Internal and External Constraints Facing Venetian Ices Ltd Essay Example for Free

Internal and External Constraints Facing Venetian Ices Ltd Essay Constraints are laws, which the company must abide by. There are two different types of constraints; these are internal and external constraints. Internal constraints are those that the company controls their selves such as: * Availability of finance * Existing company policy * Peoples behaviour External constraints are decisions that are made outside the companys control such as: * Government and EC legislation * Competitors behaviour * Lack of technology * The economic environment The internal constraints facing Venetian ices include: 1.Equipment Venetian Ices need equipment in order to produce their goods and also keep the ice cream frozen. So obviously they will need equipment such as freezers (to store the ice cream), new ice cream making machines in order to produce the ice cream for the customers. They will also need a mobile van, so that customers could get ice cream in different areas. Another equipment that Venetian Ices could have is packaging, this will be for customers who would want to buy a whole tub of ice cream from them. There are some problems, which may occur when replacement or extra equipment is needed. Venetian ices could in fact find themselves in a position where they are unable to afford the equipment that they would want available to them. In the case of additional equipment there may not be enough room on the sight of enough employees to operate all the machinery. 2. Financing the development of a Franchisee operation Venetian Ices must provide finance to their franchisees in order to get them started and set up in the business world. Venetian Ices can get their finance from a number of places and ways. The first is retained profit, but that can possible prove difficult for them, as small companies such as themselves only tend to make a small profit. They can also get their finance from selling as much ice cream as they possibly can. Venetian ices would have to buy all the equipment and premised that they would require when they are setting up a business up and also paying all of the workers in their franchisee. This means that when a new franchisee joins at first Venetian Ices have to spend a lot of capital and get little back in return. 3. Staffing for Increased Production Output By increasing the number of staff it would increase the output of the company, but this will mean having to pay out more money in order to pay their new employees. Also they may have a problem with the size of the premises. There could be a problem with the amount of people allowed to work in the building, if there isnt enough room for everyone they would have to employ less people then they would like. Some External constraints that may affect Venetian Ices include: 1.Raising finance How much finance Venetian Ices can raise depends a lot on the public who purchase ice cream from them and also investors who decide to invest money in the company. This could cause a problem though because in winter ice cream is less popular and a whole lot less people would come and purchase ice cream during the cold period. This could therefore mean investors will not want to invest in an ice cream company, which for part of the reason will not raise much finance. 2. Planning Permission If Venetian Ices decided they wanted to expand their premises or decide to build new premises for their company, they would require planning permission from the local council or the government. If Venetian Ices did decide to go ahead with an extension or the building of a new building without a contract from the authorities then they could be taken to court and forced to abandon work on their new premises completely. 3. Franchising Venetian Ices do not have complete control over its franchisees, as the franchiser does not always check them on. This can mean that franchisees may run the business against the company policy and use different and methods. For example if the franchisee trains the staff in how to recruit then the staff must do exactly as they are told to, if they recruit people in a different way or people who Venetian Ices dont want. This could lead to the company having a bad reputation. 4. Law Venetian Ices must follow and work by all the laws. There has being laws set about methods of employment, training, European regulations and also food which would defiantly apply to Venetian Ices. These laws can be checked often by government inspectors. 5. Tourism Tourism is a big market for Venetian Ices as they make up a large percentage of customers in some areas where there are mobile and ice cream parlours. Tourist also often purchases goods on impulse. However, Venetian Ices cannot insure that the number of tourists in a certain area will remain the same all the time. 6. Foot and Mouth Disease Another outbreak of foot and mouth can cause serious problems for Venetian Ices. Foot and Mouth affect cows, which Venetian ices, depends on for its main ingredient, which is milk. Another foot and mouth epidemic breaking out would make it hard obtaining the milk and also getting it transported as certain areas of the countryside would be shut off, therefore making transportation hard. Foot and mouth can also cause tourism to drop in certain areas and possibly even close. This would lead Venetian Ices in an awful position in them areas affected by foot and mouth. There could possibly be people who would want to stay away from the ice cream due to foot and mouth.

