International Business Negotiation Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

International Business Negotiation Case - Essay Example out of business. In addition, because Eurodata is more successful than Tanaka, coming up with the best deal is important because the competition will be formidable. Systrop S.A. could also decide to seek a licensing agreement with Tanaka. The pros of this choice involve allowing Systrop S.A. to use a proven technology by paying a license fee instead of incurring the costs of maintenance and development of the technology. In addition, Tanaka will also get a good deal because they will get a return without incurring costs, which will help Systrop in negotiations. The cons of licensing include the fact that Systrop S.A. will be dependent on Tanaka with regards to technology, while Tanaka could also use this for negotiation of better terms (Wolter 57). Systrop S.A. possess some extra resources in relation to the other players. First, it has grown into a position of prominence in the micro-analyzer industry, compared to Tropimatics that has dealt more with computers than micro-analyzers in particular (Wolter 65). Systrop S.A. also has a well renowned brand name when it comes to micro-analyzers in Tropicalia, while it has also been exporting its micro-analyzers compared to the other companies seeking joint ventures with big micro-analyzer companies. Issues that Systrop could be flexible in include ownership and pricing of technology. Those issues that they should be firm on include financing, local content and exports, and their ability to take up government incentives (Wolter

Crocker on Ethnocentrism Essay Example for Free

Crocker on Ethnocentrism Essay David A. Crocker asks the question of who should be tasked with the development of moral ethics on a global level, especially in regions where ethical thought is relatively shallow. If there was one way he would answer this question, he would state that a combination of insider and outsider ethicists would find the best and culturally sensitive form of morality for particular cultures. For this to have any meaning however, a description is required for both insider and outsider. An insider, as termed by Crocker, is one who is counted, recognized, or accepted by himself/herself and the other group members, as belonging to the group (Crocker, 29). In regards to ethical thought of the group, Crocker outlines several advantages and disadvantages of being a predominant insider. When a development ethicist is an insider of a group they understand their past, present, and goals when it comes to moral thought, and can therefore help the group to develop (with ease on the topic of communication) in the most beneficial ways foreseeable in tandem with their beliefs. Along the lines of communication of an insider, they have a foundation from which to criticize and rebuke negative actions of a group because of their familiarity with said groups customs and beliefs. However, insiders do not come without inhibitions as well. Insiders may become so immersed in their society and its customs that they are unable to expand their own, and their societys horizon on the topic of moral thought. Crocker argues that because of the familiarity of the culture, an insider may be blind to factors that define a culture in an existential manner, Like a f ish unaware of the water in which it continually swims (Crocker, 33). In essence, an insider has an easy time familiarizing with their culture, but may have trouble assessing the culture from an unbiased manner. Outsiders are the direct opposite to an insider meaning they do not have a recognition or acceptance of the culture, or themselves within that culture. An outsider can be beneficial to a social group in the way the outsider can  assess the culture in an unbiased manner, and with this perspective, outsider-ethicist strengths are the mirror image of an insider-ethicist weaknesses and therefore the outsider is able to give insight on the things the culture may be unaware of (Crocker, 35). Outsiders are also able to bring out new ideas to a group based on their own culture, ideas the culture in assessment may not have even considered. The last advantage of an outsider is that they are not bound by the insiders commitments to the group or status quo, and can therefore say things, or criticize things that a member of the group would not. Being an o utsider has a list of negative attributes as well. Outsiders do not have the same familiarity with the customs of the group and how certain actions affect them, and Crocker argues that these key understandings are relevant for progressive social change (Crocker, 34). Outsiders who come from a more developed region and culture tend to put more trust in their own ideas and disregard the ingenuity of the group under assessment. In the long term, the groups that have an outsider ethicist may become dependent upon them for ideas, and thereby never becoming able to express their own ideas, and their own norms become weakened. David Crocker explains ethnocentrism as having 2 main concerns. The first he describes as being a habitual disposition to judge foreign peoples or groups by the standards and practices of ones own culture or ethnic group, and the second is described as the tendency toward viewing alien cultures with disfavor and a resulting sense of inherent superiority (Crocker, 27). Crockers accounts of