In this essay I will argue implicit bias can in fact force people to adopt some sort of skepticism. To defend my argument I will provide definitions of both skepticism and implicit bias. Next I will provide an example of how skepticism can be formed from implicit bias. I will support the example by using evidence from A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice by Herbert Simon. Implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.
Structuralism, as stated by Ajandi, examines inequities in power by revealing structures as the root of problems, rather than the individual (2018). Structuralism influences on AOP; it defines itself through structural power and its wrath of inequalities on those unlike the dominant group. AOP upholds the idea of relieving the sense of blame the individual holds and identifies their problems stem from the structures and systems put in place with the intent of discriminating against them. Anti-oppressive practice goes one step further with the concepts of structuralism by expressing the dire need for communication. According to Wilson & Beresford (2000), anti-oppressive practice promotes knowledge and expertise in each situation with every different service user, as no two situations require the exact same theories and practices.
The author uses this to explain his message which is that he believes that society affects the way we see people and makes many people immediately assume that someone is a particular thing based on how their appearance. The author, Brent Staples, appeals to emotions as a way to prove to the audience his point of how our society views certain races, genders, etc. Staples uses
Unlike the quantitative approach, the qualitative one does not investigate through a hypothetico-deductive approach, where a hypothesis is tested. Qualitative research is more concerned in studying the processes of the experiences, rather than the outcomes (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2009). An approach to the qualitative methodology which I chose for my research is the Phenomenological one. This approach focuses on the participants understanding of their own experiences and on their own personal meaning of the world around them. Phenomenology does not give scientific facts about the world around us, but tries to explain how the world appears through the individual’s perception.
Ethnocentrism occurs when one culture comes into contact with another. It the evaluation of one culture based on preconceived ideas that have derived from the customs and traditions from one’s own culture. William Summer, an American sociologist, believes that an ethnocentrism is “A view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything and all others are scaled and rated in reference to it” (Sorrells 2013). This phenomenon can have detrimental outcomes; such as stereotyping and prejudice both of which may hinder intercultural relations and assimilation therefore impacting on societal cohesion. We, as humans, are naturally drawn to people of similar nature; be it language or culture (Jackson 2014).
They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it. Throughout this essay, cultural relativism will be questioned, but also supported in some ways. The idea of cultural relativism reminds me of a sociological term--ethnocentrism--that essentially means the opposite. Ethnocentrism is essentially a bias about your own culture against other cultures. One can only see their culture (usually as dominant to the others), rather than attempting to see the perspective of whatever culture is in question.
Political science and political philosophy are two unique philosophies of different eras that review and study the political behaviors and values. Political philosophy is regarded as an ancient concept which followed back to Socrates who encouraged partisanship in politics. Moving to the political science, it is a modern study of political behavior that supports the non-partisanship. Political scientists are not interested in political argues like political philosophers, because they want to deal with facts as they believe. But such debates will not have solutions.
The Darwin theory does not provide a basis for conclusion of who is important between an animal and a human being. The argument of value and speciality was not the message in Darwin’s theory. Therefore, Stephen believes that James is riding on another man’s facts to justify his theory. James is a philosopher and so all his arguments take a philosophical look. Stephen, a scientist, is more interested with facts rather than critical thinking.
Since it is not an option for cruel punishment to be used as a deterrence, the question arises; how does the state exhibit and enforce their supremacy upon the general public to ensure that individuals abide by the norms and customs of society? The goal of this paper is to answer this question through the utilization of French philosopher Michel Foucault’s theory of power. The paper will outline the key components that caused most democratic countries to move away from the idea of cruel penalties as a way to ensure obedience to the set rules. The paper will also differentiate between sovereign and disciplinary power, primarily concentrating on the prevailing relationship between modern society and disciplinary power. By doing so, additional scholars will be incorporated to examine various viewpoints on the notion of power and contrast any critiques present with Foucault’s ideas.
This article engages with the theories of Foucault and Agamben and focuses on their work on resistance. It studies the different construction to the concept of individual, which termed into singularity or life itself. In Agamben theory, dispositive represents the power relation network, articulates how a power not based upon classical conception of sovereignty is a key term in Focualt thought that human being is transformed into both an object and subject, on power relation. Agamben also focus on that how dispositif specially operates as an apparatus to control humanity. In analyzing the term dispositif Foucault and Agamben are look like offering two different pproaches for considering of free social life from the binds of oppressive social