Modern diplomacy

Modern diplomacy Introduction In its simplest form diplomacy is the maintenance of peace and the avoidance of war. But this is too simple a definition and denies the complexity inherent to modern diplomacy. Berridge (2001:1) provides more substance, writing that in its most recognizable state form, diplomacy is the term given to the official channels of communication employed by members of a system of states. Berridge (2002:1) adds that the chief purpose of diplomacy is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda or law. While this is certainly true of state-to-state diplomacy such Satowesque 5 definitions of diplomacy are rather exclusive in that they suggest no other international actors practice diplomacy. Such parochialism has produced a backlash. John Hoffman (2003:525), a less than traditional diplomacy writer, claims that the state is incoherent, and this incoherence necessarily extends itself to statist diplomacytraditional or conventional notion s of diplomacy must be avoided if the nature of modern diplomacy is to be truly understood. Diplomacy, Hoffman (2003:533) contends, functions much more fully and consistently in a stateless context than in a state centered one. (Hoffman, 2003) These two opinions indicate that there is confusion in response to the simple question what is diplomacyr In the twenty-first century, the traditional form of diplomacy is ubiquitous and increasing in practice. In addition, many nontraditional actors, such as NGOs, multi-national corporations (MNCs), and even individuals can be said to practice diplomacy. It is because of this plurality of actors that this article prefers Paul Sharps (2003:858) broad-and very diplomatic definition of diplomacy: The way in which relations between groups that regard themselves as separate ought to be conducted if the principle of living in groups is to be retained as good, and if unnecessary and unwanted conflict is to have a chance of being avoided. Significantly, Sharps definition suggests that the modern diplomatic environment is not one dominated exclusively by states and their diplomats. A sketch of the modern diplomatic environment confirms this observation. The Modern Diplomatic Environment For most of the twentieth century, the state and its traditional diplomatic institution were the primary conduit for most matters international. However, a snapshot of the modern diplomatic environment suggests a more diffuse landscape. In addition, this snapshot reveals the limitations inherent to the traditional, statist way of thinking and writing about diplomacy. In the modern diplomatic environment the state is the most dominant political actor while its diplomatic institution (Jonsson, Hall, 2005) (centrally orchestrated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) remains the most visible diplomatic actor. In the physical sense, traditional diplomacy has become a growth sector (Hocking 1997:169) and remains the engine room of international relations (Cohen 1998:1). Currently, there are 191 states operating in the modern diplomatic environment, compared to 47 in 1950 and 26 in 1926.8 All of these states interact diplomatically, all need to represent themselves, and all need continuously to negotiate advantageous foreign policy ends in a competitive and occasionally hostile environment. With over three hundred years of related experience, the foreign embassy endures as the leading diplomatic actor, where the conduct of relations on a state-to-state basis, via formally accredited resident missions forms the bulk of international exchange (Berridge 2002:105). Therefore, a traditional approach to writing and thinking about diplomacy must not be abandoned. This approach, with an emphasis on the state and its diplomacy, is ubiquitous, valuable, and necessary for the diplomacy studies field. And in terms of one actor-the state-it is both sufficient and catholic. When attempting to understand modern diplomacy and international relations, it is important to remember that at the heart of any worthwhile theory of international relations must lie a theory of traditional diplomacy (Sharp 2003:856). But all is not well in the traditional backyard. In the face of ever-tightening budgets and shrinking numbers of overseas missions and staff, the reinvention of the t?aditional diplomatic institution is apparent. Now these institutions have to justify their relevance to a more informed domestic audience. This justification includes two-way communication processes with domestic and global publics (instead of the traditional one-way processes which reinforced the hermetic image of many institutions); the inclusion of many nonstate experts into the sacred halls of diplomacy; and the shift in recruitment policies to build staffs truly reflective of the domestic societal strata they purport to represent, to name but a few changes. This snapshot suggests that the traditional gatekeepers are struggling to maintain relevance and are reforming in a bid to hang on to the keys to the gate. On the other side of the gate, energized, increasingly efficient, and numerous nonstate actors are gathering. There is a correlation between their rising numbers and growing influence. For example, the number of NGOs has risen from 997 in 1954 to 20,928 in 2005 / 2006 (Jonsson, 2005). The large numbers of MNCs is also noteworthy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there are more than 53,000 MNCs, which have over 450,000 foreign affiliates (Kegley and Wittkopf 2003:173). These ever-growing numbers suggest that MNCs exercise significant clout in the modern diplomatic system, with global assets in excess of $13 trillion (USD) and global sales of more than $9.5 trillion (USD) (Kegley and Wittkopf 2003:173). And more than half of the worlds top economies are not countries but global MNCs, with waning affiliations to the nation-state. The growth of IGOs in the last hundred years is also significant. In 1909, there were 37 IGOs, by 1962 this number had risen to 163, and by 2005 / 2006 the modern diplomatic environment had 1,963 IGOs.