The speech used is full of double meanings and there are many symbolic features in the play Essay Example For Students

The speech used is full of double meanings and there are many symbolic features in the play Essay Romeo and Juliet is a very intense and dramatic play which requires a lot of thought. The speech used is full of double meanings and there are many symbolic features in the play. The author of the play, William Shakespeare was born on the 23rd of April 1564 in Stratford upon Avon. He was initially a schoolteacher and then a playwright. Shakespeare started writing books in 1592, he also wrote for James the 1st. He married in 1582 to Anne Hathaway. They had two daughters and one son who unfortunately died at an early age and was buried in Stratford upon Avon. William Shakespeare died at the age of 52 on the 23rd of April 1616. He too was buried in Stratford upon Avon. We will write a custom essay on The speech used is full of double meanings and there are many symbolic features in the play specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The play Romeo and Juliet shows what life was like at that time that Shakespeare was writing. It shows the culture of the time and what the people believed in. Girls were considered to be the property of their fathers, for example. The graphic details and his vivid imagination really bring the play to life. Juliets father has arranged for her to marry the count, Paris. We know that Juliet does not want to marry Paris because she is always thinking about Romeo, she is also afraid because she has sinned against god, she says in the script for I have need of many orisons to move the heavens to smile upon my face. Juliet is given a potion which will make her appear dead but will not kill her so that she can marry Romeo secretly. Juliet is scared to take the potion as it may not have the desired effect on her, What if this mixture do not work at all? Shall I be married then tomorrow morning? No, no, this shall forbid it, lie thee there. laying down her dagger. And then she goes on to say what if it be a poison which the Friar subtly hath ministered to have me dead. She almost calls the nurse back because she is so frightened and she is also very lonely but decides there is no need for the nurse to be there and that taking the potion is an act that she should do in her own company. William Shakespeare describes Juliet very well. He uses the start of the scene to show the audience the immense pressure that Juliet is under. His use of words such as cold fear thrills and freezes up the heat of life shows how desperate she is for the potion to work and how she feels about it not working. She does not want to marry Paris and would rather die than do so but has no choice. Shakespeare has used the conversation between Juliets mother and the nurse to show the viewer how lonely Juliet is feeling. This goes on to Juliets soliloquy. Juliet starts questioning herself about taking the potion. On the stage direction it shows us she has prepared a knife, Laying down her knife. It shows she acts alone, she does not want to marry Paris and this shows she intends not to. William Shakespeare takes us through at least five interesting situations between Juliet and her conscience. For each one Shakespeare uses graphic description to give us a better understanding of the conflict and confusion Juliet is going through. These graphic descriptions that Shakespeare takes us through get increasing tense. Juliet is filled with fearful thoughts, Is the Friar honest?, and Will I awake in the tomb before he comes? Juliet thinks about this potion, what will happen is she takes it, what will happen if she doesnt? She is also scared that potion might actually kill her. I have a faint cold fear thrill through my veins. Despite this she still drinks the potion. .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .postImageUrl , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:hover , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:visited , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:active { border:0!important; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:active , .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u4246fb237ac101d7621a22b3b3bfabea:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Shylock is a tragic figure, trapped by prejudice and driven to revenge by the treatment he receives EssayIf this mixture does not work will she marry Paris in the morning? She lies down with a dagger next to her in case the potion does not work as it is said to. What if this mixture is poison that the Friar gave her as a punishment for her sin? These are all thoughts going through her head. It seems as though she is going mad. What if she wakes up in a tomb buried with all other rotten flesh of her ancestors? She might even be laid to rest next to Tybalt! What if she awakes buried, what loathsome smells and shrikes like mandrakes torn out of the earth. O, if I wake, shall I not be distraught, environed with al these hideous fears, and madly play with my forefathers joints, and pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud, and in this rage with some great kinsmans bone, as with a club, dash out my desprate brains? The use of words here is really strong and shows Juliets anguish at the potion not working and how confused she is about the situation. She then falls on to her bed. There is definite and powerful theme in Juliets soliloquy of death and suicide. A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life, is the initial phrase that suggests this. The language used throughout the play and certainly in Juliets soliloquy has many negative connotations which engage the audience as they want to know what the outcome will be.

Mozart and his Opera Writing essays

Mozart and his Opera Writing essays Considered one of the greatest musicians to have lived during the classical period in musical history, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria, Jan. 27, 1756, the son of Leopold Mozart and his wife, Anna Maria Pertl. Wolfgang came from a family that was saturated with musical talent. His father, Leopold was a successful composer and violinist and assistant concertmaster at the Salzburg court. He had an older sister, Maria Anna who played the keyboard and toured with Wolfgang. Mozart composed a variety of works and but among his most acclaimed works are the operas Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute, and The Marriage Figaro. Mozart may be considered the most acclaimed opera writers, and one should recognize this over any other fact about Mozart. Wolfgang showed incredible musical talent at a very early age, composing when he was five and when he was six playing for the Austrian empress. He was a child prodigy and his father, Leopold felt that it would be in the best interest for Wolfgang to showoff his talent, so when he was six the family embarked on a series of concert tours through Europe's courts and major cities. Mozart amazed his audiences with his skills; he played to the French and English royal families, and had his first music published in Paris, where he wrote his earliest symphonies. The first works of young Mozart that were published were four sonatas written in 1764. The Mozart family continued to tour and while in Vienna, in 1768, Wolfgang composed his first opera, La Finta Semplice, but it was not performed because of skepticism and indifferences; it was first presented a year later at Salzburg. According to Leopold, it was the Emperor Joseph II who asked the boy twice whether he would like to compos e an opera and conduct it himself. Wolfgang, Leopold reported, said yes. (Boerner). The setting of the opera takes place in at a country estate near Cremona. The opera portrays ...