insiders and outsiders do answer some of the concerns raised by ethnocentrism. Not one, nor the other is predominantly to blame for ethnocentrism, rather both insiders and outsiders demonstrate these negative aspects. Insiders can reject any advice from an outsider with the existence of an a priori that gives the insider the notion that nothing can be learned from an outsider. Outsiders exhibit ethnocentrism in the way they give more credit to the ideas of their own culture because it is often socio-economically more developed. Ethnocentrism in cross-culture assessment and dialogue, Crocker states, can be diminished by things like achievement of more equality between various centres and their corresponding peripheries, the recognition of dangers peculiar to insiders and outsiders, respectively, and the promotion of appropriate kinds of insider/outsider combinations in  development ethicists (Crocker, 35). Essentially an equilibrium in insider and outsider ethicists. This is how he answers his question of whom is responsible for ethical thought, the correct combination of insider and outsider ethicists. Bibliography Koggel, Christine M.. David A. Crocker.Moral issues in global perspective. Volume II: Human Diversity and Equality ed. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2006. 27-35. Print.

Contribution Of Emile Durkheim Study Of Society Sociology Essay

Contribution Of Emile Durkheim Study Of Society Sociology Essay Durkheim (1858-1917) who devoted himself to the scientific study of sociology is widely regarded as a pioneer in French sociology. It is known that Emile Durkheim inherits some of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencers ideas and developed a systematic sociology both in theory and methodology (Moà ±ivas, 2007, p. 18). However, some of his works have been questioned and criticized. In order to examine the contribution of Emile Durkheim to the scientific study of society critically, one should consider Durkheims groundbreaking works including: The Division of Labour (1893), Rules of Sociological Method (1895), and Suicide (1897), all of which reflect a popular topic about individualism and a new social regulation in modern industrial society (Barnes, 1920, p. 4).This essay will first describe Durkheims notion of social facts which run through as a principle concept in his sociology. It will discuss its characteristics as well as importance, and then introduce Durkheims methodological appro ach to study social facts. The essay will move on to explore Durkheims contribution to the social sciences through the use of examples which include his study of The Division of Labour and Suicide. In addition, limitations will be mentioned when examine his works. This essay will argue that in spite of some criticism both in theories and methods. The overall contribution of Durkheim remains one of the peaks in modern sociology. Second, social facts are external from individuals. Durkheim rejects Comtes opinion to unify social science with other scientific disciplines and try to treat it independently. He argues that social facts are different from those assumptions in peoples mind and regular acting such as drinking or sleeping in everyday life. As a result, one could distinguish a kind of conduct and thought out of biology and psychology and classifies it into the particular category of sociology (Allan, 2005, p. 102). Casteel (2009) considered this as an important issue to Durkheim that complete Comtes project and establish sociology as its own academic discipline. Besides, such externality also reflects on continuum and social facts are kind of objectivities that prior to individuals, but individuals are born into them and enact them, thus social facts could be observed and measured by statistics (McCormack, 1996). However, Lukes (1973, p. 11) argues that Durkheims concepts about externality is ambiguous . For example, collective consciousnesses, which defined as a kind of similar and general perspectives and emotions such as religion that could react on people in an indirectly way that without crystallized forms. As is regarded as a social fact, it should be outside and independent from individuals. Nevertheless, Durkheim explained that collective consciousnesses are derived from most individuals in a society as a group mind thus failed to support his notion about externality. Thirdly, social facts have external coercions on individuals. It limits the choices of individuals and if individuals try to go against them, they may likely to get resistance by certain external constraint power such as public laws. Additionally, those coercive powers are not only administered by social organization but also potential moral awareness which called social currents (Harrington, 2005, p.28). However, Durkheim failed to distinguish the power of coercion and prestige. For examples, the power of public law which administered by institutions composed on individuals not only by means of the acceptance of legitimacy, but also fear of sanction. On the other hand, beliefs may probably constraint individuals through prestige or moral obligation (Lukes 1973, p. 13). Moreover, it is argued that Durkheim neglects the reaction from individuals on social facts. Some critics who challenged Durkheims theory believe that individuals could have the capability of creation on social facts (Casteel, 2009). In his book The rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim highlights the importance of study social facts as well as the methods to study them. He accepts Comtes idea that every social phenomenon should be studied as a thing within the context of society. Due to its objectivity, one could use positive approaches to observe, experiment, compare and analysis social phenomenon in favour of finding the sociological laws, demonstrating the normal and pathological as well as speculating the future development of society (Craib, 1997, p.30). In Durkheim methodology of social science, he stresses the importance of looking at society scientifically and discovering the formations (collective consciousnesses etc.) as well as functions (social cohesion, change etc.) of social facts and how they have effects on individuals within the scope of society (Brown, 2008). Emirbayer (1996) point out that Durkheim has rejected metaphysics and uses statistical methodology and comparative strategy (p. 264) to explore the correlations and casual relations among a number of systematic and connected variables by collecting and interpreting evidences. Durkheim has exercised his theory and methodology in two of his major works: The Division of Labor and Suicide. In The Division of Labor, Durkheim argues that there have other approaches to integrate the society beside religion. One of them is the division of labor, which he regarded as a powerful evidence of how social bonds transit from collective consciousness to division of labor (Brown, 2008). Durkheim highlights the functional interdependence of different individuals or units of the society which could be explained by the term of solidarity (Allan, 2005, p. 122). In the division of labor, he illustrates two kinds of solidarity: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. He compared primitive society and modern society using the organismic approach to explore how individuals maintain solidarity. In primitive society where there is low productivity, individuals are automatically bond together by the collective consciousnesses, an external uniform beliefs imposed on individuals . On the other hand, organic solidarity exists in modern society. Spencer enormously influenced Durkheims Division of Labor. Spencer believes that society was stimulated by the fundamental force of population growth, which changes the way of society to distribute production and wealth (Jones, 205, p. 345). Durkheim developed his evolutionary and organism doctrine. According to Barnes (1920, p. 240), for Durkheim, social evolution is characterized by a decrease in this repressive and mechanical type of social cohesion or solidarity and by a corresponding increase in the development of individual consciousness and personality. That is, with a dense growth of population as the determinant cause of raised intensive division of labor, individuals are more interdependent on diverse contribution of others to perform a cooperatively function instead of the dominance of collective conscience (Sirianni, 1984). Brown (2008) points out that individualism becomes more important than the collecti ve to maintain social solidarity and represents the characteristic of modern society. It is apparently Durkheim provide a sociological platform which benefits to interpret social process. However limitations could probably exist in his theories as well as methodology such as the cause of the division of labor and the interpretation of its effects. Tarde (citied in Lukes, 1973, p. 304) suggests that Durkheims opinion on the division of labor only concern the social internal problem without international relationship. Meanwhile, the division of labor could also result from variety of creation instead of population density. Moreover, Merton (1994, p. 22) argues that in Durkheims presentation of social evolution, he diminished the effectiveness of civil law in primitive society and common interest in the modern society in order to give prominence to main power of cohesion : collective consciousnesses and the division of labour, in mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity respectively. As a result, a precise relationship between solidarity and law may not be obtained. Finally, in the conclusion of his work, he personally regard the society as pathological due to the lack of social regulations that do no match the level of the division of labor and excessive individualism during transition, it is likely to push the society into anomie as well as increase the suicide rate (Mutchnick et al., 2009). In another significant book Suicide Durkheim explained a popular moral phenomenon in the 19th society. Suicide can be defined as every case of death which results directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act, accomplished by the victim himself which he knows must produce this result (Lukes, 1973, p. 202). Durkheim first considered suicide is a private action but also as a matter of a social fact that exists external to each individual in the society. Thus, the statistics of suicide could reflect diverse outside forces through which one could access to the origins of the weakness of the society as well as solution to those problem. Then he theoretically categorizes different but general social causes of individual suicide and draws its effect by deduction approach. There are four forms of suicide respect to two levels of imbalanced social forces: integration and moral rule (Thompson, 1982). Firstly, it