( Jonsson, 2005) To representatives from this growing nonstate sector, the gate no longer looks so imposing o? absolute; there are many other paths around the side. In the modern diplomatic environment, these nonstate groups have adopted basic diplomatic functions such as negotiation skills, visible representation, effective communication, filtered information, and political reporting from overseas and symbolism (the Greenpeace rainbow flag is instantly recognizable, as are the ubiquitous golden arches). Large MNCs, as one example, are learning of the need to develop their own task-defined diplomatic structures to serve their particular needs and develop local expertise that national diplomatic services find hard to rival (Hocking 2004:149). Where before there was one path and one gate there are now many channels, networks and alternate environments through which to engage in diplomacy. Myriad patterns of asymmetric and polylateral diplomacy are appearing, involving not only state representatives but also representatives from NGOs, transnational organizations (the External Delegations of the European Union, for example), (Hocking 2004:149) and even famous though hardly effective movie stars. The Ottawa Process, the Kimberley Diamonds Process, or the Nazi Gold settlement-success stories of unconventional diplomacy-are regularly trumpeted and are used as evidence to suggest the ushering in of an era of new diplomacy (again!). Whether it is multi-lateralism or summitry or two individuals from different countries conversing on a plane, diplomacy is blossoming and clearly no longer axiomatically linked to the state. Traditional writing on diplomacy only tells part of this modern diplomatic story. It amply accounts for the historical and modern role of the state in diplomacy but fails to explain the proliferation and impact of unconventional, new diplomatic actors. A glance at the canon of diplomacy studies suggests that the traditional way of thinking and writing about diplomacy is being challenged. Beyond Modern Diplomacy Viewing diplomacy in representational terms provides a richer understanding of what diplomats do than does the conventional account of it as one of the lesser tools of foreign policy. The diplomats of the modern state system claimed that no one else occupied the position of detachment from the international society of states, or performed the role of representing its members to the world and the world back to them. Now, it is becoming increasingly plausible to claim that more people are so employed and more are diplomats. An obvious extension of the approach of viewing diplomacy as representation is to apply it to the new diplomatic actors of contemporary international relations. To what extent does their becoming diplomatic involve these actors accepting and internalizing the professional and political worlds as these are presented by diplomacy in the narrow senser To what extent do they bring something new to itr Could humanitarian agencies parlay a local and temporary acceptance, based upon expertise, knowledge, and control of resources, into a more lasting and extensive legitimacy-one recognized by states but not derived from statesr An obvious expectation of the approach outlined above is that the new diplomats, like the diplomats of revolutionary regimes before them, will do much adjusting. Their ability to bring about change in the professional and political universes of diplomacy will be limited. This is not an argument in any simple sense of that term. New actors do not have to conform to the rules of the game as it is played by old acto?s (read rich and powerful) because that is what the old ones want. rather, it is the representatives of actors for whom unity, autonomy, and identity remain important. They face similar predicaments, whether they represent the old or new, the rich or poor, the strong or weak. All face the problem of contributing to the production and reproduction of the identities they represent in, and by, their relations with one another. Other games-economic, military, political, and social-are going on too, but their significance varies by actor, policy, and context. representation, as a lready discussed, is common to all actors in international relations and is particular to it. This is not as big a claim as it may sound. The question of whether new diplomatic actors accept the political and professional worlds of diplomacy acknowledges that they also function in a wider world of international thought and action in which these other actors try to function with their own universesand associated operational codes. Consider two established concepts, sovereignty and nation. Both appear as prominent bricks in the edifice of diplomacys professional and political worlds, yet both also belong to other worlds where the systemic and moderating preoccupations of diplomacy seem to have very little place. In addition to how diplomacy tames, manages, and uses these two ideas for itself, it is worth examining how diplomacy copes when others have different conceptions and priorities. As James Mayall notes, diplomacy was one of the few international institutions to survive the onslaught of popular sovereignty and nineteenth-century nationalism. (Mayall, 1990) Mayalls diplomacy, and nearly everyone elses, is the diplomacy of the modern territorial state, with a practical and clearly identifiable sovereign site. We take this so much for granted that we may ask whether diplomacy in the absence of sovereigns may be properly termed diplomacy. Instead, we might ask, How did diplomacy survive modernityr Clearly the answer is adaptation. How will diplomacy survive encounters with concepts beyond which it has traditionally not claimed, such as race, class, gender, and civilizations (not Civilization)r It is beyond my competence to speak about these ideas, other than to note that even at conventional conferences on diplomacy, papers on issues like the problem of spouses and partne?s are often presented Mayall, 1990). Discomforting though these approaches are to some of the participants, neither these themes nor the universes of arguments and assumptions about social life from which they stem will go away. Establishing an effective diplomatic mission today involves addressing patriarchy and identity issues, as well as the problems posed for security and institutional memory by electronic mailing systems. The study of diplomacy and what diplomats have to say about it will appeal neither to structuralists nor to constructivists in their respective strong forms. Diplomacy presumes that structures do not explain all outcome s, nor even just the important ones, but it also takes existing structures seriously. Structures may be constituted by the practice of agents. In acknowledging this, diplomats are unlikely to concede that we have learned much about the likelihood of particular structures cohering, evolving, or collapsing-even if their own instinct is to bet on cohering. And Outcomes Of Diplomatic Interaction The outcomes of diplomatic interaction between governments and NSEEs vary enormously, primarily according to how powerful the particular state is, and seconda?ily according to whether the NSEE is an MEI that holds heavy purse strings on which a government may depend. Weak states and developing countries are often in the position of supplicant before MEIs such as the IMF, World Bank and regional development banks, whose representatives often wield great power over developing countries