lyric line of Man in the Mirror, the singer describes that ‘the wind is blowing in [his] mind.’ This lyric line uses the literary device of personification. It means that the singer is not focused in their mind, too busy worrying about themselves, and not caring or paying any attention to those in need. The songwriter has given the wind a human quality because of the word ‘blowing’ and also serves as an illustration of his state of mind by telling the audience that the cold weather doesn’t affect him physically, but mentally because he is greeted by the sight of ‘kids in the street’ who do not even ‘have enough to eat.’

During the era when the King of Pop dominated the music industry, he was diagnosed with a skin condition called vitiligo. The condition results in white patches on the skin and sensitivity to sunlight. To hide and treat the condition from his audience, Jackson used fair-colored makeup and prescribed skin-whitening creams to cover up the uneven blotches of color caused by the illness. This caused crowds of people to criticize him for attempting to change his identity.

Overall, race alone was an overwhelming predictor of people’s music preferences. Racial centrality predicted preferences for White-associated genres among Blacks. The results suggest that people have strong racial associations with certain music genres and thus may use music preferences to communicate about their racial identities (R. Marshall and P.Naumann, 2018). Does the artist’s racial identity differ in your opinion about their songs and your music preferences?

The singer informs the audience that he gets to put on his ‘favorite winter coat’ as the outdoor weather gets colder and as he goes for a morning walk, he observes the ‘kids on the street.’ The language feature shown here is juxtaposition, it contrasts the wealth of the artist and the poverty of the children thus showing that they are from different classes; while the writer has the privilege of choosing coats, the children do not even have the luxury of choosing various food.

Although young people are not powerless concerning wide world change regarding the current identity crisis, the youth have been forced and pressured to bear the heavy labels of today’s society. In addition to their labels, their modern everyday life is a dilemma in itself. So what can we do now? Together, we will solve everyone’s relationship in society to discover where we belong. As Michael Jackson says, “If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make that change!” 

Considering that refugees’ cultural identity is distinct from the majority of the host society, it is inevitable that refugees will face some challenges in the enjoyment of rights.

Introduction

Refugee movement has increased significantly in the last decade as the world develops to a rapidly increasing population of humans causing a multitude of people to be displaced as refugees. A Refugee defined as someone who a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or a natural disaster. In more detail, the legal definition of a refugee is someone who has conventional reasons for leaving their home country such as due to race, religion, nationality and opposing political opinions, someone with no protection for instance the police force may not be effective, someone with a well-founded fear such as persecution or other serious harm and finally this person must be outside their own country to make a claim. The host country they move to are obligated to accept them and they cannot be sent back. Whereas, Migrants are people who leave their countries of origin voluntarily, in order to search for a better quality of life or work. These migrants are willing to leave, by choice, however the host country they migrate to are not obligated to accept them as a result they can be sent back to their country of origin. An example of refugees are the Rohingya people.

Rohingya people are Muslims residing in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (previously known as Burma), however they account for less than 4% of the country’s population, the largest concentration of them are ethnically enclaved in the North of Rakhine State, Myanmar. The Rohingya people first arrived during the British Colonial Period (between 1824 and 1948) and they self-identify as indigenous to this region of Myanmar of which they first arrived in, however the Myanmar Government see them as simply descendants from the British Colonial and do not recognize the term ‘Rohingya’ and prefer to refer to the community as ‘Bengalis’ in a pejorative manner, despite the vast majority of Rohingya people’s refusal to accept this designated ethnic term. For instance, in early 2015 approximately 500,000 Rohingya Muslims where ‘stripped of their temporary identification cards as well as any remaining voting rights due concerns about their citizenship’, derived from their refusal to accept the ethnic term ‘Bengalis’ by the Government in exchange for citizenship. It is in Bangladesh where these people are counted as refugees as it is outside their own country- Myanmar.

Due the Rohingya being such a minority, violence and hate is prevalent against them in the modern era and has rapidly developed into a humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the Rohingya have been essentially stripped of their basic human rights including their voting rights, access to higher education, healthcare and employment opportunities as well as receiving unprovoked violence. The eruption of Anti-Muslim violence (starting in 2012) was incentivised by fear, fear of the Rohingya people taking over through overpopulation, hence the decision of the Burmese Government to reaffirm its two-child policy, re-enforcing xenophobia and Islamophobia in Myanmar. The increasing levels of violence and hate against Rohingya people have caused many of them to attempt to flee Burma in boats and become refugees. Refugees are people who have fled their country and cannot or do not want to go back due to a well-founded fear of persecution, unfortunately for the Rohingya people, they were also turned away by the neighbouring country: Bangladesh and currently the Rohingyha people are regarded as stateless due to the reluctance of the Burmese Government to give citizenship to Muslims who identify as Rohingyas.

On the other hand, Turkish workers arrived in Germany in the 1960s due to the booming post-war economy where there were many gaps in the workforce for cheap labour. This was an invited temporary stay from the German Government, however to prevent immigration, recruited workers could not bring their families so that they have incentive to return back home. This was true up until 1964 where the treaty was changed and allowed the Turkish workers to stay for longer as well as bring their families because it was becoming ‘too expensive and time-consuming’ to continuously hire and train new recruitments every two years. Turkish workers in Germany are migrants; a migrant is a person who is moving or who has moved away from where they usually live; this could be for a variety of reasons including to find work or to join family, some leave voluntarily whilst others are forced to leave. These Turkish workers are migrants because they are willing to leave for work and it’s 100% by choice. In the modern era, there are more than 2.5 million people with a Turkish Background living in Germany, this is due to so many of these workers choosing to remain in Germany during the economic recession in the 1970s. More specifically, census data from the 21st century showed that around 700,000 Turkish Migrants had German citizenship and those with dual citizenship had to choose which one to possess before their 23rd Birthday.

Refugee convention

Human migration is nothing new, but was more apparent in World War 1 (1914–1918) and World War 2 (1939 – 1945) where people migrated from their home countries, therefore the UN was created in 1945 to ensure friendly relationships are sustained. Then, in 1948 the universal declaration of rights was created which was the name of the legal instrument that right to asylum recognised as a human right. In 1951, the Refugee Convention was drafted, however it had time and geographic limitations. More specifically, the Refugee Convention was created to allow persons who became refugees due to the events occurring in Europe and before 1st January 1951. With the 1967 Protocol, the limitation was removed which meant everyone outside Europe and after 1951 could be counted as a refugee.

