Maria de Los Angeles is a US immigrant of Hispanic origin and lives with her family in Arizona. When she had the news that the stateâ€™s governor had signed the controversial immigration act into law, just like other Hispanic women, she screamed at the top of her voice. Non immigrant colleagues who worked with her just stared not knowing what to do. Outside her little shop, an angry crowd of Hispanic immigrants were conversing in angry tones reacting to the news. They could not believe that in three months time, when the law becomes effective, their lives will change for the worse and thus they should be preparing for tough times ahead. A small boy who was listening to their conversations had difficulties in understanding the impact of the law to their lives. This essay seeks to find out the impact of the new immigration law in Arizona and whether it is racially motivated. It was on April, Friday 23 when the governor of Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer passed an immigration law called Support our Law enforcement and safe neighborhood act (Sharp, 2010) which is considered one of the toughest laws in anti immigration crusade. This law has sparked debates on the issue of illegal immigration and criticisms from every corner including from the president himself. President Obama has termed it as a sign of irresponsibility on the side of the stateâ€™s governance and this may apply to all states and thus he calls for reforms to be done on the federal immigration laws as soon as possible in order to avert these kinds of law by states. The signing of the law has also angered the President of Mexico and so many protesters have come out to criticize it. Many have said that the law reminds them of those days when racism was very active in America and thus the law is inviting racism back to their lives (Goodwin, 2010). What is in this law? The law requires every immigrant to have immigration papers and the police are given that power to ask for them every time they are suspicious of someone as an illegal immigrant. This means that, if they suspect anyone, then they have the power to detain him or her. Any immigrant, who will not be having the immigration papers, will be committing a crime and citizens can actually sue an agency which does not enforce the law. In other words, the police can question anybody irrespective of whether they are committing a crime or not. Even those who are going on with their legal businesses will be at the mercies of the police so long us they come under suspicion. The law punishes those who are found to be in the country illegally by sentencing them to jail for six months and 2,500 dollars as a fine. These punitive measures are going against the federal punishment of deportation (Goodwin, 2010). What are the impacts of the law? 30% of the Arizona population is Hispanic and illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin make up 80%of all immigrants and thus this law is seen as targeting them. The law has been criticized because it encourages the police to arrest people based on their looks, leaving out the evidence that they may actually be committing a crime. The governor tried to justify her actions by saying that she tried everything she could on language to avoid enforcement of this law to be based solely on the race, national origin and color of people but critics have revoked the law by saying that it does not lay out the circumstances under which somebody will be detained apart from the mentioned three that is, color, race and national origin (Goodwin, 2010). Most Americans have also raised their voices against it saying that the law itself is un-American. A senate candidate in Florida, Marco Rubio has said that Americans are not comfortable with the requirement of a group of people carrying documents every where they go. Tom Tancredo, a congress man ,even though he is known to be against illegal immigration, has this time come out to say that the law has gone too far. He said he does not wish for people to be pulled over due to their looks (Goodwin, 2010). The governor has come out to try to settle the issue by ordering the law enforcers to receive special training on how to implement the law by signing an executive order. In her efforts to fight crimes related to illegal immigration, she would also see into it that the law is not misused to infringe on rights of others. President Obama was against it even before it was signed saying that it will bring distrust between the people and the police (Goodwin, 2010). The opponents of the law have sworn to punish Arizona by targeting the stateâ€™s coffers. San Francisco city has called its residents to bring to an end their business dealings with Arizona and a boycott has also been called of any convention that will take place in Arizona. Some tourists to Arizona cancelled their reservations in protest to the law, swearing that they would not go back there because of the law. It is too early to predict what would happen to the tourism sector in Arizona and economy at large (Archibold, 2010). The law sparked fresh debates on federal immigration law reforms and this made President Obama to call for immediate complete reforms on the law. The Mexican foreign minister was not left behind in speaking his mind. He said that he is worried about the strained relationship between Mexico and Arizona and also about the Hispanic people and their rights. A Cardinal in Los Angeles termed the requirements of the law as Nazism (Archibold, 2010). The bill has been termed as a rebuke to the former governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano who had supported the bill there prior to her appointment