domestic economies (Strange, 1996). On the other hand, powerful states and creditor nations interact with NSEEs more as equals or as masters. In terms of power relations and accompanying diplomatic practice, governments of states view MEIs not as a global government, so the analogy is not that of U.S. states or German LÃ ¤nder dealing with their respective Federal Governments. Nor can MEIs any longer be seen as uniformly subordinate bodies to nation-state governments, so a Federal Government to U.S. sta te or German Land analogy, in which administrative considerations might tend to predominate over the political, would be equally off the mark. NSEEs are likely to view governments according to whether the government is a net provider or recipient of the institutions funds. A better analogy for NSEE-government interaction would be the way that nation-state governments regard other governments: each pairing of governments will reflect a different distribution of power, both relational and structural, between them, a different historical and cultural background to the relationship, a different institutional evolution of the relationship. Hence diplomacy between nation-state governments, considered as a group, and NSEEs, considered as a group, is likely to varry in terms of power distribution, institutional compatibility, and other relevant variables in much the same way that diplomacy as traditionally conceived between nation-state governments varies. An understanding of how diplomatic interactions between NSEEs and governments translates into outcomes requires drawing upon the range of theories of power from the International relations/International Political Economy literature. Theoretical approaches such as Neoliberalism and Institutionalism are well adapted to diplomacy between states and non-state economic entities because they presuppose the role of institutions in promoting cooperation between states. A Neomarxist-Gramscian approachs understanding of the material bases for state power offers a way to differentiate between the power of states, and its logic of transnational historic blocs seeking the consent of the governed can explain the motivation to create NSEEs to facilitate diplomacy and one of its main objectives, cooperation and the consensual exercise of power. From Social Constructivism we can draw upon ideas of how states and NSEEs alike c?eate and re-create their identities through their public presentation of th emselves and through negotiations, which in turn can shift power between them (Ford, 2002). From Postmodernism/Post-positivism, conceptions such as time-space compression can explain how the institutional organization of representation has changed and how the speed of diplomatic interactions has accelerated, each of which favour some actors at the expense of others (Harvey, 1990). Neorealisms state-centric focus applies less well to the explanation of power in a diplomatic system in which states themselves do not speak with one voice to NSEEs, and at the same time NSEEs are both venues for multilateral cooperation and actors with agendas and objectives distinct from those of any state. Despite being difficult to place within any single theoretical tradition, Stranges notion of structural power as power to shape the parameters within which others must make decisions seems particularly useful in explaining power in government-NSEE diplomatic interactions (Strange, 1994, 1996). Using Stranges four interlocking structures of knowledge, production, finance and security one can account for disparities of power between states, the particular power of MEIs concerned with global finance, and even the impact of the variability in skills of diplomats on different sides of a negotiation. For example, Stranges approach would expect MEIs to tend to prevail in negotiations w ith developing countries. Conclusions: Power as Mobilization While the scope and visibility of what I have termed the new public diplomacy is novel, the mechanisms that it employs are not. Persuasion, framing, and agendasetting are the basic tools of political influence. However, focusing on them tends to change our understanding of how power operates. The changes in the political and communications context of international politics change make their operation more visible and accessible to more agents. Power is not a magic bullet that can render the interactions of international politics immediately comprehensible, but serves as short hand for what agents do. The analysis presented above suggests that we have been looking for power in the wrong places. IR theory tends to start from the presumption that military power is the ultimate determinant of the outcomes in IR. This military bias results in power being thought of in terms of confrontations between well defined positions. The image of power can be illustrated if we think of the forces ne eded to move a huge boulder securely embedded in a mountainside. Yet if the boulder is already rolling down the mountain, the forces needed to push it in a new direction are very much less. We may be unable to move the boulder, but if it is already in motion, we may be able to move it onto a new course. Human society (and particularly the small sections of it that represent political organizations) are already (and always in motion), thus, a relatively minor impetus delivered at the right place and time and can change outcomes. To think in terms of processes is to see that the mechanisms of soft power are not exceptional but the normal tools of politics. All that the new public diplomacy is doing is allowing more people to use them in a more public way. The consequence of the age of mixed media is that more people can do this changing the dynamics and the outcomes of politics, and that is no small thing. Anthony Giddens treats power and, by extension, agency, in terms of the capacity to use the rules and resources that exist in any social context to produce effects. What the new public diplomacy indicates is the way in which technological and political change is changing the possibilities to act within world politics. Power needs to be treated in terms of mobilizational processes rather in terms of structures or agents. The changes in the global media environment affect the political strategies adopted by both states as well as non-state actors. Analysis of these developments suggests that power in the info rmation age cannot be understood solely in terms of resources or structures without consideration of process issues such as mobilizing strategies and the ability of agents to set agendas and influence the framing of issues via the media. Such a perspective explains the ability of resource poor actors to exert influence in particular circumstances and the limitations of this influence.