The European Union (EU) plan is rules and regulations set up to ensure refugees have rights in foreign countries. A country that is effectively meeting these regulations include Ireland. More specifically, Ireland disregarded their old policies of disallowing asylum seekers work, now under the new policy refugees in Ireland can feel more integrated into society due to the 20 hours of language learning they are given per week as well as the right to work or study with no restrictions.

Similarly, Finland seems to be effectively meeting their obligations under the Refugee Convention. More specifically, refugees are provided with state-financed housing for at least 3 years as well as many cash grants which they are allowed to return homes. As well as this, to make refugees feel more integrated, they cannot do unpaid community service so they don’t feel like prisoners or outsiders. On the other hand, even though the policy says they must do unpaid community service, this policy is not really helping them feel more integrated.

On the other hand, I would say that Cyprus is failing to adequately accommodate for Refugees under the Refugee Convention. More specifically Cyprus only allows refugees the right to work if the decision on the asylum claim has exceeded six months. As a result, asylum seekers have to live in Cyprus for months without the ability to work. Instead, most refugees are given ‘subsidiary status’ which means they can get most of the rights of refugees, minus travel papers and family reunification as well as the burden of having to reapply for this status every three years.

Similarly, I would also say that Denmark is also failing to meet their obligations under the Refugee Convention, this is because not all asylum seekers get Danish unemployment benefits, about 50%. In addition, only asylum seekers who pass the Danish Language exam can get additional money, this is against the rights of refugees under EU policy because it discriminates against them due to the language they speak, as well as the fact family members have to wait a whole year to join them.

Rights of refugees (health and education)

Despite those eligible being acknowledged as refugees, in the terms of rights to health, accessing this is made more difficult for refugees due to linguistic and cultural barriers. This inevitably results in a poorer quality of care as patient- doctor communication may be minimal. For instance, it may be difficult for a doctor to understand the problems and symptoms of the refugee as well as this, the patient may have a poor understanding of current treatment or follow-up care which could lead to misleading or inaccurate diagnosis or prescription. Other problems refugees face is: cultural differences may lead to lack of trust on the part of patients towards doctors and patients and they may feel as if the service provider doesn’t care much for their physical well-being. Furthermore, the absence of language support at the moment of discharge may also lead to having discharge instructions given in writing but in the local language, this is more troublesome and inconvenient than if there was a translator which may make it difficult to obtain informed consent for treatments. Another problem is often older refugees don’t adapt to the language as quickly as children because children go to school every day, therefore young children may have to translate sensitive issues and it may be hard to translate specialist words.

Evidence of this barrier has been shown through insufficient professional interpreters or intercultural mediators, the lack of adequate language support may increase medical error. Additionally, many people’s cultures’ inhibit them to be treated by a care provider of the opposite sex, if carers of both genders are not available if we limit the amount of refugees that can access healthcare.

Whilst it may be challenging for governments to host so many refugees, they should consider adapting their methods. For example some solutions would include hiring refugees would speak multiple languages as interpreters in common places such as GPs, schools and hospitals. Despite this potentially being costly to the government, it has a societal benefit as it secures money and employment for some refugees leading to a better quality of life and allows other refugees to convey communication effectively with others which decreases chances of misconceptions and discrepancies in what refugees are communicating with professionals such as doctors and lawyers. Another solution is to recognise refugee’s diplomas, certificates or qualifications they have brought from the home country. Alike all people (from High-Income Countries) with degrees and jobs from professional qualifications they have worked hard the get w here there are- so what’s different about doctors or nurses who just so happen to be refugees. The government could even fund short courses for refugees to learn in case there are differences in how things are done in the host country and their home country, this would mean- teachers for instance who are refugees can continue to earn a living and their career. Finally, in schools, teachers should arrange for a student or teacher who is from the same country as the refugee and speaks the same language to guide and help the refugee as they transition into the new school; this way children who may feel more vulnerable in a new country will feel less isolated and secluded.

However, despite all of this, Governments must ensure that there’s clear difference between assimilation and integration in the methods. More specifically integration is helping refugees adapt into the host country’s culture by making them feel welcomed and comfortable and it is considered to be good. Whereas, assimilation is the opposite and is essentially making refugees forget their culture and traditions to adopt the new culture of the host country completely, this is considered derogatory and the indoctrination of refugees is largely frowned upon. Therefore, whilst implementing ways to allow refugees to seek employment, earn money and feel more comfortable in the new society, they must be sure to be mindful and considerate to refugee’s original culture as many would be reluctant to give it up.

Cultural identity

Cultural identity means different things to different people; for some people it’s about embracing their culture, food, music and traditions in the host country they may have migrated to, to others it’s simply about staying connected and acknowledging their roots; whether that be visiting family members or regularly contacting them to ensure they are safe and healthy. Many people who have migrated from war-torn or lowly developed countries stay linked with their home country through language. Despite contrary belief, simply knowing the language of your ancestors is a blessing and can help individuals to feel integrated and more at home in new environments and surroundings. For instance the beauty of/ essence of sharing a mother tongue can lead to unintended relationships as you can relate to the other person in a way others cannot.

For refugees holding onto their cultural identity is almost essential as a form of a coping mechanism. More specifically, refugees leave everything they know behind; their possessions, their jobs, their local corner shop and have no choice in the matter, as escaping in some cases (such as in war-torn countries and persecution or countries with corrupt governments) is mandatory for their survival. however the thing that they are able to cling onto is their culture. As a result it may be hard for many of these people to adapt and forget their old cultures and traditions- and they shouldn’t have to! The fact refugees want to hold on to their culture and language should be understandable to host countries especially considering the hardship they have gone through. Many people may find it difficult to learn a new language or perhaps simply would prefer not to- however this shouldn’t inhibit their access to healthcare and education. More precisely refugee’s language and culture constitutes barriers to the range of access to services they available, which is no fault of their own and the government should take responsibility for catering for their needs because if the roles were reversed African Tribes and middle-Eastern countries are known to be very welcoming and its likely if HICs were in the situation countries like South Sudan and Syria are currently in, African Tribes and middle-eastern countries would be more than happy to help adjust them into their culture. For instance currently despite Uganda being a Low-income country, they are still effectively adjusting to the large influx of South Sudan refugees.