in the Obamaâ€™s administration. Since it seems this law could lead to nation wide immigration debate, then the Hispanic voters could be politically motivated to benefit the democrats, energizing the conservative voters also (Archibold, 2010). The Union of American Civil Liberties has criticized the law as it is out to target the Latinos but the proponents say that the law is a good step towards settling the lawlessness at the US â€“Mexican border where the federal law enforcers have failed to do so. Napolitano argues that the law will facilitate siphoning of stateâ€™s wealth which is meant to fight the real crimes of the immigrants thus loosing focus (Warren, 2010). The main thing that is being observed is that the law seeks to overshadow the federal law which is the landâ€™s supreme law (Warren, 2010). It seems that the debate will go through talk shows, lines of protests to the floor of the court to know whether states have power to implement laws that for a long time have been the responsibility of the federal government. Activists have vowed to challenge the law and prevent it from taking effect because it has gone overboard by attacking the authority of the federal government of regulating immigration and empowering the police, giving them too much power. When the law takes effect in July it that means anyone who is found in America illegally would be committing a crime. If one looks like a foreigner or sounds like it, then he will be subjected to lots of questioning by the police to confirm their citizenship (CBS interactive Inc, 2010). Some legal migrants will also find themselves in these kinds of treatments despite their citizenship. Some police departments say that the law would make it difficult to solve crimes because the moment you stop people and question them, this would not go down well with the immigrants and some of them will refuse to cooperate in solving crimes (CBS Interactive Inc, 2010). The republicans and the Democrats have found themselves in hot soup after the law was past. This is a very delicate issue which they did not want to deal with before the midterm elections of the congress because it involves a lot of emotions. The politicians are not the only ones who were affected but even students. In the University of Arizona, students started to withdraw in protest to the law and this prompted its president to write a letter to the school since it had lost so many students. The parents of these students had decided to send them to schools in other states and those who wanted admission to the school withdrew their applications (Binckes, 2010). Republicans have a reason to worry because it seems the Latinos will be in favor of democrats (Sharp, 2010). Since Arizona harbors 460,000 illegal immigrants, the law thus criminalizes their presence in the state. Another effect of the law is that day laborers will have a tough time because citizens are forbidden from employing them and anyone who is found to be ferrying illegal immigrants even if it is a member of the family, they will face the law (Goldman, 2010). Some proponents of this law have said that it is a big step in that it encourages other states and local governments to assert themselves when it comes to immigration issues. States have gotten tired of waiting for the federal government to enforce laws on immigration hence, just like other states which have enacted laws to protect their citizens, Arizona had to do it. In other words, the passing of this law is like telling the Americans to stop waiting for the feds to come to their aid when issues get out of hand. The feds were being told that the states and the local governments were not pleased by what they had to offer (Mcneill, 2010). Is the law racially motivated? Texas law maker, Debbie Riddle has disqualified those who call this law a racially motivated one and that they are up to no good for they are out to divert the attention of the citizens for personal selfish gains (Friedman, 2010). Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state thinks otherwise. She says that the law encourages racial profiling and that the state has overstepped its mandate by trying to impose its laws on people. She says that, racism comes in when the police will be questioning people based on their accents (Political News, 2010). Immigrantsâ€™ rights projectâ€™s director Mr. Lucas Guttentag says that the law will lead to an increased racial discrimination and profiling of anyone who looks like an immigrant. A former attorney general of Arizona Mr. Grant Woods, said that this law would make people be subjected to profiling because of their color but Mr. Kobach, a law professor disagrees with these two by saying that there is no such provision in the law because the police have been told clearly in the law that they should not base their suspicions solely on race. However, the use of the word solely here has been regarded by some lawyers as giving authority to discriminate or do profiling based on race with the condition that the government is not 100% motivated racially (Schwartz & Archibold, 2010). Sean Hannity and his fox news colleague Sarah Palin have revoked the claim that the law would lead to racism even though the law allows the police to consider race in their profiling. For Hannity, he says that the law does not encourage profiling but it actually forbids it. Palin on her part says that there is no opportunity in the law for racial profiling and that lame media should be ashamed for terming the law what it is not; this also applies to the Obama administration since they hold the same views. She is also supported by Mr. Kobach on this view. The law forces the police