Ferdinand De Saussure’s notion that signs are arbitrary and their values are not intrinsic but instead constituted through difference is a claim that directly stems from his semiological view of linguistics. For Saussure language is a social fact. Saussure argues against the notion that the signifier and signified can be separated. He argues that there is a lack of definitive or intrinsic meaning from the sign itself therefore meaning is produced from the relationship between the signifier and signified, thus they cannot be separated. The value of symbols and images move past plain signification there must be a semiotic and reciprocal relationship between both components for meaning to be produced and recognized.
It highlights mutual involvement between the social worker and the service user, challenging forms of oppression and inequalities (Burke & Harrison, 2002), and presents the idea that service users do not occupy a “single identity”, but instead have interlocking oppressions that work together to put clients at a social disadvantage (Strega, 2007). According to Ajandi, anti-oppressive practice does not believe in a hierarchy of oppression, where all oppressions are on a “level playing field of discrimination” (2018). AOP produces strategies to be used in social work practice to work alongside service user: critical reflection, critical assessment, empowerment, working in partnership with service users, and minimal
As a result they can be accused as appropriating white culture or acting white (Malik, 2016). This is assimilating ones’ self into the national culture and not cultural appropriation. A newcomer learning the host language and local culture for example is expected and is not appropriation. To enforce such a notion is to enforce radical authoritative separation of people based on social notions around race. Some individuals have different national and cultural heritage or even multiple cultural heritages which can result in unique cultural expressions by default and may be accused of cultural appropriation as a
One claim Appiah continuously brings up is the fact that this topic of culture focuses too much on the importance of preserving traditions rather than supporting the people, this can be seen in the following quote, “This same Unesco document is careful to affirm the importance of the free flow of ideas, the freedom of thought and expression and human rights -- values that, we know, will become universal only if we make them so. What 's really important, then, cultures or people?”, while he does have a point that it is important to support the individual, ultimately, by supporting the culture, you are not only supporting the individual, but by preserving and putting an importance of the culture, you simultaneously reinforce the foundation of the cultural which in turn reinforces the individual’s family and future generations to come. This support of the culture will allow the mass amount of individuals to be able to express their opinions and cultural norms in a safe and progressive environment where their social norms are accepted and encouraged, while focusing on the individual and their own culture can have negative effects. In an educational study conducted by Mary C. Hayden & Cynthia S. D. Wong, it was observed that the focus of individuals and their culture in education had to be used with caution, “In terms, however, of its claims to promote international understanding and to
However, according to Urciuoli both of these generalizations do not take into account bilinguals who claim Spanglish as “my language.” The author argues that an identity emerges in ways of speaking and that this process takes on meaning unique to their users. Lastly, Urciuoli argues that speakers of Spanglish deserve to be “acknowledged, not judged or defined out of
While his approach to ethnography provides the reader with a coherent narrative, it neglects to show how the information was gathered or an evaluation of the reliability of the sources. As readers, we must be skeptical of the storyteller’s motives for, as in the nature of storytelling, information is manipulated to convey a certain meaning to the reader; to trust a writer to communicate objectively is dangerous as with explication important information can
Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors. There are three main principles of Nozick’s entitlement theory: justice in acquisition, which accounts how people come about to own things; justice in transfer, where whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred as the owner has absolute property rights over it and thirdly, rectification of injustice, which is how to deal with property that has been unjustly acquired or transferred. An example of this is that if one owns a beach house, the
It is tempting for one to try and obtain more being, however, Beauvoir notes this as living inauthentic. The reason behind this is because one cannot obtain any more being than they already possess. It is also important to realize that being cannot be equated with happiness. One cannot increase happiness by increasing the value of one’s being because it is impossible to increase the value of one 's being in the first place. So, the challenge of assuming one 's own subjectivity is letting go of the desire to be and accepting that you just are.
My perception of my body and matter in general is that it is in its essence divisible (Descartes,1641) This essay here will insert a reference to ‘Leibnitz’s Law’ or otherwise the relatively intuitive principle that for two things to be the same thing, they must share all the qualities of each other. Descartes does not specifically do so, but it is heavily inferred from his argument. Descartes now concludes that since minds are indivisible and bodies are, that according to the Leibnitz’s law they cannot be the same thing and hence: Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
Why would break the rules when you can follow them and have more knowledge. Some people say nonconformity is similar to conforming, but in my opinion nonconformity is different than conforming in many ways. I believe nonconformity is not another way of comforming.They have two different meanings and are the opposite of each other. One is a good thing and the other is more of a don 't go to zone. One reason why noncomformity is not another way in conforming is because they have the different background meanings.