is regarded that egoistic suicide is the consequence of excessive individ ualism. In a deteriorated society, individual who integrate less with others and act on their own interest is likely to act egoistic suicide. By contrast, altruistic suicide is result from excessive conformity, Durkheim stats that suicide becomes ones obligation. It often happens in modern societies among civilized people who sacrifice themselves in order to save others such as military (Durkheim, 1979). The other two kinds of suicide are classified into the group of moral regulation. Durkheim again divided the situation that people tends to conduct anomic suicide into four aspects of crisis: decline in the capability of social organizations to instruct peoples lives; rapid social transformation; wealth no longer satisfied people and unbalanced marriage. Finally, Durkheim view fatalistic as the product of rigid but strong moral norm which often committed by slaves (Jones, 1986). It is suggested that if examine Durkheims work critically, one may noticed flaws in his notion of Suicide (Gane, 1988, p. 152). First, one may question whether such phenomenon causes by external force such as society but shared awareness from individuals. However, Durkheim defends it by the term of conscience collective which is also a kind of a social fact and points out the strength of linking morality to discover social laws (Craib, 1997, p. 32). Secondly, Lukes (1973, p. 202-206) argues that his classification of suicide form has limited the causes and types. Moreover, Durkheim concerned the causes of suicide only with social facts and rejected the relationship between suicide and personality in terms of psychology, physic as well as alcoholism. Additionally, the subject of suicide is more like to exist in disordered societies thus lead to an unbalanced research which prone to the theory of pathology. As a result, the contribution of suicide to sociology is actually restricted. However, Thompson (1982) states that regardless the shortages, Durkheim work of suicide is an essential contribution because they effectively combine sociological theory with empiricism to explain social phenomenon. Durkheim suggests that the study of suicide could reveal the connection between social members which closely go with the original subject of social bond in sociology. Moreover, by examining suicide could help one to discover the law of sociology and thus give a direction of the development of society (Lukes, 1973, p. 193). In the research, he related series of common characteristics of the society as social facts to suicide rate statistics and draw a general conclusion that particular social environment and current could lead to a growth of suicide rate. For example, insufficient economy growth and social mode changes generate a remarkable suicide rate in the 19th century of European. Aimed at solving this problem, Durkheim also proposed to strengthen the backbone of econ omy and support individuals with the sense of belonging (Lukes, 1973, p. 220). In conclusion, this essay explored Durkheims main works in sociology. As one of the founder of professional sociology, Durkheim identified social facts thus built the dimension as well as the skeleton of sociology. Based on previous work, he formulates a systematic methodology to discover the social laws by observing and comparing the relationships between different variables. Durkheim further applied his methodology and theory into his work of The Division of Labor and Suicide. He discovered the procedure by which individuals socially integrate into society, and provide different types to explain the relationship between people and society. Although there are certain indistinct interpretation in terms of concepts and correlations, Durkheims work is considered to have significant to the scientific study of society. Word count: 2105

Sleepy Hollow:Heads Will Roll Essay -- Art

Sleepy Hollow:Heads Will Roll Have you ever heard of The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow? It’s a wonderful story, written by Washington Irving in 1819. It was then made into a movie entitled Sleepy Hollow by the gothic film maker Tim Burton in 1999. Basically, it tells the story of a constable named Ichabod Crane sent to a small Dutch community called Sleepy Hollow in the state of New York to investigate the deaths of many people found with their heads cut off. The locals say that the murders have been committed by the legendary Headless Horseman and Ichabod does not believe this, but with the help of the fair Katrina Van Tassel, the daughter of the town’s richest man, and the young son of one of the victims, young Masbath, he finds out indeed that a horseman was the key to the murders, but that he was controlled by a person of flesh and blood that possessed his skull, Katrina’s evil stepmother! She killed everyone that made her family suffer in the past to avenge herself and she also assassinated everyone that stood in her path to steal the richest man in town’s fortune: her husband. So Ichabod then recuperates the skull, gives it back to the horseman who then takes Katrina’s mother into his bloody g rave with him. The story takes place in 1799, and the movie represents that time very well. For example, when they write, they use a feather and some ink instead of a pen. Also, there are no cars in the movie, only horses are used. Another thing that is representative of the e...