Judith Butlers 'Imitation and Gender Insubordination' Essay

Judith Butlers 'Imitation and Gender Insubordination' - Essay Example She is not a feminist. She departs from feminist theory to do other things. Drawing ideas from other writers and philosophers, her methods are rich and interesting and many feminists are struck and excited about her work. But other writers and thinkers see her ideas as taking away from the real and practical needs of women. Discussion Butler (1989) tries to ask essential questions. For example, she asks, once the subject "outs" her- or himself, is that person "free of its subjection and finally in the clear'?† (308). Or does the the subjection continue? But what does the following mean, characteristic of Butler's writing: "Can sexuality even remain sexuality once it submits to a criterion of transparency and disclosure .." (309) For something to determine itself, some other must exist to make this determination, and what is it this other? This other is a "prior to" and it is the most interesting thing which Butler says, I believe. Her thought is easily confusing unless one grab s hold of that idea. She is looking for the prior and I believe she is asking does whatever the prior is establish sexuality or is the prior already a sexually determined object. There is a danger that coming out "reinscribes the power domains that it resists" and that it is part of the "heterosexual matrix that it seeks to displace" (309). One must try to locate the "framework that privileges heterosexuality as origin". Butler would like to use the concept of the speech act (from philosopher John Austin) to say the way one creates being is the way in which one may create herself or himself. There is a difficulty perhaps always in this activity as one must ask who it doing the creating? From what position is the creating done, that of homosexuality or heterosexuality? I think it is important for Butler, because she wants to produce an original, defensible "I' that is thoroughly lesbian or homosexual, without the pejorative connotation. But that is her very problem. the pejorative co nnotation is already tied into the words and their origin from the heterosexual point of view. Butler would like to reach a non-reflexive position that perhaps is neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Butler has to establish, more or less a "private language", one that is not derived from the present language, because the present language already has the power relationships of sexual identities established in it - that is a man, and that is a woman. But Butler seeks "that grid of cultural intelligibility that regulates the real and the nameable' (312). 'Lesbian' exists as an 'abiding falsehood' in present discourse Hence as a falsehood, the being of lesbianism is denied, it has been erased from discourse. She and others must place it back, but it cannot be done under present 'existing regulatory regimes'. These regimes had wrongly created the category in the first place. There must be a prior for Butler. For example there is no prior to 'gender', hence the concept of ‘drag†™ itself is an original model, â€Å"gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original â€Å" (her italics 333). Butler goes further and even makes heterosexuality a model for which there is no original. Her supporting writers then say that concepts of sexuality are socially constructed and not original forms that are necessary in some accepted way. She argues, "...there are no secondary consequences which retrospectively confirm the originality" of the original model (313). Because heterosexuality must always be in the act of replicating and emulating itself, there is always the risk that it will lose itself. I have a friend who says he must always prove to himself ‘not homosexual' by always repeating it or comparing himself to

Human Development In The Glass Menagerie By Tennessee Williams Essay

Human Development In The Glass Menagerie By Tennessee Williams - Essay Example The play tries to justify that complete and happy families should have the support of the male’s household heads. Amanda’s family has no father as he abandoned them. They try to find the happiness they do not have and end up living in fear and neglects. Therefore, Tom takes the responsibility to take care of the family despite his small age. The new roles affect his psychological development. Tom’s parental duties at a tender age deprive him of his prime youth experience. Human development is a process, and everyone should enjoy every stage of his or her life thus, psychological mismatch evidence in Tom’s boredom in family issues. Glass Menagerie emphasizes roles of parents in child development. However, the play illustrates strictness and decision making on behalf of kids as positive attributes of a good mother. Amanda is strict on Tom and Laura. She expresses her desire for Laura to have a right date and asks for Tom’s assistance but quickly becomes angry that she dropped out of typing class because of shyness. In psychological perspectives, parents should understand the strengths and weaknesses of their children and help them to overcome the challenges. Amanda’s approach is worse and only serves to humiliate Laura. She also offers little assistance to enable Laura to overcome shyness. Amanda is a character who does not tolerate mistakes among her children. Thus, she engages in every aspect of their lives with the notion of providing the moral support. Nonetheless, she portrays qualities of a mother who is overprotective. Her approach is not a healthy approach to parenting because she provides little time for the Tom and Laura to explore the world and establish their desires. Her actions are evident when she asks Tom to introduce Laura to a friend. Jim disappoints Laura making Amanda yell at Tom. She is the cause of her daughter’s heartbreak, and reason Tom left their home (Bloom 72).

