Cultural Characteristics of India Essay Example for Free

Cultural Characteristics of India Essay With more than half of the workforce being in agriculture, services however, is the biggest contributing factor the economic growth in India. The information technology (IT) sector is where most of the growth is taking place. Many companies in the United States are beginning to outsource their help desk and programming specialties to India where the labor is cheaper and there are an abundance of qualified individuals. In-fact many of the positions you see in IT are filled by people native to India simply because training for these specialties is limited in the U. S. For example, if you were looking to hire an Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) developer it is highly unlikely that you will find a U. S. citizen with these skill sets, and if you did the U. S. candidate would certainly be demanding more money. India’s ability to train highly qualified IT professionals and ability to provide cheaper labor will continue to contribute to their increase in economic growth. Ultimately, it is those cultural characteristics we have discussed in class that has led India to so much growth over the last decade. They are a collectivist society, with a large power distance and a different set of value orientations from our own. Higher education is of upmost importance, and often times, much more important than interpersonal relationships. This is evident of the fact that they place so much importance on one’s education and its correlation to family status when selecting a bride/groom in an arranged marriage. India is considered a large power distance culture because there is a clear hierarchy within the family, â€Å"the father rules authoritatively, followed by the eldest son and moving down the ladder by age and sex† (Neuliep, 2009. 9). Within the Indian culture the children are expected to be obedient and many Indian children feel that their parents really don’t understand what it is like to grow up in today’s diverse society. Indian parents constantly expect their children to go to the right schools, only converse with people who share the same cultural backgro unds and to marry within their own race and religion. There are many different religions in India which include: Muslim, Hindu, Christian and Sikh. In India, even though you may share the same ethnicity if you do not share the same religious beliefs, marriage is forbidden. In my research I have come across a common theme within the Indian culture, and that is that Indian parent’s love to gossip about everything; they constantly discuss who got into what school, and who is getting married to whom. It’s not to say that Indian parents don’t want what’s best for their children because they do. In the article Indian Parents and Societal Pressure the author Arti Nehru states, â€Å"The really sad part about all of this is that parents truly want their children to be happy. But they are unsupportive in many instances because they worry about ne thing: What will people say? † The Indian culture is more of a collectivist culture who has the tendency to stress the importance of a group over the importance of the individual. Neuliep confirms that, â€Å"In collectivist cultures, people are not seen as isolated individuals. People see themselves as interdependent with others their (e. g. , their ingroup), where responsibility is shared and accountability is collective. A person’s identity is defined by his or her group memberships† (Neuliep, 2009. Pg. 41). Most of their values come from their traditional beliefs, their religious devotion and their secular spirituality. It is these value orientations that shape the way the Indian culture communicates with individuals in their own culture as well as with individuals outside of their culture. Values can affect the way people communicate within their own culture and with people of different cultures. They are â€Å"evaluative beliefs that synthesize affective and cognitive elements to orient people to the world in which they live† (Mooney, 2001, 2828). The value orientation model is used to compare high-context cultures such as the Indian collectivist culture with low-context individualistic cultures such as the United States. It can be broken down into six different categories: self, family, society, human nature, nature, and supernatural. In a collectivist culture such as the Indian culture â€Å"self† refers to how one may view themselves in relationship to others, and can further be broken down into three different sub-categories: self-identity, age, and activity. In India self-identity would suggest that people value conformity and cooperation. In India people are â€Å"interdependent with others, and for them, responsibility and accountability are shared and divided among the group members. † (Neulip, 2009, 63-64). Age for a collectivist, high-context culture is admired when they are old and conversely, in an individualistic, low-context culture, age is admired when they are young. In a collectivist culture like India the people tend be very spiritual and believe that people should embrace life. The activity one performs on a daily basis is of less importance in a country like India. Whereas in the United States, activity ften refers to how people identify themselves through their activities such as their professions and occupations. Often times when Americans are asked who they are, they will answer with what they do for a living; indicating that they tend to associate who they are, with what they do. Family within a collectivist culture such as India tends to be more authoritative in nature. The â€Å"head of the household† will make the decisions rather than having everyone work together as a democracy when making decisions. In India, families are less mobile, and will always attempt to sit down together when eating dinner. There is often a strict hierarchy that is followed among family members with the man of the house being at the top. The men and women in Indian families have very different roles within the family, which coincide with one’s hierarchal power. The male of the house makes the decisions, provides for the family and the women often times make the meals at night and take care of the children. In Indi,a family is a very important concept and marriage is considered to be sacred and is meant to last a life time. The term â€Å"society† in India can be broken down into two categories: social reciprocity and group membership. According to Neuliep â€Å"social reciprocity refers to the mutual exchanges people make in their dealings with others† (65). In collectivist cultures like India, if one asks another for a favor it is expected that an equal exchange of favors will occur. In India, group membership is often a pervasive formality; they have a tendency to join only a few different groups over a life-time. In the United States membership in a group is usually short lived, whereas in India people are highly selective and group membership is usually a prolonged commitment. This idea of a prolonged commitment to a group stems from those same cultural values that marriage does. In India, they practice arranged marriages and it is considered a lifelong commitment that is viewed as sacred. What may seem strange to the youth in the United States is actually embraced by youth in India. Many children in India feel that it gives them the ability to focus on their youth, and their education without the distraction or worry that an adolescence relationship can bring to the picture. It is also said that the youth in India â€Å"feel secure in their parent’s ability to choose an acceptable partner for them, trusting that their parents have enough experience and knowledge to do so without creating a disastrous situation† (Galt, 2011, 2). Many cultures like India believe that when marriages are not pre-arranged they tend to burn out too quickly. They believe it is because the two people have already gotten to know each other, rather than spending a life-time together after marriage getting to know each other. Marrying a person you don’t know gives one a lifetime to learn to love them, as opposed to the American ideal of learning a person inside and out before entering into marriage† (Galt, 2011, 3). In the United States, many believe that the idea of an arranged marriage is something that is forced upon the two getting married. This however isn’t true, in India before a marriage can become official the bride and groom are afforded the opportunity to meet each other to decide if they would like to go forward with the marriage. You might be surprised to hear that any rejection to a proposed marriage rarely occurs, and more often than not the proposed bride and groom will go through with the wedding as planned. This is because the parents of the bride and groom do their due-diligence and will often times spend years looking for a suitable bride or groom. They spend countless hours meeting with the families and friends, â€Å"considering hundreds of different aspects and comparison points before the potential bride and groom ever meet each other† (Galt, 2011, 6). In many ways the Indian culture is different than our own, we have the tendency to be more of an individualistic culture while they tend be more collectivist. We are considered a low-context culture, while India is considered a high-context culture. We value or independence and look out for our own self-interests over that of the group. In India, they value the group over the individual and believe that if one fails, they all fail. Even though we may differ culturally we are still similar in many ways, the biggest being our level of diversity; we are both comprised of many different values, ethnicities, and religious beliefs.