to make contacts with the federal government to check the status of the immigrants whether they are in the country legally or illegally and this actually reduces racial profiling (Media Matters for America, 2010). The law states that when a person is arrested, his status is checked before he is released. The problem that brings these viewsâ€™ diversities in the law is that there is no agreement on what is meant by racial profiling. Some say it is when one relies on race and others say when one solely relies on race. The former is the broad meaning and the latter is the narrow meaning. The narrow meaning is not accepted by the Union of American civil liberty because it does not include other racial profiling which is still going on in the country (Media Matters for America, 2010). Some argue that, if the law is allowed to be effective, American would be making a very huge mistake that they will regret for a very long time. The draconian law as it is called by some people is a racial profiling sponsored by the government. The Arizona governor is said to contradict herself especially when it comes to the topic on profiling and some have asked the question whether racial profiling should be ruled out when race combined with other factor, are considered to determine suspicion. So, does it mean that racial profiling refers to only those situations when race is the only factor considered in determining a reasonable suspicion? (Bonner, 2010) In conclusion, from the impacts of the law it can be observed that the law will not only affect the illegal immigrants from Mexico but also anyone who is an alien in America including Africans who find themselves in Arizona. The debate is still on, on whether the law is actually racially motivated or not. The Arizonaâ€™s governor has made futile attempts to persuade the Americans that the law is actually constitutional but so many people have vowed to challenge the law in court or try to block its implementation. The courts are the ones which will determine whether the law is racially motivated or not. The question that most Americans are still asking themselves is how does an illegal immigrant look like?
12/30/2019 0 Comments
Organisational leadership - Essay Example The culture of leadership for many organizations has been that of isolated leadership, where the leaders are completely isolated from the team of the employees and other subordinates that they lead, interacting with them only through issuing orders on the tasks that such subordinates should undertake, and how they should be undertaken. However, while leadership requires being firm so as to realize the objectives set by any given organization, the isolation of leaders from their team does not serve to enable the organizations to enhance their performance, but to drag the pace at which search objectives are met (Bass & Riggio, 2006 p12). Therefore, the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg is agreeable, and thus this discussion seeks to affirm this argument, through applying the concepts of two leadership and management theories, as well as enlisting the backing of two empirical case studies, to finally arrive at a well informed conclusion regarding the suitability of the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg. ... e employees with respect, dignity and rewards their efforts with good compensation, the organization is sure to receive commitment, loyalty and high productivity from the employees (Lester & Kickul, 2001 p17). The essence of the psychological contracts theory is that; it espouses a further mutual relationship between the employer and the employee, in a further manner than is stipulated in the employment contract. The principles of the psychological contract are not based on the written agreement between the employee and the employer, but rather based on the expectations of the rights, rewards and responsibilities owed to each party in the employment contract outside of what is defined in the contractual agreement. Therefore it is conclusively appropriate to say that the psychological contracts theory espoused a situation where the relationship between the employer and the employee will be based on a more humanitarian ground, as opposed to well written and defined rules of engagement (House, 1971 p322). Therefore, the psychological contract theory represents the notion that there ought to be relationships, trust and understanding between the employee and the employer, outside of the tangible paper document, that should vary from one employee to the other. The congruence of the psychological contract theory and the argument advanced by Mintzberg, stems from the fact that Mintzberg argues that open minded management approach is the most suitable for an organization to reach great levels of achievement, through supporting the initiatives developed by the employees and further providing direction, at the expense of setting the direction for the employeeâ€™s proposed project (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p). According to Mintzberg, allowing for the flexibility where the management of
â€œComedy of menaceâ€ was a term first used to describe Harold Pinter's plays by the drama critic Irving Wardle. He borrowed the term from the subtitle of one of David Campton's plays, The Lunatic View: A Comedy of Menace. A comedy is a humorous play which contains variations on the elements of surprise, incongruity, conflict, repetitiveness, and the effect of opposite expectations and so on in order to amuse and make the audience laugh. A menace is something which threatens to cause harm, evil or injury which seems quite incompatible with the idea of a comedy.