To Explain Fire Setting Behaviour Psychology Essay

To Explain Fire Setting Behaviour Psychology Essay Intentional firesetting is a costly and serious form of anti social behaviour that can have devastating consequences, both personally and financially. Encapsulating this notion, fire departments in the United States confirmed that in 2007, there were over 300,000 intentionally set fires recorded, causing hundreds of fatalities, thousands of injuries and generated over a billion dollars of financial costs (Hall, 2010). The term firesetting is often used interchangeably with the legal term arson, defining the specific criminal act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to damage or defraud (Vaughn et al, 2010). Conversely, firesetting is the term used to describe to incidences whereby the deliberate setting of fires may not have been prosecuted for a variety of reasons (e.g. insufficient severity to cause damage or has not been detected as a deliberate fire; identity of the firesetter is unknown; insufficient evidence to gain a conviction; or the young age of the setter; Dickens Sugarman, 2012). Firesetting is therefore applicable to a wider scale of people who deliberately engage in setting fires, than the narrow definition of arson. Existing research suggests that such behaviour is more frequently perpetrated by child and juveniles than adults (Kolko, 1985). However recent findings show that approximately one million people in the United States, and 200,000 in UK have set a fire since the age of 15 (Dickens Sugarman, 2012), thereby suggesting firesetting often continues into adulthood (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). Research into the potential origins of the behaviour indicates that such actions are strongly correlated with a range of individual characteristics and antecedents (Vaughn et al, 2010). What is more, firesetting is a symptom of pyromania, however as the community prevalence of this is apparently rare (Grant, Levine, Kim Potenza, 2005; Lejoyeux, Arbarateaz, McLoughlin Adà ©s, 2002), the suggestion of co-morbidity between firesetti ng and more common types of mental disorder, as found by a range of scholars (Anwar, Là ¥ngstrom, Grann Fazel 2011; Blanco et al, 2010; Bradford Dimock, 1986; Richie Huff, 1999; Vaughn et al, 2010) has been preferred. As a result, these associations have largely featured in the construction of typologies, single factor and multifactor theories that attempt to explain firesetting behaviour. This essay aims to critically assess such theories. A fundamental basis for effective assessment and treatment of criminal behaviour is awareness of, and comprehensive understanding of etiological theory. This provides a core framework from which to plot the interrelationships between an offenders presented clinical phenomena and central psychological variables. Within literature relating to sexual offending, Ward and Hudson (1998) eluded to a meaningful method of conceptualising etiological theory into two types; single factor and multi factor theories (Ward Hudson, 1998). As these figure throughout the essay, it is favourable to address each style. Single factor theories are those which focus on explaining a lone factor and its causal relationship with offending. Conversely, multifactor theories unite various single factor theories into a thorough outline of offending, providing an account of how the factors are merged to facilitate offending behaviour (Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Doley Alleyne, 2012). A further, and relatively underdeveloped form of theory absent from those detailed by Ward and Hudson (1998) is taxonomic classification, or typologies. Here, various offenders are subtyped into groups, based on shared motivational factors, personality characteristics, demographic aspects or a combination of each (Gannon Pina, 2010). These classifications represent unilateral assemblage that when deemed sufficient and reliable, play an effective role in assessment and treatment, as well as feeding into more comprehensive theories of offence behaviour (Gannon et al, 2012). Because of this reason, typologies will feature at the beginning of this evaluation. Before commencing however, it is beneficial to portray what constitutes the typical firesetter. Firstly, reports from several scholars have suggested that the majority of apprehended firesetters are white (Bennett Hess, 1984; Ritchie Huff, 1999; Rix, 1994). Concerning gender, figures confirm that male firesetters are more frequent than female firesetters, for example one study highlighted that in excess of 80% of self reported firesetters were male, equal to a male:female gender ratio approximating 5:1 (Blanco et al, 2010; Vaughn et al, 2010). In support, similar gender ratios that approach or exceeding this are common in various selected samples (Bourget Bradford, 1989; Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Stewart, 1993). Firesetting therefore, appears largely to be a male activity. In relation to age, studies have found that more than half of firesetters were aged 18-35 years, compared to 31% of the non-firesetter control population. In addition, older firesetters were found to be rare, with 4% aged 65 years and over, compared with 16% of population controls (Blanco et al; Vaughn et al, 2010). Other scholars have also reported a tendency towards youth as a risk factor (Bourget Bradford, 1989; Puri, Baxter Cordess, 1995). Therefore, firesetters appear to be generally young and moreover, a large number of studies further show that the majority of which are typically younger than non-firesetting criminals (Hurley Monahan, 1969; Rice Harris, 1991). Lastly, firesetters tend to be low achievers in education and more likely to be unemployed or unskilled than other non-firesetting offenders (Bradford,1982; Harris Rice, 1991), disadvantaged in terms of social class (Hurley Monahan, 1969) and also possess difficulties in forming long lasting relationships, as many are typically reported to be living alone and never to have married (Bourget Bradford,1989; Puri et al, 1995; Ritchie