Repressive Patriarchs of Jane Eyre

â€Å"The men in the novel are all repressive patriarchs. For them, male supremacy must be absolute. † In the light of this comment, discuss Bronte’s presentation of male characters in ‘Jane Eyre’. Throughout the novel of Jane Eyre, there seems to be a common sense of patriarchal dominance, as possessed by the male characters. Bronte shows male supremacy through four key characters that Jane encounters throughout her life. Each character differs hugely, though this sense of a higher and more powerful individual, over Jane, remains prevalent in each – they are all repressive patriarchs in some way, though of varying magnitudes.The Victorian society was a completely different society to the one we live in now and it was well-known to be male-dominated and one in which women had almost no rights at all. The fact that Bronte wrote Jane Eyre during this period in time is clearly reflected in the male characters in the novel. It is evident that Bronte hers elf may have experienced or been put in some of the situations that she portrays Jane to be in by some oppressive male character in her own life.Nevertheless, it is seen that these characters do change as the novel progresses as Bronte seems to give them a chance to withdraw themselves as a repressive force, and show a little more consideration and compassion towards others and women in particular. John Reed is the first of Bronte’s repressive patriarchs in the novel. He is placed at the beginning of the novel and is introduced to us almost immediately. He is in fact the very first oppressive force to Jane in her life and in this way is very significant.At first, John does not seem to be a huge threat to Jane, merely branding her a â€Å"bad animal† and a â€Å"rat†. This juvenile name-calling behaviour, as expressed by John, is still oppressive in that he uses these names to assert a higher power over Jane, subsequent to pronouncing all the books in the house a s his property. He reminds Jane that she is in a highly precarious position in society and that she has no class due to the fact that she is living with them. She is classified as â€Å"less than a servant† according to him because she does â€Å"nothing for [her] keep†.John taunts Jane proclaiming that she â€Å"ought to beg† to even live. He continuously reminds Jane that she is a â€Å"dependent†; somewhat indicating that she is dependent on him due to the fact that he is the only male in the household, and therefore the master by birth. Furthermore, John demands obedience of Jane, even though he is only but four years older than her. He exercises what he feels is his power as a male over her physically, as can be seen when he hits Jane with a book as the â€Å"volume was flung†.This physical abuse is indicative of Bronte expressing that John Reed believes that male supremacy must be absolute. The regularity of his bullying as a demand for obedi ence of Jane, not â€Å"once or twice in a day, but continually† is also characteristic of a repressive patriarch who would feel more secure in continuous rather than periodic abuse. John Reed’s appearance may even be said to be one of a typical oppressive male character. Being â€Å"large and stout† with â€Å"heavy limbs and large extremities† indicate that he is quite a large boy for his age and automatically an intimidating individual.His actions towards Jane are also somewhat animalistic such as â€Å"thrusting out his tongue at [her] as far as he could without damaging the roots†, suggesting his belief in a primal sense of alpha male dominance over a shrewdness of apes. He is quite grotesque as well and he does not just exert his power over Jane, but he â€Å"twisted the necks of the pigeons, [and] killed the little pea-chicks. † It is clear that Bronte is extremely disgusted with his manner of indulging in animal cruelty as a means to show his masculinity.John is also disagreeable towards his mother and acts without respect towards her, emphasising his belief that he is of a higher status than all women, not just Jane. He â€Å"called his mother ‘old girl’ too; sometimes reviled her for her dark skin, similar to his own; bluntly disregarded her wishes, [and] not infrequently tore and spoiled her silk attire. † These aspects of John Reed, with no doubt, express Bronte’s strong feelings about the fact that all men thought that they were superior to a woman. Her disapproval and abhorrence of male supremacy is clear. Mr Brocklehurst is the second tormenting force that Jane is exposed to in her life.He differs to John Reed in the fact that