Download file to see previous pages...
Today we see an increasing social acceptance for a variety of family structures and norms, albeit mostly based on some variation of the nuclear model.
In the 1950s American society was dominated by White Anglo Saxon Protestants, largely patriarchal as epitomized in the “Father Knows Best” TV series. The idealized family consisted of father, mother and 2 children, preferably a boy and a girl. There was a clear segregation of roles and norms, with the father expected to be the sole breadwinner and the mother was supposed to be content with nurturing the children and accepting domestic drudgery. This was changed by both feminism, demanding more opportunities for female fulfillment and economic downturns requiring a second income. Gender role distinctions became blurred as husbands were expected to share more domestic responsibilities in return for their wives’ labor force participation. Women demanded a greater share in family decisions, shifting the norm from patriarchy to a more egalitarian model.
Although economic and social forces such as 2 income families, increased secularization, liberalized divorce laws and one parent families have broken down in many cases the traditional 1950s ideal with adverse consequences, the institution of the family has survived and carried out most of the Functionalist views of its’ 6 functions of 1) reproduction, 2)protection, 3) socialization , 4) regulation of sexual behavior, 5) affection and companionship and 6) provision of social status reasonably well. More recently many feel the family is threatened by the new phenomenon of gay or same sex marriage. While gay couples have obvious biological limitations, I see no reason why this precludes them from adopting norms including raising children in their care acceptable to society at
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Chinua has added a distinctive flavor of paradox by the characterization of Okonkwo, the protagonist of the novel. His life turns upside down owing to the cultural norms but he rebels against the colonial masters to defend the same values which once led to the massive destruction of his life.
This is essential to the fundamental premise of literature. The current composition also tries to comprehend this idea of culture, albeit; from a different view point. There are two contrasting viewpoints that are central to this piece, one is the idea of Narayan, and the other one is the idea of Rushdie.
However, these are two different broad terms reflecting extremely different ideas. In today’s organisational environment, business executives give particular focus to change management and talk less about change leadership. In addition, there are fewer literatures that discuss the difference between change management and change leadership.
Consequently, toxic leadership can be defined as a process where leaders by expression of their caustic behaviour wreak serious and long-term harm on their followers, non-followers and on the reputation of an organisation that they are serving (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Incarceration rates seem to bear this out. Corrections facilities are filled with men, while women make up a small minority of those on the wrong side of the criminal justice system. At least, that was the case until recently. The numbers of women being arrested for committing crimes have increased dramatically over the past fifty years.
The point of making people and organizations more accountable, is therefore, expected. The reasons are the concern of this paper, and they are slowly introduced as the discussion unfolds.
Transparency as well as promises and performance are inherently related to accountability (Newell & Wheeler, 2006b).
ior of the society (Oxford Reference, "Social Norms"); and although psychologists have agreed on a general description, identifying smaller cluster components, such as an organization or an agency, may likewise recommend social norms which could either be unconnected or a