Harry Elmer Barnes :: essays research papers

In 1952, Harry Elmer Barnes wrote a timely article, "How 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity" as the final chapter of the classic revisionist anthology, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. Barnes analyzed George Orwell's classic novel as a work of prophecy and sounded the alarm to reverse the "1984" trends prevalent in the America of his day. Barnes argued that propagandists and "court historians" were fashioning a present, based on a falsified and inaccurate telling of the past, that was designed to meet Establishment desires to participate in world wars. Ironically,Barnes' article was omitted from the first edition the collection.(1) Barnes may be best remembered as the author of the generally accepted definition of "revisionism," "Revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude." (2) Barnes had discovered that a more nearly accurate version of the history of the First World War was only possible after the fighting had ended and the emotional excesses had lessened. He was unable to predict that similar corrections of Allied propaganda and popularized conceptions of the methods of warfare in the Second World War would meet even sterner resistance. Today - half a century after the conclusion of the Second World War - it would be fair to expect a less emotional environment, one in which historians, researchers and writers were free to examine the actual causes of the war as well as the atrocities committed by both sides in the conflict. However, those and other topics are more forbidden than ever with the greatest taboo surrounding analysis of the fate of Europe's Jews and others in what has come to be known as the Holocaust. In 1950, three years prior to Barnes' article concerning "1984" trends another author, Ray Bradbury, set out a foreboding vision of the future in a short story titled, "The Fireman." Later, Bradbury's story would be renamed Fahrenheit 451 after the temperature at which paper burns. Fahrenheit 451 describes a horrific future in which millions of books are banned and firemen set fires instead of extinguishing them. In order to maintain a society of brainwashed, "happy" people, the firemen kick down doors and burn the hated volumes along with the homes that housed them. Barnes would never have suspected how fast the world would progress from the "1984" trends he identified to the trends Bradbury identified in Fahrenheit 451(3).