Conclusion

Overall, there are various different management strategies-such as the refugee convection-to aid refugees, however world governments especially in well- developed countries need to do more to cater for the refugees they host, by employing refugees- specifically those who held professional qualifications in their home country. Similarly, the experience of the Turkish Workers differs majorly from the experience of the Rohingya people because the Turkish workers migrated by choice after world war two to fill in gaps in the economy and were treated fairly with wages, good working conditions and they were given knowledge and specialist expertise in a range of skills. Nevertheless, thousands of Turkish workers were welcomed by the German Government with citizenship, making them the largest migrant group in Germany. Whereas, with the Rohingya Muslims the Government were not very welcoming and were reluctant to give them citizenship and let them self-identify as ‘Rohingya Muslims’ causing tension between them and caused the Rohingya Muslims to socially cluster in Rakhine State. Not only this, the Rohingya Muslims were stripped of their basic human rights (unlike the Turkish workers), tortured and raped causing many to attempt to flee the violence but were ultimately unsuccessful particularly due to the high malnutrition rates in the temporary evacuation camps. Additionally, people often get confused between refugees, migrants and asylum seekers however asylum seekers are people who are simply in the process of getting approved by the host country’s government as a refugee; so all refugees’ start of as asylum seekers before becoming refugees if their applicant is accepted. It is important to distinguish the difference between migrants and refugees, refugees are normally less willing and forced to leave the land they love (more so than migrants). Finally, cultural identity is essential to refugees to hold onto as a form of coping mechanism so governments mustn’t try to assimilate them into a new culture, they should only integrate.

Introduction

Multicultural societies are characterized in the same community by people of various races, ethnicity, and nationalities alike. Multiculturalism can occur on a national scale, or within the communities of a nation. People retain, pass, celebrate, and share their unique cultural ways of life, languages, art, traditions, and behaviours in multicultural communities. The society maintains, respects, and even promotes culture. Not only does it enhance itself but it also allows various cultures to peacefully coexist. Multiculturalism is the key to achieving a high degree of cultural diversity.[footnoteRef:1] In the era of globalization, countries are more and more closely linked, and different ethnic groups have more and more frequent contacts. In this case, multiculturalism is becoming more and more important. It is conducive to improving people’s awareness of their own culture, promoting exchanges and progress among different cultures, and promoting mutual respect and common development of people all over the world. [1: Longley, Robert. ‘What Is Multiculturalism? Definition, Theories, and Examples.’ ThoughtCo, Feb. 11, 2020, thoughtco.com/what-is-multiculturalism-4689285.]

Multiculturalism has been most commonly invoked in societies where different cultural communities live together: The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Yugoslavia, and, more recently, Britain, Germany, and France.[footnoteRef:2] How about Denmark? In recent years, a large number of immigrants have come to Denmark. However, Denmark is not a multicultural society. At least not yet. As an exchange student in Denmark, by discussing this issue, I can better understand Danish policy and the attitude of Danes towards multiculturalism. [2: Rita Chin. (2017) The Crisis of Multiculturalism in Europe: A History: Princeton University Press, pp.8]

The purpose of this essay is clear. I try to analyse the reason why Denmark is not a multicultural society. The essay is organised as follows. First, I discuss the mutual restriction between immigration and Denmark. Next, I will analyse the attitude of Danes towards multiculturalism. I finally conclude the first two points and express my positive attitude towards Danish multicultural society.

Analysis of the mutual restriction between immigration and Denmark

Denmark is in many ways a very homogeneous society by international standards, in terms of both ethnicity and religion.[footnoteRef:3] In 2005, 85 per cent of the Danish population were members of the State Lutheran Church, and Islam was the second largest religion with 3 per cent.[footnoteRef:4] Over the years, more and more immigrants have come to Denmark to settle down and live here. But that doesn’t mean Denmark is moving towards a multicultural society. Not only immigration affects Denmark, but some of Denmark’s increasingly strict restrictions on immigration and social integration are also affecting a large number of immigrants. To some degree, immigration is a threat to the Danish welfare state. Denmark has always been famous for its welfare system. The Danish government has done an outstanding job in terms of national happiness and satisfaction. However, non-Western immigration tends to weaken the foundation of the welfare state in Denmark. An assessment of the net costs of immigration suggested that in 2010 immigrants and descendants from ‘less developed countries’ cost the Danish state 4 billion and 11.7 billion DKK respectively. However, the group of descendants is relatively young which will both involve fewer costs and larger contributions later in their lives.[footnoteRef:5] Due to the low level of employment, it is difficult for non-Western immigrants to integrate into the labour market. This means that the higher the number of years that an immigrant has lived in Denmark, the more the unemployment insurance costs. Due to the Danish labour market system, those who do not have work but who still wish to receive unemployment benefits are obliged to follow a range of ‘activation courses’, i.e. courses offered to prepare the individual for the labour market, assist in job applications, or upgrade an applicant’s skills. As a consequence, women may spend years participating in one course after another on topics such as Danish, sewing, computers, labour market preparation, etc. Although some women found such courses useful, others considered them an unnecessary waste of time that was completely irrelevant to their general goals in life.[footnoteRef:6] These phenomena show that non-Western immigrants lead to an increase in social welfare expenditure. The loss is the biggest, but the contribution to Danish Society is the smallest. Therefore, the Danish government has reason to restrict the integration of immigrants into Danish Society, tighten immigration requirements and reduce the social welfare of immigrants. [3: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 192] [4: Kærgård, Niels (2010), ‘Social cohesion and the transformation from ethnic to multicultural society: The case of Denmark’, Ethnicities, 10 (4), pp. 470–87.] [5: Regeringens arbejdsgruppe om udredning af indvandringens økonomiske konsekvenser (2011), Indvandringens økonomiske konsekvenser. ] [6: Marianne Holm Pedersen (2012) Going on a Class Journey: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Iraqi Refugees in Denmark, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38:7, 1101-1117]