Essays --

It is important to expose children to many social situations. These different social experiences help children learn how they should behave in certain situations. As they grow and start to socialize with other children more often, they will learn how to communicate, share, and cooperate. Relationships with other children provide an opportunity for children to practice and advance their social skills and their relationship skills. These relationships also help children learn how to join groups of children already playing together, form/maintain friendships, share personal info, avoid the bully, take turns, resolve conflicts, help others. Interaction provides companionship and important life skills. A child starts interacting with others at a very young age. When the child is still an infant, they are beginning to learn the social skills that they will need throughout life. A baby knows that there are other people besides them existing, but they don’t understand that they have feelings that are not the same as theirs. Because the child is so young, they believe that everyone thinks the same way. They are not aware of socializing and it is meaningless to them at such a young age. Even when they’re not old enough to play, it’s good for infants to be with other infants. Interaction with other children begins in the early toddler years. A child between 12 and 24 months will start to realize that they are separate from others and that their feelings may be different than other people around them. At this age, their interaction limited to complementary and reciprocal play. For example, you may witness children chasing each other, playing simple games of hide and seek, and sharing toys with each other. At this point, children’s’ friendshi... ...ing into legal trouble. The lack of social skills can affect safety in schools. Children with poor social skills are likely to be aggressive or violent and are less likely to be able to control their bad behavior. Academics are also affected. These children are likely to be rejected by peers and develop self-esteem problems and depression, which makes it hard to focus their mind on their school work. Children who are not exposed to social interaction are hurt in the long run. The consequences are negative and they usually stick with the child throughout their life. However, if an isolated child is still young, there are several things you can do to help them. These include: figuring out why the child is isolated, helping to teach the child social skills, arranging for the child to be in groups with peers, and showing other children the child’s strengths and talents.

Rosenbergs Use of Words to Communicate Themes in his Poem :: The Wasps Nest Poetry Poems Essays

Rosenberg's Use of Words to Communicate Themes in his Poem The Wasp’s Nest Conceptualize a world full of people that isolate and alienate you-a place where you don’t count or make a difference. This is one of the major concerns in the Wasp’s Nest. Rosenberg appeals to our intellect utilizing technical literary ingredients to spice up and flavour the poem. My project is an analysis of his use of words and phrases to communicate themes in his poem and to see how the poem has been made memorable. To me, the poem on its own is a metaphor portraying life and its elements of uncertainty and others. In line 1’’ Two aerial tigers†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â„¢, the wasps are being referred to as ‘’aerial tigers’’ because they do all their activities in the air (aerial). They are referred to as ‘’tigers’ for two reasons. The main one being that they are ragingly ferocious and much undomesticated. The second one is describes their physical outward appearance as they are yellow with black stripes just like the tiger. The use of language here is very descriptive and this line being a metaphor aids the picture to be conceived on the mental canvas. Line 1 is memorable because it is quite unique the way one can find such descriptive to perfectly describe the scenario. â€Å"Striped in ebony and gold†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â„¢. The use of sophisticated and exclusive adjectives which are (‘ebony’ and ‘gold’) to illustrate the wasp’s appearance shows how fascinated and beguiled Rosenberg is by the wasps. This line contributes to the memorability of the poem. This is through the adoption of classy words to leave the words echoing in our minds and it is savoured and relished by the reader. Line 3-5 describes the state in which the wasps are in and how they went about their preparation of their home. Here, we assume that the two wasps are of the opposite sex thus, probably married or are living their lives together. Therefore, another rational assumption is that these two wasps are building a home, an investment that they can share together and reside within. These lines are made memorable because they unfailingly apply and relate to our daily lives. Line 7-9 depicts how worthless and valueless this ‘’huge’’ investment is to Rosenberg or the persona and then again, I find these lines ringing in my head because it is indeed an example of life’s bad sides- when one takes their time to put something together and he worships it with every fibre of his being but before others, it is insignificant. Line 10-14, is about how the persona has endeavored and made an attempt to exonerate and get rid of the wasps.