However, as The Birthday Party shows, it is quite possible for a playwright to create both humour and menace in the same play, and even at the same time, in order to produce certain effects and to transmit ideas to the audience. Comedy is present in The Birthday Party from the very first scene; it is a way of gently introducing the audience to the world which Pinter is trying to create. The humour is quite subtle at first, for example the exchange between Petey and Meg about whether Stanley is up or not plays on the words up and down: â€œMeg: â€œIs Stanley up yet? Petey: I don't know.
Is he? Meg: I don't know. I haven't seen him down. Petey: Well then, he can't be up. Meg: Haven't you seen him down? â€œ. Although the repetitions in this short exchange will not make the audience burst out with laughter they can make them smile and the humour also lulls them into a sense of comfort. A joke with a similar effect is made through another short dialogue between Meg and Petey in which Meg continually asks who is having a baby with Petey insisting that she won't know her until finally saying it's â€œLady Mary Splattâ€, to which Meg replies anticlimactically â€œI don't know herâ€.
This anticlimax as well as the incongruous name of the woman (we do not imagine a â€œLadyâ€ having the surname â€œSplattâ€) creates humour and again lulls the audience into a sense of peace and normality. As well as this we get a sense of Meg's stupidity, Petey's resignation to it and their relationship being unfruitful and routine from their humorous yet uninteresting dialogue. Indeed, half the reason what they say seems funny is because of how pointless it is. Thus, Pinter highlights the uselessness of Meg and Petey's conversation and in extension the uselessness of everyday small talk.
The worrying thing for the audience about this comedy is that it evidences a kind of futility: Meg does notseem to have much of a life beyond these pointless conversations. Thus, while the humour of the dialogue lightens the tone of the scene it also poses a question on the passivity and futility of the lives of the characters and the lives of many people in general. Humour also serves to draw attention to the strangeness of Meg and Stanley's relationship. Indeed, Meg treats him like a child despite his being a man of thirty. We are made aware of the fact that Stanley is not a child when he comes on stage for the first time.
Before this Meg's calling him â€œthat boyâ€ and trying to get him out of bed by calling â€œStan! Stanny! Stan! I'm coming up to fetch you if you don't come down! I'm coming up! I'm going to count to three! One! Two! Three! â€ makes the audience think he must be a child. Thus when we see him for the first time the incompatibility between the reality and what we have been lead to believe creates humour. The inappropriateness of Meg's treatment of Stanley and his being a fully grown man also creates humour at other moments of the play, for example when she asks him if he â€œpa[id] a visit this morningâ€ (went to the toilet).
While Meg and Stanley's conversation has some comedic value it could also make the audience feel slightly uneasy, perhaps they will ask themselves why this woman of sixty treats a man of thirty like a boy and why he plays along with her at times. Their exchanges, for example, the dialogue revolving around Stanley calling Meg a â€œsucculent old washing bagâ€ and Meg's reaction to it, seeming to believe that it's a rude word is quite funny for the audience as again it highlights her silliness but makes their relationship even stranger as she speaks â€œcoylyâ€: she does not only play a maternal role but is also somewhat flirtatious.
Thus humour, while seeming quite light can have a deeper meaning and cover up something a lot more serious about a character and problems they may have. Likewise, Stanley's attempts at humour when talking to Lulu are a kind of proof of his social inadequacy. When she says that it's stuffy he replies â€œStuffy? I disinfected the place this morning. â€ And when she talks about his getting under Meg's feet he says he â€œalways stand[s] on the table when she sweeps the floorâ€. These two lines are both untrue and when saying them Stanley's aim seems to be to make a joke.