Huff, 1999; Dickens, Sugarman, Edgar, Hofberg, Tewari Ahmad, 2009). Representing the very earliest stages of theory development are typologies, of which there have been many (e.g. Icove Estepp, 1987; Inciardi, 1970; Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Rix, 1994). Perhaps the first researchers to provide a classificatory system for firesetters were Lewis and Yarnell (1951) who, using 2000 reports of firesetting identified four reasons as to why fires were set, these included: unintentionally, through delusions, through erotic pleasure and to acquire revenge (Lewis Yarnell, 1951). This early typology was pioneering since it laid the foundations for other researchers to add to (Bradford, 1982). One scholar who obliged several years later was Inciardi (1970) who examined records of paroled firesetters released from state prisons over a six year period and observed six categories of firesetter: institutionalised, insurance claim, vandalism, crime concealment, excitement and revenge (Inciardi, 1970). A key strength of Inciardis (1970) work was the amount of participants studied, but another was that there were similarities between two of the categorisations proposed by himself, and Lewis and Yarnell (1951). This is significant as the presence of these categories within firesetting can be linked to and supported by other empirical findings. For example, in reference to their erotic pleasure (Lewis Yarnell, 1951) and excitement (Inciardi, 1970) categories, these hold particular relevance to symptoms of pyromania (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), an impulsive disorder characterised by intense fascination with and a desire to associate oneself with fire and fire paraphernalia, though as there are many diagnostic restrictions, the prevalence of pyromania is rare (Doley, 2003). An additional similarity seen between the two typologies (Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Incairdi, 1970) is the inclusion of revenge as a category, which is supported as a motive for firesetting by many scholars (e.g. Koson Dvoskin, 1982; Pettiway, 1987; Rix, 1994). A key criticism of the typologies proposed by Inciardi (1970) and similar ones that followed (e.g, Dennet, 1980; Icove Estepp, 1987; Rautaheimo, 1989) was that their categories were generally too broad (Gannon et al, 2012). Therefore, later typologies used a smaller number of categories using data driven strategies (e.g. Almond, Duggan, Shine Canter, 2005; Canter Fritzon, 1998; Harris Rice, 1996; Rice Harris, 1991), providing an empirically stronger classification of firesetters (Gannon et al, 2012). One such example by Rice and Harris (1996) investigated 11 variables thought to be closely associated with firesetting, in a sample of 243 mentally disordered firesetters. They discovered four categories labelled as: psychotics (motivated by delusions and characterised by few incidents), unassertives (motivated mainly by anger or vengeance and characterised by low assertiveness), multifiresetters (primarily set fires in institutions and characterised by poor developmental experience s), and criminals (likely to operate at night, characterised by poor developmental experiences and, personality disorder) (Rice Harris, 1996). Rice and Harriss (1996) typology is possibly one of the strongest available as not only does it state the criteria required for group membership, but many of their aspects above are supported by empirical research (Gannon et al, 2012). For instance, the presence of personality disorder in Rice and Harriss (1996) criminal category is supported by findings that show antisocial personality disorder is particularly common in firesetters (APA, 2000; Bradford, 1982; Kolko, 1985; Kolko Kazdin, 1991). This is in addition to support for the presence of delusions as a motivation for firesetting, since a link between firesetting and schizophrenia has also been demonstrated (Geller, 1987; McKerracher Dacre, 1966; Richie Huff, 1999). One could argue however, that the presence of psychopathology within Rice Harriss (1996) sample was expected, as it was limited to those who were mentally disordered (Gannon et al, 2012). Although one of the adjudged reasons identified by Lewis and Yarnell (1951) as to why a fire may be set was through delusions (Lewis Yarnell, 1951), and this research was based on a sample free from mental disorder. Shared characteristics of firesetters identified in typologies often help to initiate scholars to explain these through psychological theory, thus our attention is now shifted towards single factor theories of firesetting. Possibly the earliest single factor theory was proposed by Freud (1932), later elaborated upon by other authors (Gold, 1932; Macht Mack, 1968). Here it was hypothesised that firesetting originates from either a urethral or oral fixated sexual drive. Firstly, youngsters are believed to experience enuresis as a means of attempting to extinguish firesetting occurring in dreams and secondly, firesetting is seen to symbolise repressed sexual urges (Gannon Pina, 2010). Other psychodynamic accounts made use of instinctual drives, such as aggression and anxiety to explain firesetting (e.g. Kaufman, Heims Reiser, 1961). However as there is a notorious lack of empirical evidence to offer support to psychodynamic theory (Hollin, 2013), it is unsurprising that there is litt le support this, or the suggestion that that those who set fires find the act sexually arousing (Rice Harris, 1991; Quinsey, Chaplin Upfold, 1989), or that there is a high rate of enuresis amongst firesetters. In contrast, considerably more praise has been gathered by researchers focusing on the role of biology and neurological impairment in order to explain firesetting behaviour (Gannon Pina, 2010). For example, evidence suggests that firesetters have decreased concentrations of cerebrospinal fluid monomaine metabolites (Roy, Virkkunen, Guthrie Linnoila, 1986; Virkkunen, Nuutila, Goodwin Linnoila, 1987; Virkkunen, Dejongm Bartko Linnoila, 1989). Furthermore, Virkkunen et al (1989) found that recidivist firesetters were those most likely