Public Art Essay -- Art

Public Art â€Å"Any drawn line that speaks about identity, dignity, and unity is art,† (Chaz Bojorquey) is a statement that I agree with. Art is perceived differently from all people based on their culture, religion, personal taste, and many other factors. I believe that as long as what has been created is meaningful to either the creator or even to somebody that is viewing it, it should be considered art. Art in the public is a very controversial subject that brings up the important question of, â€Å"Should public art be considered as real art,† personally I think that it should be. I believe that the difference between art that is placed in a gallery and art that is visible by a community is the fact that what is acceptable in a gallery is different than what is acceptable on the streets of our communities. When art can and will be viewed by the members of that town, there must be some line that cannot be crossed. There are many aspects that make public art an important addition to our communities, and there are also aspects that may be negative in the eyes of some. My love for art, as a whole, has a large affect on my acceptance of art in the public, but my love does not blind me to the reasoning as to why people may not agree with it. There are many different forms of what is to be considered public art. It can range from sculptors, paintings, murals, mosaics, graffiti, tagging, and even more. Many people often forget about the excitement that art has to offer; the way that it makes people feel is a sensation that can truly not be replaced by any other sight. Having something symbolic and cultural in your community enlightens the people that live there. It is what sets you apart from any other town. For instance it give... ...something that is often under appreciated or forgotten. Having art in the public more may be a large step toward teaching the future generations to appreciate creativity and participate in being creative. If something as simple as ground green marbles in a tar road can take my (a seventeen year old girl) breath away then imagine the reaction that could be expected from art being every where. My biggest fear is art being forgotten and with the beauty it has to offer being around more for everyone to see could eliminate that fear. Public art should be appreciated even though it may not be understood by all. It is a way to bring in tourism, excitement, beauty, creativity, and pure enjoyment to communities. I would like to end my paper with a quote from Pablo Picasso that expresses the way I fell about art, â€Å"Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.†

Fences Research

The Impact of Physical and Psychological Boundaries in August Wilson’s Fences The early 1950’s was a time of enormous importance because of the Civil Rights Movement which emphasized equal rights for blacks and whites. According to the book Approaching Literature, this time period became very familiar to August Wilson, the author of the play Fences. Wilson, an African American man, was raised by his mother and his ex-convict father. For a short period of time, before moving back to his old neighborhood, Wilson lived in a primarily white neighborhood where he experienced the feeling of being on the â€Å"outside. When he was in the ninth grade he had a teacher that believed there was no way he could have written an intelligent, twenty page research paper on Napoleon Bonaparte, so she accused him of plagiarism. This incident pushed Wilson to drop out of high school and teach himself. From that point on, he began educating himself by reading through the section of black a uthors in the local library. Wilson had strong views and opinions about the rights of African Americans.So much so, that he wrote quite a few plays concerning this major part of history. (1024) In Wilson’s play, Fences, how does he use psychological and physical boundaries to show the emotional separations between his characters? Baseball becomes the most prominent image in Wilson’s play. Troy Maxson, the protagonist of the play, spent many years learning and playing this game. Sheri Metzger, the author of An Essay on Fences, believes that â€Å"Baseball defines Troy Maxson’s life and provides the measure of his success. (1) As we already know, in his prime, Troy was a great baseball player and he strongly believed that he was not given the opportunity to play in the major leagues because of the color of his skin. He constantly compared himself to the ball players that made it to the major leagues, such as Hank Aaron, saying â€Å"I can hit forty-three home ru ns right now† (1048) This not only represents the fence that restricts the achievements of blacks and their constant struggle in a white society, but also Troy’s psychological boundaries between himself and mainstream America.On a first analysis of the physical boundary that exists between father and son, Troy and Cory, we must look at their relationship. Their bond was typical of any teenage boy and his father; they generally got along. The boundary comes up in the play when Cory asks Troy to sign the papers that would allow him to go to college on a football scholarship. But when Troy refuses, claiming that â€Å"the colored guy got to be twice as good [as the white player] before he get on the team,† (1047) the boundary becomes very real.He also notes that even if they do let black players on the team, â€Å"They sit on the bench and don’t get used. † (1047) Troy is still so angry over what he sees as his own lost opportunities with baseball and the injustice of it all that he can’t take any pleasure in the fact that his own son is getting a once in a lifetime opportunity to play football in college, for free! He is still stuck in the past where he was refused a chance to play professional baseball. He is bitter because deep down he is afraid that his son will go on to be more successful than he ever was.The