Western European and Nordic countries have traditionally embraced welfare systems very strongly. All people are like a big family with a sense of shared belonging and identification. The social cohesion of some Western European and Nordic countries is therefore very high, as is the case in Denmark. Nevertheless, this common sense of belonging and identification seems to some extent weakened by immigration. Immigration means different races are going to live in the same country. Immigrants are also bringing new and different cultures. They know neither the race nor the culture of each other. This contributes to mutual distrust and thereby decreases social cohesion. A focal point in recent Danish debates on integration and immigration is the significance attached to social cohesion. This subject has played an increasingly important role since former Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social Democrat) began in the late 1990s to express concern for ‘cohesion’ as the glue that holds society together. With the election of the Liberal-Conservative coalition in 2001 social cohesion became ‘ethnicized’, in the sense that ethnic and other forms of diversity became regarded as a threat to social cohesion.[footnoteRef:7] It can be seen that social cohesion is of great significance for a welfare country like Denmark. They don’t want a society with no sense of trust, no sense of belonging and no sense of identity. To preserve a high degree of social cohesion, they want to avoid cultural and religious differences brought by immigrants. [7: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 196]

It is precisely due to the above-mentioned impact of immigration on Denmark that the Danish government has adopted policies to restrict immigration in recent years, which also have an impact on immigration. Thus, applicants need a certain number of points to qualify with points being obtained in four categories: education, work experience, language qualifications and ‘other’.[footnoteRef:8] This means that applicants who want to immigrate to Denmark need to pass some tests and meet some conditions. Improve the requirements of applicants to ensure the quality of immigrants. Only in this way can immigrants be able to contribute to and benefit Denmark to a certain extent, rather than causing losses to Denmark. Moreover, highly educated and experienced immigrants are more likely to accept new things and new cultures and integrate into Danish society. This also limits the migration of some people with low education level and lack of experience in Denmark. [8: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 193]

Immigration is an important factor in multiculturalism. Because of the existence of immigrants, there will be a variety of cultures, bringing fresh blood to the local, to collide, integrate and finally realize multiculturalism. However, it can be seen from the above two points that immigrants and Denmark are still in a state of mutual restriction, which also limits Denmark’s access to multicultural culture. There is still a long way to go before Denmark becomes a multicultural society.

Analysis of the Danish attitudes

In a survey of twenty-seven countries carried out in 2003 by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), Denmark came out as the country most opposed to multiculturalism: 77 per cent believed that it is best for a country if different races and ethnic groups adapt and blend into the society that surrounds them, whereas 11 per cent responded that it is best for a country if these groups maintain their distinctive customs and traditions.[footnoteRef:9] It seems that Danes hope that immigrants can give up their own traditions and culture, fully integrate into Danish society, and become a real Dane. But multiculturalism does not mean total assimilation. In the process of collision and integration of different cultures, both sides need to try new cultures and new things, rather than only immigrants to adapt to the local society, and local people still live with the original culture. [9: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 202]

Danes are more worried about threats to the economy and the welfare state than about threats to Danish culture.[footnoteRef:10] This echoes the point I made earlier. People in the welfare state attach great importance to social cohesion. Rather than influence their own culture, they hope that immigrants can also maintain a high degree of social cohesion. While Danes have been pushing for more restrictive immigration and integration policies, there is now evidence that they are content with the present level of restrictions.[footnoteRef:11] Because of the influence of immigration on Denmark, the immigration and integration policy in Denmark has become more and more strict in recent years. It can be seen from the Danish’s support and satisfaction that they also hope to have more high-quality immigrants to Denmark, which can contribute to Danish Society, promote the development of Denmark and consolidate social cohesion together. [10: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 206] [11: Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 208]

It can be seen from the above points that Danes do not completely reject the multicultural phenomenon brought about by immigration. Everyone hopes that their country will become better and better, especially the people in the welfare state. They trust each other with the government and have high social cohesion. So, they also have high expectations for immigrants, hoping to have immigrants who really love Denmark and can contribute to Denmark. Their attitude is actually positive, which is also conducive to Denmark’s development into a multicultural society in the future.

Conclusion

As a result, it can be seen from Denmark’s immigration restriction policy and the attitude of Danes towards multiculturalism that Denmark cannot be called a multicultural society at present. On the other side, Denmark is expected to become a multicultural society. Due to time constraints, the analysis is not comprehensive enough, there are certain limitations. However, I have a positive attitude towards Denmark becoming a multicultural society. Based on strict policies, the Danish government can encourage immigrants and local people to understand each other and eliminate their estrangement and mistrust. Denmark should also look at multiculturalism from an international perspective, rather than just from a Western perspective, which is more conducive to solving the immigration problem and promoting the realization of multiculturalism.

Bibliography

1. Dorte Skot-Hansen (2002) Danish cultural policy–from Monoculture towards Cultural Diversity, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8:2, 197-210,
2. Longley, Robert. ‘What Is Multiculturalism? Definition, Theories, and Examples.’ ThoughtCo, Feb. 11, 2020, thoughtco.com/what-is-multiculturalism-4689285.
3. Kærgård, Niels (2010), ‘Social cohesion and the transformation from ethnic to multicultural society: The case of Denmark’, Ethnicities, 10 (4), pp. 470–87.
4. Marianne Holm Pedersen (2012) Going on a Class Journey: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Iraqi Refugees in Denmark, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38:7, 1101-1117
5. Nils Holtug (2013). “Danish Multiculturalism, Where Art Thou?”, in Raymond Taras (ed.) Challenging Multiculturalism, European Models of Diversity: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 192-208
6. Regeringens arbejdsgruppe om udredning af indvandringens økonomiske konsekvenser (2011), Indvandringens økonomiske konsekvenser. Available at http://www.nyidanmark.dk/da-dk/Nyheder/Pressemeddelelser/Integrationsministeriet/2011/April/udlaendingeplitikken_sparer_aarligt_staten_for_mia.htm
7. Rita Chin. (2017) The Crisis of Multiculturalism in Europe: A History: Princeton University Press, pp.8

The headscarf has become a normalised object in our society and is seen every day. However, there are many controversies about whether the headscarf is an object of cultural identity or an act of the repression of women. There have been many discussions globally about this debate. Many political parties have discussed the possible legislation of the prohibition of headscarves in public locations, especially in primary schools. This discussion has brought up quite some controversy. Many people argue this legislation to be highly intolerable, as they see the headscarf as an object of cultural identity. Others agree with such political parties and state that the headscarf is in many occasions an act of the repression of women, submissive to the male sex. This leads us to the urgent question, which has been an on-going discussion point throughout the conversations of many people: To what extent is the headscarf an act of the repression of women? In addition to this: should the headscarf become a prohibition in public locations, outstandingly for young girls in public schools? I have personally walked around with this question in mind and I certainly can clearly understand both perspectives on this subject. However, I do not know enough of the subject to form a general opinion, so I am very eager to understand the value and meaning of the headscarf and all of the reasoning other civilians have to this subject, in order to form a well-rounded opinion.