whilst John Reed is a form of physical oppression towards Jane, Brocklehurst is a form of religious oppression. Nevertheless, both of the two characters are similar in appearance as can be seen by Bronte’s description of them, reinforcing this idea that male characters of oppression have a certain appearance to express their power. When Jane first meets Brocklehurst, the first description she ever gives him is one with negative connotations – â€Å"a black pillar† that was â€Å"standing erect on the rug; the grim face at the top was like a carved mask, placed above the shaft by way of capital. Immediately we are given the sense that he is an imposing and unbending character who is just plain frightening, especially to a young Jane. Brocklehurst seems to be a gothic villain in a sense and as a â€Å"stony stranger†, the sibilance emphasises the fact that he is extremely unapproachable, hard and unforgiving. Bronte also gives Brocklehurst a â€Å"bass voice† which emphasises his masculinity, as well as large features that are â€Å"harsh and prim† to highlight his unyielding disposition.We soon find out that Brocklehurst is in fact a religious hypocrite who uses religion as a vehicle for his repressive force that he exerts on the pupils at his school. However, we are not on first introduction immediately shown his hypocrisy by Bronte until a little later in the novel when Jane is at his school. Upon Jane and Brocklehurst’s first meeting, he pointedly asks Jane if she should like to â€Å"fall into that pit [full of fire] and be burning there for ever†. In an oppressive manner, Brocklehurst uses these implications of hell as such to scare and terrify Jane into obedience.If we read into Brocklehurst’s language, his hypocrisy is revealed to us. He states to Jane that she would burn in hell â€Å"for ever. † The fact that he says â€Å"for ever† is key in that he particularly twists the Christian ideas. When he mentions hell to Jane he ignores a key Christian idea that you may be saved from hell in an effort to frighten her into submission. Brocklehurst does not know for a fact that Jane will go to hell, but he is threatening her with the idea of hell, as he does with all the girls at Lowood School. Bronte writes the first conversation between Brocklehurst in a way that puts our sympathies, as a reader, with Jane. You must pray to God to change it: to give you a new and clean one: to take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh† was the advice given to Jane by Brocklehurst – this is ironic in that Brocklehurst is described by Bronte as being â€Å"stony† himself, emphasising Bronte’s effort to sway the audience’s opinions to side with Jane. At Lowood, Brocklehurst firmly preaches the idea that God wants women to devote themselves to domesticity in order to please Him. He states that â€Å"humility is a Christian grace and one peculiarly appropriate to the pupils of Lowood† and that he brings the girls up in a way so as to cultivate this.Brocklehurst reveals his own hypocrisy and effectively shoots himself in the foot and shows that he clearly does not practice what he preaches with his own children when he tells the story of his daughter Augusta and her trip to Lowood. Augusta comments on â€Å"how quiet and plain all the girls at Lowood look†, â€Å"almost like poor people’s children†, in comparison to herself in a â€Å"silk gown. † Augusta and her sisters also actually arrive at Lowood, as seen by Jane, in velvet shawls, ostrich plume and such.In this way, Bronte shows her belief that Brocklehurst is all that is wrong with the males of Victorian society as well as many of the rich people who also state that â€Å"consistency, is the first of Christian duties†, without fully committing and believing in what they say themselves. Brocklehurst is in fact an extremely inconsistent person in his day to day life. Mr Brocklehurst is a representation of what Bronte believes is wrong with society and its males with regards to religious oppression, as John Reed is a representation of her beliefs with regard to m ales in society with regards to physical oppression.In a stark contrast to Mr Brocklehurst is St John Rivers, who is in fact a non-stereotypical patriarch. He is a contrast to Brocklehurst because he firmly does not believe that women like Jane should dedicate and devote themselves to domesticity but instead to God. Brocklehurst is also a hypocrite in this way as he should be preaching the idea of devotion to God but instead teaches his pupils to devote themselves to domesticity. However, there are also some ways