to have such abnormalities relative to non-recidivist firesetting, therefore suggesting that such abnormal neurotransmitter defects could account for prolonged and impulsive cases of firesetting. However as firesetting is often co-morbid with impulse disorder (Lidberg, Belfrage, Bertilsson, Evenden Ã…sberg, 2000), such abnormalities are unlikely to be specific to the act of firesetting itself. Perhaps the most supported concept relating to neuropsychological and biological theories of firesetting, is through brain injury. Evidence has found 28% of arsonists referred to forensic psychiatry services had a history of brain injury (Puri et al, 1995) and furthermore, abnormal electroencephalography readings were found amongst arsonists also when compared to non-offending and other offending controls (Bradford, 1982; Hill et al, 1982). Here it is believed that such trauma may exert an exaggerating force that leads one to engage in firesetting behaviour (Kolko, 2002). One main area of praise for biological perspectives of firesetting is that they offer promise for rehabilitation, depending on the nature of the abnormality (e.g. provision of serotoninergic drugs for offenders with low levels of cerebrospinal fluid monomaine metabolites; JoviĆ¡, MirkovĆ¡, MajiĆ¡-Singh MilovanoviĆ¡, 1999). However, cases of firesetting associated solely on biological causes are rare, meaning this may limit professional examination of psychological and sociological factors that are also likely to be associated with firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). The final and most contemporary single factor theory of firesetting left to address is Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976). The main assertion here is that firesetting is the product of reinforcement contingencies and learning through modelling or imitation (Bandura, 1976; Kolko Kazdin, 1986; Macht Mack, 1968; Singer Hensley, 2004). For example, Vreeland and Levin (1980) propose that firesetting can be instantly reinforcing via sensory excitement connected to fire, in addition to the sirens, noise and crowds elicited by fire (Vreelin Levin, 1980). Furthermore, as positive reinforcement does not necessarily need to be directly experienced for social learning to transpire, learning associated with fire may occur vicariously through mere exposure to fires (legitimate or illegitimate), or key models of firesetting behaviour (e.g. parents and caregivers; Gannon et al, 2012). In support, there is key evidence showing firstly, that firesetters fathers occupations often involve consid erable exposure to fire (e.g. firemen; Stewart, 1993). Secondly, firesetters tend to be raised in environments where fire is more pervasive (e.g. countryside locations; Wolford, 1972), or used as punishment (Ritvo, Shanok Lewis, 1983). And finally, firesetters often orginate from families with a history of firesetting (Rice Harris, 1991). Social Learning Theory can also be applied in conjunction with earlier discussion of firesetting typologies, of which a common category proposed was firesetting that related to revenge or was anger induced (Lewis Yarnell, 1951; Inciardi, 1970; Rice Harris, 1996). For example, Social Learning Theory forecasts that self-regulatory responses are created as a product of reinforcement contingencies. Consequently, poor childhood socialisation personified through exposure to negative developmental experiences and role models are likely to result in aggression, poor coping skills and a lack of assertiveness (Gannon Pina, 2010). As there is a wealth of evidence to support the presence of such traits amongst firesetters (e.g. Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1969; Jackson et al, 1987; Rice Chaplin, 1979; Rice Harris, 2008; Root, Mackay, Henderson, Del Bove Warling, 2008; Showers Pickrell, 1987; Smith Short, 1995), these are likely to incline individuals towards reckless behaviours (Nagin Pate rnoster, 1993) and launch a propensity to light fires to gain positive environmental control (Vreeland Levin, 1980). Thus Social Learning Theory foretells that various developmental experiences, cues, cognitive perceptions and expectations shape a persons proclivity for firesetting, notably as a form of learnt aggression (Gannon Pina, 2010). However one key limitation is that it is unclear which combination of factors culminates in facilitating other forms of firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). The final type of theory to consider addresses key features of previous theories to present a more holistic view to the path of firesetting, known as multifactor theories. Here, interactions are explicitly defined between individual characteristics and features of the social environmental that are integral to the decision to offend. Within this perspective there are two main approaches to consider. The first of which used Functional Analysis Theory principles (Sturmey, 2008), to explain firesetting as an interaction of antecedents and behavioural consequences (Jackson et al, 1987). Referring to their clinical experience of firesetters, research literature and tenets of Social Learning Theory, Jackson et al (1987) formulated the core associative links hypothesised to produce and reinforce firesetting. Regarding antecedents, five factors were assumed: psychosocial disadvantage, life dissatisfaction and self loathing, social ineffectiveness, factors determining the individuals experienc es of fire and internal or external firesetting triggers (Jackson et al, 1987). Within this paradigm, firesetters are viewed as individuals who, throughout their early years experience significant social difficulties and are unable to satisfy their emotional and social needs through appropriate means (Jackson et al, 1987). However, involvement in fire and fire paraphernalia allows for some control to be exerted over their environment, which is ordinarily unobtainable to them. This is in addition to increased attention from distracted or distanced caregivers such that fire interest is positively reinforced. Such increases in personal effectiveness and self esteem, alongside