We will first of all discuss the underlying meaning and purpose of the headscarf, as this is often rather unclear. I cite from the Quran 24:31: ‘Tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their khimar over their chests.’ (Quran 24:31) Out of the 6000 verses in the Quran, this is approximately the only thing stated about what the woman is ought to wear in the Islamic religion. Women are ought to glance their vision down a little to people of the opposite sex to not make them feel intimidated and out of respect. This is idem to the male sex, which is also mentioned in the Quran.

The above and following is discussed in an informative video talk of Samina Ali (2017), who explains the history and purpose of the headscarf. Ali (2017) explains that the woman is ought to dress a bit more modest and not expose their adornment in order to protect herself from unwanted attention of the male sex. This should be done by the use of a khimar, a scarf on the head, which is able to flow and is put behind the ears. The bosom also should be covered, which could be done by the khimar or another piece of clothing. This is everything that is written in the Quran about the clothing of women and is confirmed by numerous sources.

People argue that Mohammed was rather vague about the description on purpose, so women could still have their own interpretations about the subject and so that the interpretation could evolve through society. In addition, the term ‘hijab’ is never mentioned in the Quran for the meaning as today’s society knows. The term originally has the meaning of a barrier. This could be the barrier between Allah and the people or between a male and a female (Ali, 2017).

There are many translations of the Quran, where the translator has adjusted the verses slightly, but which gives an altered meaning to it. Basic misinterpretations are that men are allowed to give the women orders in what they are allowed to do or wear. Even though this is not originally in the Quran, it does not mean that this does not appear in Islamic households. Here is where the problem of the discussion on headscarves starts. There is a tremendous amount of Islamic households, which all have different rules and values in their house. In some households, the woman is pressurised to wear a headscarf. In others, the woman is free to decide to wear a headscarf or not, although they often feel the pressure of wearing it in an non-spoken manner. People cannot judge for every household what the current status is. This is another difficulty which adds to this debate.

Additionally to the differences in households, there is the difference in the reasons why women wear headscarves. In 2007, Yusufali stated that ‘the concept of the hijab, contrary to popular opinion, is actually one of the most fundamental aspects of female empowerment.’ She explains this statement further with the following: ‘Because of the superficiality of the world in which we live, external appearances are so stressed that the value of the individual counts for almost nothing.’ This indicates a very different global perspective, where she explains that women are constantly comparing themselves to each other and that men are generally ‘checking women out’. She argues that the hijab protects her from this: ‘I can rest assured that no one is looking at me and making assumptions about my character from the length of my skirt.’ This is an example of a woman who states to have chosen for the hijab. Again, there is another controversy about such statements from women. It is to be argued that this woman still did not make this decision for her own. She does indeed have a muslim family and if she would have grown up in a non-Islamic family, she presumably would not have this opinion. This proves that environmental factors also have an enormous influence on someone’s identity and decisions.

On the other hand, there are women who are raised in an Islamic family, but have chosen not to wear their hijab. An example of this is Iman Amrani. Amrani (2018) mentions: ‘I feel uncomfortable every time I see well-meaning people defending parents’. She specifies this statement further by describing her own experience in secondary school, where she saw many girls wear their – often unwanted – hijabs and expressing that she was obliged to wear her hijab in the weekends too. Amrani (2018) does however mention to understand the Islamic parents: ‘They were trying to instil an idea of our identity in us, so we would meet other young Muslims and be part of a wider community.’ In addition, Amrani (2018) states that she agrees with the implication of banning headscarves on young girls. Nevertheless, women should be free to make their own choices. This leaves us to a whole other side of this debate, as this is an Islamic woman, who has a strong view, likewise to the woman we discussed beforehand.

Lastly, there is the importance of European laws, among which the freedom of religion, speech and practice. The ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights), 1950, has agreed as follows: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.’ (Section 1, Article 9). Regarding the debate on allowing teachers to wear a headscarf, this article would not allow the restriction of teachers wearing a headscarf. Furthermore, this article allows people, including teachers, their freedom of speech on religious matter. However, section 2 of article 9 adds that there are limitations to this freedom of speech for the protection and freedom of others. This concludes that teachers are allowed to express their believes, only if it does not restrict the freedom of others. In addition, article 14 of the ECHR expresses that ‘The enjoyment of rights shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,’ etc. It is to be argued that the restriction of headscarves is indeed a discrimination of religion and therefore not applicable. However, a government has the right to adjust this interpretation if it is beneficial to society.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has clarified in 2017 that a company is allowed to ban religious symbols among their workforce. This includes headscarves. Consequently, any school is allowed to introduce a prohibition of headscarves among their employees. Paterson (2017) clarifies: ‘the Court has decided that employers can have an objective justification for adopting a consistently applied workplace policy of neutrality in its dealing with its customers’. The ECJ does not express this to be a discrimination of religion. There were many people who were satisfied with this clarification and saw this as a progression in society. They argued that a public company is ought to be neutral. Again, much controversy was awakened, as ‘Plaintiffs argued that the prohibitions were discriminatory and contrary to their rights to equality and non-discrimination under European law.’ (Paterson, 2017)

The contradicting opinions on the issue whether the headscarf is an object in relation to cultural identity or an act of the repression of women are vital for the future of the European Union. People argue that a public school is ought to be non-biased and neutral, thus any form of religious expression should be banned, including the headscarf. Another group will argue this opinion to be a form of discrimination, as everyone has their freedom of religion. In addition, the first group of people will give the argument that the hijab is often repressed on women, and thus a form of abuse. This is again contradicted by the other group of people, stating that the headscarf is a form of expressing your believes towards Allah, which should not be restricted by any law. In addition, when I was looking for sources of people wanting an entire prohibition in the EU, I was not able to find anything. This surprised me, as I did experience such opinions in my daily life and articles of people wanting a prohibition on burkas were easily found. This dialogue regularly continued in the immigration issue of this moment in the EU and the argument of the women submissive to the male sex. Furthermore, people explained that the Islamic culture often expressed their beliefs very empathically, which is not something people are waiting for.