scene where Cory comes at his father with a baseball bat illustrates quite a different image of the traditional father-and-son backyard baseball game we see in movies or books. This shows the huge gap in their relationship and Troy’s need for control. According to Gerald Weales, the author of Review of Fences in the Commonweal, â€Å"Troy not signing the papers for Cory was a destructive act that lead to this final confrontation between the two. † (1) Troy feels the need to confine Cory within his authority, but Cory hates being stuck behind the fences his father has put up; so he escapes, leaving h is family behind.Yet, when Cory returns, we find that in his attempt to free himself he has become bound within the confines of a far more strict institution; the Marine Corps. Metzger argues that â€Å"Cory finally escaped his father’s authority, just to be placed under the authority of people far more strict and controlling. † (3) Another physical boundary exists between husband and wife, Troy and Rose. At the beginning of the play, Troy is building a fence for Rose although he sees absolutely no use for it.Because she’s so focused on keeping all the people she loves safe and inside its walls, Rose is completely unaware that the fence is actually pushing her loved ones away. Since spending time in prison, Troy views fences as restrictions or limitations, so he is in no hurry to build Rose’s fence. But as the play goes on we see that after eighteen years of marriage, Troy feels confined by the responsibility and loyalty that come with it and needs to bre ak out of those constraints. He wants so badly to be free from the ties of marriage that he has an affair with another woman, Alberta.Although, in his mind he broke free of those marital boundaries, realistically, he just put up yet another fence. Rose later finds out about this affair and then Troy tells her that Alberta died while giving birth to their daughter, Raynell. Troy, being the thoughtless man he is, begs Rose to take care of his illegitimate daughter. And Rose, being the kind woman she is, agrees to raise the child because she knows that Raynell is an innocent child who was simply born into a bad situation. Rose tells Troy, â€Å"Raynell will have a mother, but he will be a womanless man for the rest of his life. (1071) Later, after Alberta’s death, Troy finally completes the fence. But rather than finishing it for Rose, as originally intended, he does it for his own reasons of keeping out danger and death. Meanwhile, Rose is still trapped with the responsibiliti es and pressures that life brings. But towards the end of the play we see that she escapes Troy’s fence, only to exchange it for one established by the church. According to Metzger, â€Å"Religion provides its own fences and restraints, and for Rose, who decided to stay with Troy, the church offers a haven within its institutionalized walls. (1040) Rose willingly puts herself behind a fence that is a little more bearable, saying, â€Å"Jesus builds a fence around me every day. † (1040) There are also some psychological fences in this play that Troy has absolutely no control over. The mental hospital where Troy confines Gabriel offers one example of that kind of fence. Gabe, who suffered permanent brain damage as a result of injuries he received while serving in World War II, now thinks of himself as an angel. Although Troy views this fence as something that’s irritating and in his way, Gabe, unaware of all of this, continues on in his childlike innocence.Troy h as a guilty conscience because he institutionalized Gabe and then used his disability money to pay for the house that he now lives in. This incident further breaks down the relationship between Troy and Cory because when he finds out what his father has done, Cory treats him with open disrespect and tells him that he no longer counts. Once again, we see that Gabe simply isn’t aware of these things, therefore he’s unaffected by these events that dramatically change the others’ lives. Gabe’s persistence shows hope for the future. According to Joseph H.Wressling, the author of Wilson’s Fences, â€Å"Gabe, just like Rose, illustrates unconditional love. † (3) Now that Cory and Troy’s relationship has no chance of any reconciliation, Cory leaves and Troy loses any hope of ever seeing his son again before he dies. Cory doesn’t return again until the day of his father’s funeral when he finally meets his sister, Raynell. Cory, s till remembering the broken relationship with his father, did not want to attend the funeral. But Rose convinced him to go and pay his respects to his father because he never meant any harm. Troy had always said that he had given his children everything he could.Cory didn’t always agree with his father, but he overcame that and broke down a barrier and finally forgave his father. Before the funeral Troy’s simpleminded brother Gabe, with his trumpet, came to blow open the gates of Heaven for Troy’s arrival. His attempts at blowing his trumpet failed because there was no mouthpiece on it. But Gabe, in his childlike innocence improvises. He begins to dance about and sing to the Heavens for his brother. Finished with his dance and satisfied that the gates of Heaven are open and ready for Troy, Gabe says, â€Å"That’s the way that go! † (1083).Wilson uses many of his characters and their relationships to show their physical and psychological separations between each other and the world. By the end of Fences, all of Wilson’s characters are bound by a fence of some sort. Although Raynell stands behind the fence that her father finally finished, she is expected to go far beyond that boundary and strive for a better future than her father and everyone else. She shows that there is hope for the future. Works Cited 1. Metzger, Sheri. â€Å"An essay on Fences. † Drama for Students. Detroit: Gale. From Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Nov. 2010. 2. Schakel, Peter J. and Jack Ridl. â€Å"August Wilson's Fences – A Form in Depth. †Ã‚  Approaching Literature: Writing Reading Thinking. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 1024-083. Print. 3. Weales, Gerald. â€Å"Review of Fences in the Commonweal, Volume CXIV, no. 10, May 22, 1987, pp. 320-21. † Drama for Students. Ed. David M. Galens. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 1998. From Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Nov. 2010. 4. Wessling, Joseph H. â€Å"Wilsonâ€⠄¢s Fences. † Explicator 57. 2 (Winter 1999): 123-127. Rpt. In Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 222. Detroit: Gale, 2006. From Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

