The Bureaucracy and the American Dream The relationship between bureaucracy and the government is that it posted a lot of challenges since its inception (Warner). Bureaucracies are very relevant because they are the working machinery of the government (Lazo). Embodied with different functions, they are supposed to carry out their responsibilities effectively and efficiently. But because bureaucrats have their own interest, their purpose is sometimes, if not often, defeated. With Americans embracing the American Dream, bureaucratic agencies should implement laws and make rules that would make this American Dream realistic.
The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united. How can we give up our individual rights without hurting them? Rousseau states, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the crux of
In order to compare and contrast varying types of government within two or more countries, one must have a clear definition of Government and know the purposes it serves. Therefore, I did some research and I have established that Government is a group that exercises dominant power over a nation, state, society or other body of people. Governments are commonly responsible for constructing and implementing laws, handling money, and defending the general population from external threats, and may have other obligations or privileges. All over the world, there are many different types of government within countries. Each kind has its advantages as well as disadvantages regarding the general well-being of its peoples and economy.
At first glance and brief investigation it becomes clear the philosophy of Michel Foucault predominantly centres around the idea of power and through further inspection how power operates in society, how do people, institutions, governments & nations gain or lose power and furthermore how do they maintain or exercise said power and his central theme or revelation regarding power seems to be that it is closely connected with knowledge. Michel Foucault is regarded as a politically charged activist type of philosopher as through research and documented evidence we find that although his philosophy and intellectual ideas span across and cover a vast array of topics such as how society has oppressed and exiled those deemed insane and psychologically unfit in his critically acclaimed ‘Madness in Civilization’ or his general criticism of the bourgeoisie power structures through neutral seeming institutions such a hospitals and doctor clinics in “The Birth of the Clinic”. Michel Foucault argues that modern medicine which is mainly attributed to the capitalist proletariat class is fundamentally sinister because they claim an abundant amount of power though there is no impartial body to regulate the way in which they exercise power, instead of healing and attempting to genuinely understand and look further to those deemed ‘insane’ they simply label, categorize and recognize and treat the diagnosed symptoms of there patients like mechanical animals. In my interpretation it seems that
It seems very common and prevalent in the society that people demand power without responsibility, probably because their concept is that they are not obligated to anyone. This is utterly counter-productive and has very dangerous consequences for those who persist in attempting it. Responsibility requires objectivity and self-discipline which will assure that the power you possess will find an internal respite within you and you will be accomplished with the contributions you rendered. Finally, I come back to the question t I made at the beginning. Should power be used with “responsibility”?
In their bid to provide proper governance systems, firms have effectively introduced complex systems involving the separation of ownership and management whilst at the same time providing certain limits that go against this very stipulations. In effect therefore we find that it is the very owners who have the final decision about the course of the firm whether in a managerial capacity or not; thereby causing a conflict between the interests of the firm and those of the society and the shareholders of the firm. It is no surprise that the rulings usually are in the favor of the firm as opposed to the individual shareholders. Secondly, most of the world’s largest economic bodies or agencies are also clouded with much secrecy i.e. World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World trade organization.
ARIS describes the human element of resistance which is a pivotal fact prior definitions would rather us to ignore. These non-violent or “Velvet” revolutions or resistance movements have been successful at achieving their objectives and should not be easily discarded. Something easily done with the previous view on resistance and conflict. Essentially, ARIS is drawing attention to the gradual transformation of a non-violent resistance into a violent resistance. Acceptance of this awareness in all forms should enable political and military leaders the necessary cues to intervene within a resistance at the optimal point in
Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated. Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
The onset of democracy led to people start to publicly question the actions of governments and demanded inclusion of their voice in the running of the affairs of the governments. What the public wants translates into public opinion. In a democracy, stakeholders such as journalists, public office holders, ordinary citizens and the corporate executives need to know the sorts of initiatives and policies the public holds and supports. Public opinion is not exclusive to government affairs but the society as a whole. It is the evaluation that is collectively expressed by the people on political and social issues, individuals and institutions and is characterized by the representation of only one dominant opinion in a sea of many possible ones.
It can be a vital force against the powerful instances of economic oligarchy apart from being a factor helping in lessening the ossification of the bureaucracy. To explain the policy and action to the public, different administrative offices are under the constant necessity and need of recognising the trend of public opinion. The public has to be convinced before it can lend its cooperation. The notion that the legislature alone has to keep contacts with the people which was prevalent in the nineteenth century has now much changed. In the twentieth century democratic philosophy the increasing realisation is that even the executive and the administrative branch of the government must have public contacts.