in which St John is similar to Brocklehurst, and there is a key link between them in their ideologies.St John has extremely congruent ideologies; however he is not a hypocrite, unlike Brocklehurst. It is important to mention that St John is an aesthetic model, an extremely problematic one at that. He is constantly living for his ideals and with his perfectionist nature, these ideals are almost unattainable. He is deeply religious and self-sacrificing when it comes to fulfil ling his religious duties, and in this way, he tries forcefully to get Jane to comply with his approach to life and to go to India with him.To get her to come with him and marry him, he uses language such as â€Å"a part of me you must become†, asserting his authority and power as a male over her. He seems to be sacrificing of both Jane’s happiness and health for others, but he applies this to himself as well. St John attempts to dictate Jane’s life in that he seemingly wants her to reject his job offer as a school mistress for village children. He wants her to hold this job for a while but not permanently as he believes that she â€Å"cannot be content to pass [her] leisure in solitude, and to devote [her] working hours to a monotonous labour† in a place where her skills are made useless.He acknowledges that Jane is destined by God to do greater things, and though he may be wrong, he seems to be hinting to her this fact and that she is fit for a missiona ry’s wife, in what could be seen as a passive oppressive act. St John is also deeply unhappy with the fact that all Jane seems to want is a happy family life and would use all her money that she inherited to secure it. At Christmas, she is set on revelling in domesticity and St John is very much bothered and despairing of this and tries to convince her to become more like him, albeit in a repressive manner. I excuse you for the present: two months’ grace I allow you for the full enjoyment of your new position† – in this authoritative language St John displays that he does not want Jane to remain the position that she is in and to â€Å"begin to look beyond Moor House and Morton†¦ and the selfish calm and sensual comfort of civilised affluence. † He wants Jane to sacrifice herself to God and I believe that in this way St John is more dangerous than Brocklehurst because he can is oppressive with reason, and he is not a hypocrite and willing to do all he preaches.I have decided to leave discussion of Mr Rochester to the end as I believe that he is by far the most complicated of the male characters throughout the novel, due to the fact that he undergoes a change in which he becomes less of a repressive patriarch and therefore a more suitable husband for Jane. The character at the beginning of the novel is vastly different to the Rochester that we see at the end, in more ways than one. However, the change in his oppressive nature towards Jane is especially significant. Jane did meet Rochester by chance, but even though he did not know who she was, he was still oppressive and authoritative towards her.He commands her to lead him his horse and when she is unable, he states that â€Å"necessity compels [him] to make [her] useful†, laying a heavy hand on her shoulder which is a significant action that demonstrates his sense of authority. This attitude becomes less apparent as he gets to know her though further into their re lationship, this dominant side of him reappears as he seemingly tries to force her to stay with him, though deep down he knows he cannot keep her. Jane feels that she is equal to Rochester as he is the first male not to out rightly exercise and force his patriarchal dominance over her.Jane is comfortable to speak out and give her opinion directly, though this is only after he asks. She pointedly states that she does not think that he has â€Å"a right to command [her] merely because [he] is older that her† and in this way she has stated that the fact that he is male also does not play a part, though she does not actually say this. However, as their relationship progresses, this equality is warped and some of it is lost as Rochester seemingly becomes more desperate to have Jane for himself. This gradual increase in commands directed at Jane can be seen when Jane asks to leave him to see Mrs Reed.He commands her to â€Å"promise [him] one thing†, that being â€Å"not to advertise: and to trust this quest of a situation to me. I’ll find you one in time. † His desperation for her to come back as soon as possible is evident in the fact that he orders her not to advertise so that she