However, they both fall flat with Lulu and we could also imagine with the audience. Consequently, comedy, or rather attempts at it, evidence Stanley's lack of social skills. Therefore humour can be a way to introduce the audience to characters and their relationships with each other, and also make the audience think about these characters and perhaps their problems while keeping them interested in the play itself. The parody of small talk also allows Pinter to pose questions to the audience about the futility of many of our lives.
Comedy does not just appear alone in this play, humour often appears during a somewhat frightening scene in which characters menace another. Some of these scenes are power struggles between characters or scenes where one character asserts themselves over another. For example, in the scene where Stanley tells Meg about the wheelbarrow he is obviously trying to menace her with his repeated questions (â€œDo you know what? â€œ, â€œHave you heard the latest? â€œ, â€œAnd do you know what they've got in that van? â€ etc), the anonymous â€œtheyâ€, the imminence of â€œtodayâ€ and his actions as he â€œadvance[s] upon herâ€.
Despite the menacing aspect of this scene the fact that what he is threatening her with is a wheelbarrow adds a slightly bizarre and humorous tone. Indeed, the audience could laugh at Meg, thinking only she could be afraid of a wheelbarrow. However, her reaction to the threats is quite strong as she becomes â€œbreathlessâ€ and cries out â€œhoarselyâ€. She seems to be afraid of it because it's new and different, an example of human fear of the unknown, and also perhaps of being â€œtaken awayâ€ as Stanley repeats twice â€œThey're looking for someoneâ€.
Either way the humorous aspect of someone being afraid of a wheelbarrow heightens the menacing atmosphere for the audience as we don't understand her fear; if she was afraid of something more normal we would not feel so ill at ease. Thus in this scene, Pinter makes use of a comedic aspect with a menacing atmosphere in order to make the audience aware of our own fears of what we do not understand. Comedy and menace also appear together in both the first music hall scene and just before it.
In the â€œsitting down sceneâ€, a certain amount of humour can be derived from the fact that three grown men are playing a childish game about who will sit down first, but what this game represents is a power struggle. As with the wheelbarrow, this silly game is symbolic of something much more serious; here, the person who sits will lose power. This menacing part of the scene is shown by the insistence of Goldberg and McCann that Stanley sit down and McCann's yelling â€œThat's a dirty trick! I'll kick the shite out of himâ€. Interestingly, Stanley seems to try to lighten the atmosphere with the joke (â€œNow you've both had a rest you can get out! ) which causes McCann to say this, but he only succeeds in heightening the tense and menacing atmosphere of the scene. Again, humour does not take away from the threat but adds to it, making it worse. The fact that Stanley's joke doesn't lighten the scene as he hoped can also show the inadequacies of language. Indeed, one would not expect a joke to create more threats and menace. Thus, through the pairing of humour with menace Pinter shows the audience how words do not always achieve the desired effects and therefore is evidence of our own shortfalls as we do not always accomplish what we would like to through our speech.
However, Goldberg does achieve what he wants to with his use of comedy and threats. This is because he wants to create a more menacing scene in order to completely destroy Stanley. His humour comes from the common expressions that he sometimes modifies, such as â€œYou're beginning to get on my breastsâ€, and the different registers of these expressions, for example he says â€œWhy are you driving that old lady off her conk? â€ which seems very colloquial compared to his normal speech.
He also makes an ironic joke when he says that McCann is â€œthe life and soul of any partyâ€, which is evidently false as the audience can tell that he isn't from how little he speaks. Goldberg's jokes contrast with the serious and controlling man who makes Stanley sit down simply by saying quietly â€œWebber. SIT DOWNâ€. Indeed, we feel more menaced by Goldberg than by McCann because as McCann has already yelled at Stanley we feel as though we know what he is capable of but we don't really know how much Goldberg can do with his power of speech.
The power which comes from the paradoxical pairing of humour with menace can be seen in the first music hall scene and in the scene with Lulu. In the music hall scene, the fast pace of the short, nonsensical questions creates a sense of urgency and fear as we do not know what the point of all these questions is. While some of the questions and accusations seem serious, such as â€œWhy did you leave the organisation? â€œ, others create humour such as, â€œWhen did you last have a bathâ€ or â€œMcCann: You throttled her. Goldberg: With arsenicâ€.