When I started this study, I was very non-biased, as I found like I was not in the right position to judge the subject, since I did not have the correct knowledge. However, going through the matter, I gained a clearer view. In my opinion, the thing most challenging is the difference in households. A legislation of wearing headscarves does not directly change a contingent family repression. We do not know if a child is wearing a hijab mandatory. This is the reason why it is very hard to make the conclusion on if a headscarf is an act of repression. I believe there are certainly females who are not forced to wear their hijab, but I definitely know there are females who are. I do not believe that a prohibition in public primary schools prevents this repression from happening, but I do believe it is a step in the right direction. Young girls are easily influenced by their surroundings and will therefore look up to an authorised figure, like their teacher. In my opinion, a public primary school should be neutral and children should be able to develop their own values. A headscarf on either them or their teacher, would not give them this ability. Regarding additional workforce, I find it very difficult to judge. I do agree that authorities like the police or lawyers, should be totally neutral in their appearances. However, I also feel like those women should have their right to express their religion and have their own values. If I had to judge now, I would be leaning more towards prohibition in public services.

The headscarf debate is a very sensitive subject and I believe that it should be handled with much caution, as it influences a significant part of the population.

The attributes related with an implied application of an empirical idea of flat global space for cultural encounter and its relationship to the dominant Universalist view of cultural supremacy as a kind of pre-ordained right in multiculturalism. Resulting suffering egoism of this notion through recent developments of cultural ideological wars must thus, be shifted towards an acceptance of the rationality with an initial assumption of this flat global space of cultural encounter as a kind of tabular rasa devoid of any prejudicial conceptions about cultural identity of the other. The former view posits on historical cultural relations and the subsequent subjective evaluation of superiority based on cultural norms, science and technology in inter-cultural dilemma. However, with shifting cultural fault lines, this unnecessary judgment on the notion of sub standard cultural identity has become implausible in inter-dialogue along the new divisive demarcations.

Multicultural reality resulting from globalization cannot be undone, which means at the world wide level a constant interaction between civilizations culminated from different cultural communities. The flat global space owing to modern technologies and intensified legalities sanctioned as the structure of mutual co-existence between different cultures has also made people from different cultural orientations much more aware of the other. To emphasis technology in this flat global space is to harness the best attributes of digitization towards a multilateral appreciation of equivalent diversity in the initial cultural encounter, as accessibility of cultural information of different states is not only possible but eminently prevalent.

For example, “Digital media has profoundly changed society in diverse cultural environments – in terms of Communication between individuals and collectives, but also as regards decision-making in the domestic and international framework. Its use has further accelerated the process of globalization, bringing different life-worlds and value systems in direct, almost constant contact. It has empowered individuals, enabling them to circumvent “officialdom,” access alternative information, and propagate their own views and positions in an interactive way.” (Prof. Köchler)

Thus, in discussing the magnification of culture under the new lenses of digitization as constituting our new reality, the calculus of negative cultural identity view burdened on a group’s culture, only limits the domain of interaction and comprehensive understanding from a horizon perspective(extension of understanding is achieved by geographical reach or extensive search for knowledge).

Indeed the perceived imperative for mutual survival in this era of global interconnectedness must accommodate the restructuring of the others cultural identity if necessary, hinged on an honest understanding of diversity and a shift from exerting conventional historical colonial attitudes as the basis for cultural inter-relationships. The rather myopic attributes of cultural assessment closely linked with the parochial economic and social ambitions of the Cultural Supremacist is now clearly evident in the flat global space as already mentioned.

The questions therefore asked imply:

• Are pre-conceived cultural identity assessments plausible in the new global space?
• What underlines the notion of a cultural identity appraisal in relation to others?
• To what extent is the burden of identity subordination weighing on the creative instincts of marginalized cultures?
• What constitutes the burden of the artificial limitations of scope of credible cultural analysis and the consequential effect thereof?
• What is the role of cultural diplomacy in diffusing the rifts of cultural identity in global multiculturalism?

The next section compares some cultural identity categorizations and examines the tendency of describing a group’s cultural identity by a dominant culture (Cultural Supremacist) as opposed to the group’s innate apprehension of its environment and the discussion of its right or wrong in global cultural integration. It hints on the feasibility of such conventional methods of description in inter-cultural relationships and touches on issues arising out of a perceived rationality of a Superiors cultural identity as a yardstick that must be imposed as an ultimate agenda of collective survival. The relating conclusion in this regard according to this article however, undermines cultural diversity and its practicality in the constellation of cultural groupings in globalism.

The theoretical assumption of a distinct cultural identity advocating terrorism or say rape as a global cultural trend depicts a scary, if not totally savage image about aggressive cultural assimilation and a counter-productive agenda for the normative cultural relativist, any imagination of this kind makes the practicality of the theory improbable. The arguments of Cultural supremacist are advanced through the logic of morality and the impossibility of challenging entrenched values of a distinct cultural group left alone with liberty in difference as witnessed through the ascension of ISIL; in other words, in the face of diversity, culture thus cannot be used to equip war.

The state of nature did not guarantee human well-being because it was “brutish, nasty and short” (Hobbes 1969, 37). Though the state of nature is a state of liberty, the liberty is not guaranteed (Hobbes 1969, 37). Similarly, human well-being is one of the primary goals of Locke’s contractarianism. The moral need to confront “certain inconveniences” to human well-being necessitates human exit from Locke’s state of nature (Locke 1989, 28).

Suffice to say, the Supremacist view of a global moral conduct implies the lack of trust for a lesser known culture. “Normative cultural relativism is basically about the moral status of various standards of evaluation, not about the influential power of the values” (Famakinwa). Every human being inalienable from a primary culture is conditioned fundamentally by the values of that culture, which forms its cultural identity. This pre-supposes contact with an influential culture intertwines itself in the basic intrinsic values of the primary culture and also highlights the changing characteristics of identity per influences of historical orientations.