will definitely come back to him. When Jane tries to leave Rochester for good, upon finding out that he does indeed have a wife, in the form of Bertha Mason, Rochester threatens violence in order to get her to stay. He is desperate to get through to her and to convince her to stay and it is interesting that he seems to want to resort to this.The fact that he threatens this shows us that he is at an end and this is what a male character would do in order to get someone to comply with their wishes. Rochester is interesting in that he does try to give Jane a lot of freedom as a woman to do as she wishes, and is comfortable being an equal with her, but when it comes down to it, he always finally resorts to his dominance as a male. Jane, however, does finally retu rn to Rochester at the end of the novel. She makes her way back to Thornfield only to find it burned to the ground and she seeks out Rochester whom she finds disabled following the great fire started by Bertha.This loss of an arm and his sight his key to making Rochester a suitable husband for Jane. The disability means that Rochester is now physically an equal to Jane, and does not have to suppress his opinions and will never have the opportunity to be dominant over her any more. Before he was disabled, Rochester never exercised his power over Jane, out of choice, this disability means that even if he wanted and chose to utilise his male dominance over her, he cannot. The fact that Bronte decides to take away from Rochester so that he becomes less oppressive is interesting.She seems to be giving Jane a chance to have power in the Victorian society that she lives in, possibly reflecting a wish for herself as a woman. Not all the male characters of Jane Eyre are always patriarchal an d some, like Rochester, choose not to exercise their power over the woman. It is important to note that all the characters do it in different ways: physical, religious and only in desperation. However, the distressing reality that Bronte is trying to express is that the majority of the men in society do believe in absolute male supremacy.Nevertheless, she does give the example of Mrs Reed as a female oppressor who demands submission of Jane as a child, and took revenge when not obeyed. I believe that Bronte wanted the male characters to be a strong repressive force so as to reflect her feelings of society and the imbalance between the males and females. It is possible that Bronte was trying to send a message to society through this novel in an effort to provoke a change in society, which would have been met with dispute from male readers and agreement from a female audience.

Jane eyre the feminist essays

Jane eyre the feminist essays Jane Eyre, The Feminist Tract In 1837 critic Robert Southey wrote to Charlotte Bronte, "Literature cannot be the business of a woman's life, and it ought not to be. The more she is engaged in her proper duties, the less leisure will she have for it, even as an accomplishment and a recreation," (Gaskell 102). This opinion was not held by only one person, but by many. Indeed, it is this attitude, one that debases women and their abilities, to which Charlotte Bronte responds with Jane Eyre. The purpose of Jane Eyre, not only the novel, but also the character herself as a cultural heroine, is to transform a primeval society, one which devalues women and their contributions, into a nobler order of civilization (Craig 57). The effectiveness of Bronte's argument is due to both her motivation and approach. Bronte found her motivation from the experiences she had undergone while living in the Victorian era. Her approach in advocating social reform is to establish Jane as a model for readers. Readers are meant to examine Jane's life, especially the manner in which she handles problems or confrontations in her relationships, and to follow her example in their own lives. Just as we see Jane as a model of a woman successful in asserting her self-worth, we are also given a warning about the possible outcome of failure to realize self- worth in Bertha Rochester. This facet will also be discussed briefly. Bronte uses the motivation of personal experiences to create the life of Jane Eyre in which we see the quest for social betterment through her relationships. Bronte herself experienced the social limitations of the nineteenth century. At this time "respectable women had few options in life beyond marriage, education of children, and domestic service," (Magill 747). She ventured to explore her own literary abilities and wrote Jane Eyre, a novel ...