sensory stimulation of the fire therefore increases interest in fire, thereby mounting the likelihood of firesetting in the future (Gannon et al, 2012). Jackson et al further add that negative reinforcement priniciples may play an equally important role in developing and maintaining firesetting. Here they suggest punitive consequences of firesetting (e.g. rejection, punishment, intense and increased supervision) may strengthen the offenders personal inadequacies already experienced, such that firesetting behaviours are continued (Jackson et al, 1987). A main strength of the Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987) is that there is a wealth of evidence available that favours the hypothesised association between firesetting and psychosocial disadvantage (e.g. Blackburn, 1993; Geller, 1987, Hollin, 1989; Inciardi, 1970). For example, as well as being generally psychiatrically disturbed (Barnett Spitzer, 1994), many firesetters suffer specifically from depression, low self esteem and substance abuse (Coid, Wilkins Coid, 1999; Puri et al, 1995; Repo, 1998). Whats more, researchers also note specifically that firesetters are frequently socially inept and experience maladjustment across several life domains, such as education and employment and peer personal relations (Bradford, 1982; Harris Rice, 1984; OSullivan Kelleher, 1982; Vreeland Levin, 1980). Although, many of these psychosocial variables are found to be common among other types of offender (Hurley Monahan, 1969), therefore it may not be wise to generalise such fin dings wholly to firesetters. Nevertheless, Jackson et als work is deserving of praise in its unification of isolated findings and hypotheses together into one whole (Gannon Pina, 2010), coupled with its relevance for clinicians, helping to underpin and guide contemporary treatment for firesetting (Swaffer, Haggert Oxley, 2001; Taylor, Thorne Slavin, 2004). As in Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987), the other multifactor theory of firesetting known as the Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1980; 1995), followed the view that such behaviour is a product of historical psychosocial influences that shape a persons tendency to set fires through social learning experiences. The theory stipulates that firesetting is the result of an interaction between historical factors predisposing antisocial actions (e.g. social disadvantage), previous and existing environmental reinforcers (e.g. childhood experiences) and instant environmental reinforcers (e.g. external, internal sensory reinforcement) (Fineman, 1995). The latter is further split into numerous variables that Fineman (1995) argues should be explored by clinicians. These include, impulsivity triggers (e.g. rejection or trauma), crime scene features that may provide reasoning behind such behaviour (e.g. target of a specific individual), cognitions and affects prior to, during an d post firesetting, and lastly any external (e.g. financial reward) or internal reinforcers (e.g. satisfaction or sensory satisfaction). Fineman (1995) ultimately hypothesises that firesetting stems from the culmination of interactions between these aforementioned factors, proceeding to recommend careful investigation of each when assessing and treating firesetters (Fineman, 1995). Akin to Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987), Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1995) plays a key role in developing professional understanding of firesetting. A specific strength of this theory was that the attention paid to the more proximal variables related to firesetting, as this expresses how crucial psychological factors contribute to the development and maintenance of firesetting behaviour (Gannon Pina, 2010). Away from these strengths however, is the problem that empirical support for this theory has largely been limited to findings from juvenile firesetters, meaning many mechanisms associated with adult firesetting are left unexplained by this theory (Gannon et al, 2012). This evaluation has shown that the majority of empirical work undertaken with firesetters has focused on the production of typological classificatory systems and the examination of firesetters psychopathological and sociodemographical features. This information is useful in gaining an essential understanding of a variety of motives behind firesetting behaviour and has paved the way for scholars to address the underlying meaning of such motives through etiological theory. This in turn aims to help deliver effective treatments to firesetters. In response, several single factor theories have been applied to explain firesetting, however these are unable to explain the myriad of features that typically interact to facilitate and maintain firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). Though, one key addition to single factor theories is Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976; Vreeland Levin, 1980), of which key aspects featured throughout both available multifactor theories of firesetting, Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson et al, 1987) and Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1980; 1995). Both multifactor theories hold several strengths, particularly their focus on developmental experiences as a factor explaining interest in, and reinforcement of firesetting (Gannon Pina, 2010). However, despite being the most appropriate method of explaining firesetting, absent from their accounts is any reference to the full range of risk factors or criminogenic needs associated with the broad range of firesetting behaviours, nor is there acknowledgement of the potential factors linked with a desistence from firesetting (Gannon et al, 2012). This inevitably led to the recent development of the Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (Gannon et al, 2012) not discussed in specific detail here, but which integrated the current theory, typological, and research findings considered throughout this essay into one sizeable etiological theory of firesetting and its maintenance and desistence.