Explain the Success and Failure of Constitutions

Constitutions can be defined in a variety of different ways. Duchacek , in 1970 described constitutions as â€Å"power maps†, in which the formal powers of the state are described and distributed. A more explicit definition can be gauged from Robertson , who describes the constitution as, â€Å"a set of rights, powers and procedures regulating the structure of, and relationships among the public authorities and between the public authorities and the citizens. † This long definition is condensed by Watson , who describes constitutions as the â€Å"rules of the political game† and â€Å"the laws that govern the governors. Constitutions usually have come into existence to facilitate a â€Å"fresh start† following the demise of the past regime via revolution, independence, or a change in society. Constitutions are not infallible and can fail if the conditions are right; those conditions will be discussed in this essay. According to Hague, Harrop and Breslin , a successful constitution is â€Å"one that does not attempt too much†. They point to the American constitution as an example. The US Constitution created a limited central government because that is what was deemed necessary. If the constitution created a stronger central government, it may have gone against the interests of the more independent minded states and individuals who would have opposed such a move. A constitution, which delegates and separates powers amongst the governing institutions apparently, coins success. The most well known example of this would be again the American constitution. The legislature (Congress ), executive (the President ) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court ) is separated by the Constitution, providing constitutional independence and delegating various powers. The Constitution insures that no one institution has more power than the other, preventing a power struggle within government that could lead to its destruction. However, to explain the success of constitutions in terms of the balance of powers would ignore the success of the â€Å"unwritten† British Constitution. The British Constitution, where power lies supremely with the government, the legislature, cannot be regarded as a failure. The success of this constitution could perhaps be explained by its flexible and articulate nature, which allows gradual change. A good example of this in practise is the enfranchisement of Britain, which took almost a century to attain. The Government introduced this necessary legislation following the changes in society. Without this change, Britain's Constitution would have failed to meet the needs of the people, and fall in the face of popular revolt. Even supposedly rigid, written constitutions can respond to changes in society, an important property if that constitution is to succeed. In the United States, judicial constitutional interpretation plays an important part in placing a constitution written over two hundred years ago into the context of the modern day. Chief Justice Hughes' statement; â€Å"We live under a constitution. But the constitution is what the judges say it is. † This may not be wholly accurate, but judicial interpretation has been an important factor in the continual evolution of the American Constitution, which encouraging its success. Finally, the success of constitutions can be attributed to the economic factors within the state. Germany and Japan have for the past fifty years possessed successful constitutions, which can, to a degree be attributed to their very strong economies. Following the Second World War, the allies, by buoying up the economies of these two nations, prevented them from falling to the short-term problems, such as nationalism and communism. This move subsequently ensured their long-term constitutional success. A constitution that has failed its purpose is one that fails to provide adequate rules of government, which can lead to either an inefficient government, or a government that abuses the governed. There are a number of reasons that governments fail. If Hauge, Harrop and Breslin's reasoning concludes that a successful constitution is one that attempts little, it follows that a constitution doomed to failure is one that attempts too much, allowing no room for interpretation or change. A poor constitution would not allow the judicial interpretation that allows the American constitution to develop, or allow a flexible constitution like the British to change wit the introduction of new legislation. The Constitution of Italy, the Guarantisimo prevents the reoccurrence of a dictatorship. However, the various checks and balances created by the constitution, such as a strong bicameral legislature, and regional autonomy have led to ineffective government, and the loss of popular support among the people. This is one example of the separation of powers going to far, hindering the constitutional process. A constitution that fails to take into account the social, economic and political factors within a society will very rarely succeed. Evidence of this can be found in the failure of the post-colonial constitutions imposed on former colonies during the 1950's and 1960's. Countries such as Britain and France attempted to impose constitutions that were based on theirs. Unfortunately, the peoples of Africa and Asia were not used to democracy, their cultures were based upon autocratic rule, not liberal, democratic government. Many of the fledgling governments fell, as single rulers, often helped by the military filled the vacuum. Countries whose democratic governments survived, for example India and Pakistan experienced the move toward strong centrally controlled government, undermining the democracy the constitution represented. It is often not the constitution that fails, but the regime that facilitates the change because it is weak, and cannot remain in office for too long a period. The constitution may succeed in providing the checks and balances of power, but if the regime lost the support of the military, there would then be scope for change Constitutions are not always liable to succeed; the above examples indicate that. A successful one allows change, can be interpreted by the judiciary and is assisted by a healthy economic climate. A failure is doomed to be ineffective because it is too restrained, and not allowed to change as society develops. Explanations for the success and failure of constitutions can be diverse, particularly in today's global society; the reasons above are only a selection of wh at can constitute a constitutional success or failiure.

Indirect Object Pronoun - Pronom objet indirect - French Grammar Pronunciation Glossary

Definition: A personal pronoun that indicates to/for whom the action of the verb is occurring.Indirect Object Pronouns:  Ã‚  Ã‚  me - me  Ã‚  Ã‚  te - you  Ã‚  Ã‚  lui - him, her  Ã‚  Ã‚  nous - us  Ã‚  Ã‚  vous - you  Ã‚  Ã‚  leur - themAlso known as: indirect object complement, complà ©ment dobjet indirect, COIRelated lessons: Indirect object pronounsRelated terms: indirect object - personal pronoun - direct object pronoun - verb