Compare and Contrast Parliamentary Essay

Parliamentary and Presidential democracies are forms of government that similar in some respects and differ in others. The Parliamentary system like the Presidential is divided into three separate arms of Government, the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Both democracies have a bicameral legislature, often referred to as the House of Representative and the Senate. The House of Representative is elected and the Senate is appointed by the Head of State on the advice of the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary type while both houses are elected by the people in the Presidential system. In the Parliamentary System, the Head of Government, referred to as the Prime Minister, is appointed by a vote of confidence from the House of Representative firstly along with the Attorney General and subsequently followed by the members of Cabinet. In a Parliamentary Democracy there is also a figurative head of state, normally the Queen or an appointed Governor General. In the Presidential System, the President who is separately elected by the people is both the Head of State and Head of Government. Presidents serve a fixed term and may not be removed except for cases where he does something illegal; while in Parliament, a Prime Minister may be removed by a vote of no confidence by his executive members or he may call an early election at any time and dissolve the house. Although the three branches exist in both types of government, it is evident that power is fused between the Executive and Legislature in the Parliamentary type. The Presidential System is otherwise well known for the separation of the Executive and the Legislative Agencies, with the President nominating and appointing his executive team of which no members of the elected legislature can be a member thereof. A Parliamentary Legislature makes and passes laws easily by virtue of always having a majority in the House. In the Presidential System, the Legislature and the Executives are able to create laws but must have a two thirds vote of the Legislature. The President also had the right to veto laws. Overall, the Caribbean should adapt to the Presidential Democratic System. Although it may seem very expensive to fund such type of government, it may cost less in the long term. The check and balance that a presidential system offers allows for less corruption and Executives to be held acc ountable of their actions. Policies and laws would be more accurate and  better evaluated having two separate Agencies in review of such nature. The Presidential system allows for more transparency which is one of the ultimate objectives of a democracy. References Read Also:   Compare and Contrast Essay Examples for College Parliamentary democracy is the type of government where the public vote government into power and parliamentarians are representative of the people. While a Presidential Democracy is when there is a system of government that has a president acting as the nation’s head of state and active chief executive authority. The similarities between the Presidential and Parliamentary model are: both are representative democracies, both have a head of state, both have a bicameral form of government and both are rule by constitution. There are also differences between the Presidential and Parliamentary model. In the Presidential Model, the president is the Executive body and is separated from the Legislature. President is voted by the people and also the Legislative Branch that is composed by theHouse of Representative and the senate. This means they have two elections. A president can only serve two four years term and is answerable to the people. In the Parliamentary Democracy there is an Executive power but is interdependent on the Legislation. The Prime Minister is appointed by the majority ruling party. Therefore there is only one election. The Prime Mister does not have a term limit as long as he has the support of it members. The Prime Minister will answer to Parliament. The Presidential Model has a head of state which is the President; for example in the United State it would be Obama. While the Parliamentary Model has a Head of State and Head of Government; for example in Belize the Head of State is the Governor General which represent the queen Sr. Colville Young and Head of government is the Prime Minister Dean Oliver Barrow. In Presidential Model dual political parties can exist in congress and on Parliamentary Model one political Party hold the majority party power. I believe that due to our history a nd the fact most countries in the Caribbean were once a colony of England the Parliamentary Model is best suited. Reference: What is a parliamentary democracy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-parliamentary-democracy What is the definition of presidential democracy?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/question/presidential-legislative-democracy? ad=SEO&an=SEO&ap=google.com.bz&o=102140 What is the difference between a parliamentary and presidential system of government?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is- the-difference-between-a-parliamentary-and-presidential-system-of- government.htm