Complexometric determination of water hardness Essay

Introduction: The purpose of this experiment is to determine the hardness of a sample of water (#89). Water hardness can be evaluated by an acid-base neutralization titration. (When an acid and a base are placed together, they react to neutralize the acid and base properties, producing a salt.) From the Bronsted-Lowry acid-base reaction theory, the H+ cation of the acid combines with the OH- anion of the base to form water. In this titration experiment, there are no definitive acidic or basic agents being evaluated. This requires the use of the Lewis acid-base theory. Instead of defining acid-base reactions in terms of protons or other bonded substances, the Lewis definition defines a base (referred to as a Lewis base) to be a compound that can donate an electron pair, and an acid (a Lewis acid) to be a compound that can receive this electron pair. Similarly, in either type of acid-base neutralization experiment, an indicator is used to display when the solution is neutralized. The standardized Na2EDTA water solution is will be titrated against the unknown water sample (#89). Upon neutralization, the unknown water sample’s metal cation electrons will transfer to the Na2EDTA solution and will subsequently remove the sodium from the EDTA. (Unknown #89)2+ + Na2EDTA → (Unknown #89)EDTA + 2Na+ Water hardness is expressed in in milligrams per liter. Procedure: The first thing to be done was to manufacture the 0.004 M Na2EDTA solution. This was done by adding 0.7319 g Na2EDTA to approximately 500 mL of DI water. I obtained a 50.0mL burret, a 10.00 mL and a 25.00 mL transfer pipet, and the unknown sample (#89) from the stockroom. The 50.0 mL burret was set in the burret stand. The Na2EDTA was in the burret and CaCO3 solution was in a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The CaCO3 solution was comprised of 10.00 mL of 1.000g CaCO3/mL, approximately 30mL of DI water, 2.5 – 3.5 mL of buffer (ammonia/ammonium chloride), and 4 drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator. The Na2EDTA was being titrated against the CaCO3 while simultaneously being mixed by a magnetic stir bar in the 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The titration was run to completion when theCaCO3 solution turned from a violet to a blue color change. This was done three times for the standardization of the Na2EDTA. The titration for the now standardized Na2EDTA solution against the unknown water sample #89 follows a similar procedure as the first titration except the contents of the 250 mL differ. The Unknown sample solution was comprised of 25.00 mL of unknown, approximately 20 mL of DI water, 2.5 – 3.5 mL of buffer (ammonia/ammonium chloride), and 4 drops of Eriochrome Black T indicator. The Na2EDTA was being titrated against the Unknown while simultaneously being mixed by a magnetic stir bar in the 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. The titration was run to completion when the unknown solution turned from a violet to a blue color change. This was done three times to determine the hardness of water sample #89. Experimental Data & Calculations: 1). Na2EDTA & CaCO3 titration. Na2EDTA solution: 0.7319 g & 500 mL DI Water Trial #1: CaCo3 Solution Na2EDTA Solution 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 31 mL DI water V0 = 0.60 mL 3.4 mL Buffer Vf = 25.20 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 24.60 mL Trial #2: 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 30 mL DI water V0 = 0.60 mL 3.3 mL Buffer Vf = 23.92 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 23.22 mL Trial #3: 10 mL 1.000g CaCO3/L 30 mL DI water V0 = 0.50 mL 3.3 mL Buffer Vf = 24.23 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 23.73 mL 2). Na2EDTA & Unknown water sample #89 titration. Trial #1: Unknown Solution Na2EDTA Solution 25 mL Unknown sample 20 mL DI water V0 = 0.88 mL 3.0 mL Buffer Vf = 13.80 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.92 mL Trial #2: 25 mL Unknown sample 21 mL DI water V0 = 18.60 mL 3.1 mL Buffer Vf = 30.80 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.20 mL Trial #3: 25 mL Unknown sample 20 mL DI water V0 = 30.80 mL 2.9 mL Buffer Vf = 43.20 mL 4 drops Indicator ΔV = 12.20 mL Na2EDTA molarity equation: Na2EDTA ΔV Na2EDTA molarity Trail #1 = 24.6 mL 0.0040 M Trail #2 = 23.22 mL 0.0042 M Trail #3 = 23.73 mL 0.0042 M Na2EDTA mean molarity: Absolute Deviation: Trail #1 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Trail #2 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Trail #3 = 0.0001 M Na2EDTA Estimated precision: Estimated precision = 0.1 ppt. Calculating Water Hardness (parts per million): M mol Na2EDTA = [Na2EDTA]mean = 0.0041 M Trail #1 ΔV = 12.92 mL = 216.4 ppm Trail #2 ΔV = 12.20 mL= 204.3 ppm Trail #3 ΔV = 12.20 mL= 207.7 ppm Parts Per Million Mean Calculation : Discussion: There are two tangibles that I feel may have affected the results of my calculations. The first was being able to use the transfer pipet correctly. I recall two trials where there was a combination of having bubbles in the pipet and adding an excess of the limiting reagent. The other struggle for me in this lab was being able to effectively determine the reaction’s completion by color change. An unnecessary excess of NaEDTA may have been added to determine the reactions completion. These two pitfalls in my method can explain for the error in my work. For practical purpose, water hardness values less than 60 ppm is â€Å"soft†, while water with more than 200 ppm is considered â€Å"hard.† The analysis of my unknown sample came out to be 209 ppm, a â€Å"hard† water sample. To present some validity to my result, I can briefly compare the water hardness’s of my unknown water sample to the 1.000 g CaCO3. The CaCO3 solution has a hardness of 1000 ppm and my calculated unknown has a hardness of 209 ppm. Since the CaCO3 has a higher hardness value, this is why it took more Na2EDTA to neutralize it in the first sets of titrations. This assures me that my calculated result should be less than 1000 pmm.