“In fact history does not belong to us but rather us to it. Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society, and state in which we live. The focus of subjectivity is a distorting mirror. The self awareness of the Individual is only a flickering in the closed circuit of historical life. That is why the prejudices of an individual are — much more than that individual’s judgments — the historical reality of his being.” (Gadamer)

“Normative cultural relativism however maintains that the root of the influence is never universal but cultural.” (MacIntyre and Gowans) In my view, the claim of aesthetic composition of a Supremacist culture as a universal good suffers the identifiable characters distinct to itself, thus on the front lines of the cultural fault lines, a recognizable clear distinction of cultures undermines the Supremacist agenda of its culture universality. “Normative cultural relativists are of the view that value judgments are influenced by the manual the judge holds. The cultural root of the manual itself need not be that of the judge’s immediate cultural community.” (Famakinwa)

Judging a culture therefore, in relation to one’s own in effect limits the dynamism with which collective understanding can be sourced towards global good. The extension of cultural habitation suggests continual progression of value systems relevant to the group which at the time of judgment maybe in form different from that of the judge. “It is sheer arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.” (Rachels)

For the cultural Supremacist, The point is well argued in G.E Moore’s Principia Ethica: whatever is said to be good, it is still an open question to ask if the thing is really good. (Moore) Any human observation is theory laden. The evaluation of human actions or omissions depends on the theory the assessor endorses. (Harman) It is when the level of the assessor seems to denounce the authenticity or even the rationality of the assessed, based on its cultural convictions issues arises. At the fault lines, this will generally generate conflicts since cultural identity to a large degree is in separable from basic humanity in the context of its immediate environs.

“The process of Westernization as an endorsement of universal moral conduct is deemed a historical and political imposition of the colonial powers on the traditional political structures of the non-western civilization basins. The process of Modernization, on the other hand, is seen as a natural and necessary process for the “traditional world” to adopt Western structures and values.” (DallMayr, Kayapinar and Yaylaci)

This in effect places the cultural identity of the traditional world below that of the westerners, since their own sense of curiosity and invention germane to their distinct nature becomes paralyzed. Modernization understood in the terms of conversion into a western approval model invalidates progressive imagination; which is the needed science to enhance and validate cultural differences; this invariably leads to commensurability in cultural assessment.

Of the earliest and perhaps the most famous proponents of the incommensurability thesis is the eighteenth century German philosopher and poet Johann G. Herder, who ‘insisted upon and celebrated the uniqueness of national cultures, above all their incommensurability.’2 According to Sir Isaiah Berlin, Herder held that, ‘There are no immutable, universal, eternal rules or criteria of judgment in terms of which different cultures and nations can be graded in some single order of excellence. . . . Our culture is our own; cultures are incommensurable; each is as it is, each of infinite value, as souls are in the sight of God.’3 In Herder’s view there is no single overarching standard of value—no single measuring rod—in terms of which cultures or civilizations can be evaluated. The position of Herder may be taken as representing the quintessence of the incommensurability claim.

The differing perspectives, (1) of viewing a cultural identity as unequal in measure and worth and (2) A culture resigning itself to a limited domain of importance in global relevance as a result of external standardization methods, yields the collateral damage of humanity aspiring to meet the future with a unilateral cultural front-an endeavor in futility especially in the era of inter-dependency and the economics of diverse resources. The theoretical framework within which cultural identities are labeled and expressed in mutual co-existence highlights the phenomena of ‘disengaged science and technology’ relative to traditional cultures.

Francis Fukuyama’s claim about the end of the history is a typical formulation of this point, which connects the process of modernization and globalization to the unidirectional flow of civilization. He declared, ‘the ultimate victory of western liberal democracy and argued that it “may constitute the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government and as such constituted the end of history.” (Fred DallMayr)

Hitherto, this flat global space reality, the perceived credibility of another cultural identity pivoted on an opaque notion of advanced sciences as a basis of subsistence which quelled the natural propensity towards creativity to solve distinct problems elsewhere. More so, the aesthetic prognosis for all living predicaments towards a Western Superior value engineers a condition of acceptability to the description of substandard cultural identity.

One can say however, there appears to be a shift from the conventional value system used as lenses under which traditional scientific cultural norms was subdued especially in the modern cultural encounters. “Under the impact of undirected scientific and technological development, resulting in environmental pollution, ecological misbalance, drying up of natural resources, as a result of their wasteful utilization and scientific and technological misbalance between countries, Scientist, Sociologists, as well as humanists have begun to look at the situation differently.” (Rahman)

“One thing is becoming increasingly clear as the situation is developing and that is, in preference to the individual considerations, social considerations, and in place of narrow national considerations, global considerations are being given greater weight.” (Rahman) Which leads to a collective reassessment on how different cultural identities must be engaged in mutual problem solving, distinct sciences must be left to flourish, and leveling cultural appropriation methods encouraged in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.

Joseph Goebbels was very significant in terms of controlling people in Germany from 1933 to 1945. He used various techniques to do that. Controlling media sources was the main focus to spread propaganda. Radio, newspapers, films and all other kinds of media was a way of convincing German people that the Aryan Race was the greatest. Goebbels needed to make sure that people of Germany were only learning Nazi ideology. However, he wasn’t significant in control of German people to the higher point, because Hitler was the most important Nazi in Germany as he was the dictator.

Joseph Goebbels joined NSDAP. Goebbels got into the NSDAP mostly because being faithful to Hitler’s beliefs. Propaganda – saying to others that your ‘storytelling’ is correct. “Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge etc.” – www.historylearningsite.co.uk In Nazi Germany, Dr Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda. He was the Minister of Enlightenment and his job was to:

Make sure that nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party. To make sure that everybody thought in the correct manner, all foreign literature and any other types of media was banned.

Make sure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible. People had to be loyal to the Nazi regime.

Reich Chamber of Commerce was set up in 1933. This organisation was dealing with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers etc. To make and produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you could be a member. Any person who was not accepted was not allowed to get any work published or performed. As a result of this, Nazi Germany introduced the system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to know about. In that way, Nazis thought, that if you believed what you were told, their leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and insufficient.