At the end of the scene the question they are asking him is the well known joke: â€œWhy did the chicken cross the road? â€œ. It is this question, one of the most unanswerable of all the ones they ask him that finally makes him break down; he can no longer answer. The fact that a joke question is one of the causes of Stanley's destruction shows the strength of humour. Indeed, Freud theorised that â€œ[in] addition to the one who makes the joke, there must be a second [person] who is taken as the object of the hostile aggressiveness, and a third in whom the joke's aim of producing pleasure is fulfilledâ€.
In this scene, Goldberg and McCann make the jokes to amuse the audience while Stanley is the victim. However, the audience does not really laugh at these jokes, in fact they serve more to make us uneasy, but we still recognise the humour in them and perhaps even appreciate it. The same three person structure is found in the scene where McCann menaces Lulu. In that scene, Lulu is the victim while McCann tells her â€œsavagelyâ€ to confess while Goldberg creates humour by picking up everything she says and turning it against her. For example she says â€œYou taught me things a girl shouldn't know before she's been married at least three times! , to which Goldberg replies â€œNow you're a jump ahead! What are you complaining about? â€œ.
The audience will appreciate Goldberg's humour while also finding what Lulu herself says funny despite the fact that she is evidently upset and angry, as it says in the stage directions. This humour followed so quickly by McCann's threats will again make the audience uneasy. This uneasiness of the audience is partly caused by our finding Goldberg, and perhaps even McCann, funny when we feel perhaps that we shouldn't. By being amused by them we ally ourselves with them, the two characters who we know to be manipulative and controlling.
Indeed, through their (Goldberg's especially) humour we are manipulated by them to laugh at the other characters. Thus, Pinter shows by placing comedic elements with menacing ones that humour can be powerful and creates relationships between us: relationships which have a strong element of control to them, as our feelings and reactions are manipulated by Goldberg, just like the other relationships which we see in the play. Therefore, we can say that Pinter's â€œcomedy of menaceâ€ is a way to show us how he believes that all relationships revolve around one person asserting their power over another.
The atmosphere of menace which is present in this play does not only appear in conjunction with humour. Instead it often relies on the unknown or things not being fully explained. For example, when Goldberg and McCann first arrive, they come through the back door without knocking, which is in itself quite odd, then Goldberg says he wasn't looking for a number when McCann asks him how he knows it's the right house. This is quite an eerie thing to say as the audience can ask themselves what he was looking for as normally you recognise a house by the number.
Indeed, it is this abnormality and not knowing how Goldberg knew which house he wanted which creates a sense of a threat or that something bad will happen. This can show the audience how we feel a need for things to be â€œnormalâ€, we fear things that we don't understand or that are new. Likewise, McCann's refusal to join Stanley in conversation at the beginning of the second act, giving short answers and asking little in return is really a refusal to make normal conversation. These short responses seem quite menacing because they contrast against Stanley's seemingly open discussion.
The audience could believe that Stanley's trying to tempt McCann into conversing with him properly is not only to get information about why he is there but to also make McCann seem more normal and thus less menacing. Like the opening scene with its pointless dialogue this scene shows the human need for speech in order to keep the fear of a threat, in this case represented by McCann, at bay. Language is not the only menacing thing, there are also several small actions or events which add to the menacing atmosphere of the play: the synchronised whistling, McCann's tearing the newspaper into strips and the lights during the birthday party.
None of these things should seem that menacing by themselves but the context in which they are placed makes them seem so. Two â€œstrangersâ€ whistling the same tune together while talking, a grown man sitting at a table tearing paper, a light being shone on a man at his own birthday party as though he is a police suspect and finally a blackout which makes Stanley become violent all seem abnormal and strange for the audience: we do not understand why they happen (except for the blackout, and then we only find out later).