Discusses Confucius contributions Essay

Confucius’ life was of tremendous importance in the forming of Chinese culture. Confucius’ plan and simple approach to life, revealed his deep seeded beliefs that through great human effort one can shape their own future. He had great faith in the ordinary man and believed that they are teachable and perfectible. Confucius believed that ordinary humans could be come awe-inspiring with wisdom and great knowledge. The quest to improve one’s â€Å"self† became deeply rooted in the Confucian heritage. Confucius’ concept of moral rectitude was considered part of the pursuit to becoming the perfected person. Confucius was devoted to learning and teaching. His teaching emphasized self-improvement and moral rectitude. When his words â€Å"for the sake of the self† are explored it becomes clear Confucius was constant in his belief of self-improvement through out his life and his work. Confucius was a philosopher, teacher and political figure that lived from (551-479 BC) in the state of Lu, now know as the Shandong province. He was a member of the minor aristocracy and bureaucratic class during that time. By the time of his birth, his family had apparently become poverty-stricken. He was known for his conservation of the traditions of ritual and music of the Chou civilization. At an early age, it was apparent that Confucius was dedicated to learning. Confucius’ father died when he was three years old and this probably had a huge impact on his family’s class. The lose of his father and his family being poverty-stricken must have been key factors that set him upon his ambitious journey to improve human kind, governments and society. His mother was his first teacher and he developed an emphatic quest for knowledge. It was a common practice for aristocratic families to hire tutors to educate their sons, but Confucius was one of the first persons to devote himself totally to learning and teaching for the sole purpose of transforming and improving society. Confucius was also a dedicated government servant. He served in government posts where he managed stables and kept books. At the age of nineteen Confucius married a woman of similar background. Confucius’ early influences are all contributing factors that made him a young and wise  scholar during his time. Confucius concept of â€Å"moral rectitude† was evident because he wanted to make education available to all men. He believed everyone could benefit from learning and self-cultivation. Confucius established a humanities program for leaders, paved the way for education to all and redefined learning as not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also as a character builder. Confucius primary role of education was to provide the proper way of training noblemen. This education would consist of continuous self-improvement and frequent social interaction. To personally achieve the goal â€Å"for the sake of the self†, Confucius mastered six arts: ritual, music, archer, charioteering, calligraphy and arithmetic. The art that became most important was that of â€Å"ritual†. Confucius was actively involved with the government. It was his desire to have a rebirth of the ideas and institution of a past golden age. Confucius hoped to integrate the ritual of those times into the government and family life. He believed this could only happen with ideal rulers such as the legendary sage-kings Yao and Shun. Confucius believed that the ethic of an ideal ruler would translate to a moral state. The ideal ruler would cultivate virtues of benevolence toward others, a general sense of doing what is right, loyalty and diligence in serving one’s superiors. The â€Å"moral rectitude† according to Confucius could also be taught and handed down by performing rituals. Ritual acted as guidelines for people to follow in any given social situations. Ritual could vary considerably depending on age, social status and gender. Confucius contributed to some specific rituals and values but also the importance of the past and hierarchy of the social classes. Rituals be came â€Å"the way† to act. Most East Asian societies continue to be influenced by Confucius teachings, valuing the community, the family, and other social relationships over individuality and uniqueness. The Confucius influence encourages support of education and learning from books and from the past, refinement of social rituals to smooth the relationships of people in a community. The western  culture has vastly deviated from Confucius teaching. Each day the western culture ignores more rituals and become more self-absorbed. A glance at today’s headlines or reality TV makes this obvious. Today there are still some existing rituals and moral behavior, but the boundaries blur with each generation. What Confucius provided was a definition of ethics and morally characterized by personal actions and rituals. A simple way to understand Confucius thoughts is to gain an appreciation of the varying levels of honesty. Over time, they developed into the following form: *Li – ritual. Propriety or politeness, Etiquette. This concept originally meant to sacrifice. The term later expanded to secular ceremonial behaviors and then even more diffuse mean, that of propriety or politeness. This expanded the term to everyday life situations. Confucius was revered as the authority on ritual behavior. *Ziao or Hsiao – filial piety. Respect and obedience. The was considered to be the greatest virtue and was shown towards the living and dead. The term ‘filial’ means â€Å"of a son† and therefore denotes that a son should have respect and obedience to his parents. This term was expanded to other relationships such as ruler and subject, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and that between friends. The duties and ritual where prescribed for each of these relationships. Eventually this term was integrated into the Chinese legal system. An example of this would be that a child would be punished more harshly if the crime were against a parent. *Zhong or Chung – loyalty. This term is equivalent to filial piety, but on a different level. This term apply predominantly to the social classes of ruler and minister. In a case of Zhong, a minister should obey the ruler because he has the higher (anointed by god) authority and therefore that maked it the right thing to do. *Ren or Jen – humanness. The relates to the â€Å"Golden Rule† This term is best described by Confucius version of the Golden Rule, â€Å"Do not do to other what  you would not like them to do to you.† *Junzi or Chun-Tzu – the gentleman. The ideal towards which all strive. This term mean â€Å"son of a ruler†. This term implies that a gentleman are always expected to act as moral guides to the rest of society. Gentlemen are those who cultivate themselves morally and who personify the other characteristics of honestly. Confucius is exclamatory of this concept Confucius was a man of great vision. The politics of his time did not allow his philosophy to flourish, but he did provide an awakening to human king. He was perceived then and now as a heroic conscience. Confucius teaching remains enormously influence today, but unfortunately, they are not always taken to heart or practiced. Today’s politicians could learn much from his teaching. One of Confucius’s principal legacies, the notion of the enlightened civil servant, is not a prevalent as it should be in the modern word. Humankind moves forward, but sometimes we forget to bring the greatness of our history with us.