Also, Joseph Goebbels was the Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Goebbels presented Hitler to people in the most supportive way, censoring media and building anti-Semitism. Jewish artists, actors/actresses, musicians, etc. were forced to go unemployed because of Goebbels. He hosted burning of books that were considered ”un-German.” Every Nazi project was in favour of completing. His (Goebbels) job was to censor all opposition to Hitler and present the chancellor and the Nazi Party in the most positive light. He founded “Der Angriff” paper and used this to pass on his messages and ideas of to the nation as part of his propaganda. Goebbels said that Hitler was the one to inspire everyone, give them hope and that he would bring everybody forward. He described his feelings for the Fuhrer as “incredible and truthful.” Therefore Goebbels had in Hitler the ideal type of inspiration to the population. Hitler and Goebbels both had much in common even though they had differences of characters. “Either the enemy walks over our dead bodies or we over his?” It was their differences rather than their similarities that enabled them to further each other’s progress. Hitler was intuitive rather than intelligent and Goebbels was smart, this had a massive influence on the development of his characters. They both obtained unlimited power over a nation and country. Without Goebbels, Hitler would never have gained total power. He created the Hitler myth and “…offered the masses the saviour for when they yearned, endeavoured with the grace of God…” said Victor Reinmann. Towards the end of the war they could not exist without each other, as they strengthened and helped each other. Hitler was hard-working, had complexed visions and had an elated relationship with the masses. Goebbels used techniques like persuasion, slogans, myths, texts and images.

By Hitler’s invite, Goebbels spoke at party meetings in Munich and at the annual Party Congress, held in Weimar in 1926. For the following year’s event, Goebbels was involved in the planning and organisation for the first time. Receiving praise for achieving success led Goebbels to shape his political ideas to match Hitler’s, and to add, idolise him even more. Goebbels practised his public speaking skills. Meetings were anticipated by ceremonial marches and singing, the venues were decorated with party banners. His entrance was timed for maximum emotional impact. Goebbels usually nervously planned his speeches ahead of time, furthermore, he was able to adapt his presentation to make a good connection with his audience. He tried to bring the attention of nation to speeches by using “special effects”, which were fireworks, marches, music from loudspeakers, etc. Goebbels produced his ‘Ten Commandments for National Socialists’. These were to boost in confidence his approaches to propaganda. His ‘Ten Commandments for National Socialists’ were:

1. “Your Fatherland is called Germany. Love it above all and more through action than through words.” – You need to show love to Germany not by words, but by actions.
2. “Germany’s enemies are your enemies. Hate them with your whole heart.” – Anyone who is not Aryan, must be killed.
3. “Every national comrade, even the poorest, is a piece of Germany. Love him as yourself.” – Every Aryan around you is your brother or sister, give anything you can to them.
4. “Demand only duties for yourself. Then Germany will get justice.” – Show how hard can you work for Germany, only then justice might be achieved.
5. “Be proud of Germany. You ought to be proud of a Fatherland for which millions have sacrificed their lives.” – You must be not scared to give your life away for Deutschland (Germany).
6. “He who abuses Germany, abuses you. Strike your fist against him.” – Defend Germany as your own family, house.
7. “Hit a rogue more than once. When one takes away your good rights, remember that you can only fight him physically.” – Fight for YOUR rights, no matter what!
8. “Don’t be an anti-Semitic knave. But be careful of the ‘Berliner Tageblatt’.” – Show hatred towards the Jewish people.
9. “Make your actions that you need no blush when the New Germany is mentioned.” – Protect Nazi regime and prove to everyone that there is no New Germany.
10. “Believe in the future. Only then can you be the victor.” – Prepare for tomorrow. Only by then you can be victorious.

Joseph Goebbels was never restrained in anything by moral code. He used his position within the Nazi Party to dominate the media. Hitler’s ‘gleichschaltung’ policy – uniting everyone in Nazism behind Hitler. It was Goebbels idea to ensure that loudspeakers were turned on in streets to make sure that the people could hear Hitler’s thoughts. This was constructed into a plan that allowed Germans to buy a cheap radio. Goebbels believed that if the Fuhrer had something to say then the people as a whole had to have the ability to hear it. Nonetheless, after purchasing a radio, each family had to pay 2 Marks a month for a license. During World War Two listening to foreign broadcasts such as the BBC World Service was vetoed.

Goebbels very quickly became the voice of the Nazi regime for the German people. Basically, his job was to brainwash the minds of German people with Nazi regime to the highest point. After the Nazis gained power, Goebbels took control of the national propaganda machinery. “The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is at an end,” Goebbels proudly told the crowd. Before that, a boycott of Jewish businesses were placed by Joseph Goebbels. To be sure, Goebbels’s control of foreign propaganda, the press, theatre, and literature was limited—controlled only in small amounts with other official persona—little interest was shown in regulating music and art. During his work he wrote frequent tutorials that were published in “Das Reich” which were later read aloud over the radio. He found films to be his most effective propaganda method, after radio. Half the films made during WW2 in wartime Germany were propaganda films (mostly on antisemitism) and war propaganda films (showing Wehrmacht in the positive light and “storytelling” about previous wars).

Joseph Goebbels used two methods of controlling German people: Terror and Propaganda. Terror was divided into Gestapo, The police and law courts, The SS and Concentration camps. At the same moment, propaganda was fully controlled by Goebbels. Everything was done to present Hitler as a God. To show that Nazi was the race above anyone. Information and ideas about Nazi government were spread around, showing that supporting Nazis was the right way.

Joseph Goebbels did not deny the facts of the upcoming fail. On the contrary, the main idea of his propaganda was to increase motivation by looking on everything from the bright side and making it look like plans are going better than they actually were. Public appearances, compared to those of many “loyal” Nazis who ran into bunkers, did a decent improvement to an image which before that was incredibly pessimistic. In the end of the war, Goebbels’ speeches and articles gained extremely contradictory tone. At the start of 1945, he said that defeat was right around the corner. There was no opportunity to save Berlin, because everything was sent to the front. He quickly discussed making peace with the allies in conversation with Hitler. Goebbels did not want Hitler to lose his confidence and, eventually, worsen relations between them.

As to conclude all information above, Joseph Goebbels was not entirely significant in Germany at that time. He believed that “Nazional-Socialism” and dictatorship was a perfect way of ruling the country, it turned out that it was a complete failure. If Goebbels would have decided not to commit suicide with Hitler, his further significance would be a disaster, because without Hitler, Nazism would have been absolutely nothing.