It is this not understanding and abnormality of the events which adds to the menacing atmosphere of the play. Therefore we can say that the threatening ambiance of the play is created through language, in particular humour and the unknown, but also through certain eerie and strange events or deeds. The reason Pinter uses these things to make the audience afraid is to show us our fear of what we do not know and the abnormal. However, Pinter makes sure that some of the menacing atmosphere is elevated at times, which actually emphasises how strong this atmosphere is.
The threatening ambiance is lessened by the use of humour. This humour can be found in the first dialogue between Goldberg and McCann, for example, when McCann says that Goldberg, who is obviously a Jew, is a â€œtrue Christianâ€. There is also humour with the dialogue between Goldberg and Meg, after the first music hall scene, when he is admiring her dress and slaps her bottom, as well as before when he calls her a tulip and she asks â€œWhat colour? â€œ.
Pinter uses comedy at these moments in the play in order to reassure the audience and to keep some suspense: if the whole length of the play was filled with a menacing atmosphere we would know that Stanley will lose the power struggle from the beginning. The humour also brings a certain level of normality back to the proceedings of the play so that the menacing atmosphere can increase slowly, again creating more suspense. Thus, I agree completely with the description of The Birthday Party as a â€œcomedy of menaceâ€. While comedy and menace both appear separately in the play it is together that they affect the audience most.
The association of two seemingly opposing themes in one play allows the audience to realise some of Pinter's preoccupations concerning the inadequacy of language but also its power, how we have some irrational fears concerning the unknown and the abnormal, how relationships work through manipulation and power struggles and the passivity of so many people throughout their lives. As well as this, the fact that we can associate these two terms, finding something menacing yet humorous at the same time, could also be a way for Pinter to show the paradoxical nature of human beings.
11/12/2019 0 Comments
Integration question - Assignment Example
While the basic fundamentals of marketing relating to the process of value creation, value communication, value distribution and value capture essentially remains the same, it can be increasingly said that the application of the processes has changed a lot. Various forms of marketing have emerged with the evolution of technology sponsored platforms, which enhances and multiplies the power of marketing. The secret to marketing still surround the process of retaining existing customers, while going for acquisition of new customers by creating as well as enhancing the demand for products and services, while making the consumers and clients of their enhanced and ever evolving needs. The process of introduction of the US Consumer Bill Of Rights in the year 1963 enhanced the power of consumers by providing the right to information, safety, and choice as well as consumer voice. This led to the emergence of a consumption pattern, where consumers more increasingly focused on the process of acquisition of materialistic goods. This significantly led to the development of a hyper consuming consumer behavior which contributed towards the development of a significant level of disconnectedness amongst the individuals. This significantly contributed to the development of a consumer attitude which is increasingly looking for more substance and more meaning to their demands. (Euro RSCG Worldwide, 2010b) Lazer in his paper in the year 1969 increasingly highlighted the fact that the marketers were more involved and more interested with the societal and lifestyle trends of the American hyper consuming consumers and this had led to the high level focus on the marketing for the purpose of influencing the consumer behavior with regards to particular products and services. Lazer also increasingly highlighted that the culture of hyper consumption that was existent in the developed countries like America was supposed to spread to other developing and emerging economies and countries, irrespective of the differences existing in terms of culture (Lazer, 1969, p.5). However, in the recent times, there have been massive changes with regards to the macro factors affecting the globe. The world economy has seen a tremendous amount of turmoil, owing to the bust of the housing bubble in the United States in the year 2008, and the simultaneous collapse of Lehmann Brothers, which pushed the world in the brink of an economic catastrophe. As a direct effect of the slowdown around the globe, which was planted by the financial crisis in the US, it can be increasingly said that the organizations around the world embraced the process of downsizing of staff in an attempt to cut down on organizational spending and attempting to sport a more leaner look. As a result of massive job cuts in the advanced Western economies, the consumers in the developed countries experienced a change in consumer behavior. The consumers of advanced countries, owing to the financial crisis, responded in a very significant manner for the purpose of overcoming the financial credit crunch around the world. They became more and more aware of their basic needs and wants, while attempting to curtail
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.