2.TÉTEL: EMBER ÉS TÁRSADALOM AZ EMBERI KAPCSOLATOK MINŐSÉGE (BARÁTSÁG, SZERELEM, HÁZASSÁG)
RELATIONSHIPS
INTRODUCTION Don`t we all come to this world as guests—constantly striving to find the golden rule of a successful rapport with everybody and everything we come across? From birth to death a person`s success or failure is measured by the kind of relationship he/ she has had with elements of this world: people. Nature and beyond it all,with the spirit behind this "relative world". But striking the right chord in a relationship often proves a hard nut to crack. The world seems to constantly echo with a disconcerting chorus of voices, the result of frustrated relationships between parents and their children, husbands and wives, friends, siblings, in-laws, employees and colleagues—individuals disillusioned with themselves for not being able to relate successfully to their environs. The most interesting aspect of this scenario is that, today there happens to be no dearth of methods to arrive at that elusive "success" in the act of relating. Couples The phenomenal flux of changes in every sphere of our lives since the last century has redefined the role of human relationships. Social revolutions such as the women`s lib, the cult of the individual, and even the human potential movement have repatterned the basic premises of relationships. A good relationship today is not one that just lasts but one that coexists with self-respect, individuality and the need to grow. For it to thrive successfully, marriage counselors and psychologists, also, stress the need for this kind of "space" within a couple`s relationship. An individual in a marriage shouldn`t be a repository of one`s own needs and desires, in fact both the people involved should be totally committed to their relationship. They must be ready to take responsibility for themselves as well as the relationship. How to Make Relationships Work • Don`t try too hard to convince the other person of your love. Love and trust yourself more. This will relax your love defenses and enable you to give yourself totally to relationship. • Don`t question the other person`s love all the time. • Feel the oneness of the universe.Step beyond the `me first` conflicts that mar relationships. This would help you be complete within yourself. • Don`t use your relationships to fulfill your expectations. • Know yourself. Analyze the cause of your reactions. • Acknowledge the other person as an individual. Grow and let grow. • In a conflicting relationship, check where you went wrong rather than where the other
person failed. Listen to each other. Communication strengthens the foundation of a relationship. • Take the first step in working out a relationship without worrying about who is in the right. Don`t depend on any person and don`t let the other person depend on you. Parenting One of life`s greatest achievement is to grow and let your seeds grow. Nothing in life is more fulfilling than watching your children blossom. More so when you have to nurture, educate and guide them towards a life most suitable to them. Millions of parents do it all the time— some, with a lot of effort, some without a thought. So, what really is good parenting? Is it discipline, moral education, freedom to let your child be what he is? Or is it something more subtle, something that goes by the name of life`s lessons? But it might be a good thing to remember that, no matter how eager or ambitious we are in shaping our children`s lives, there is a limit to what we can accomplish. Swami Vivekananda, founder of Ramakrishna Mission, uses the analogy of growing a plant to drive home the point: "You cannot make a plant grow in soil unsuited to it. A child teaches itself. But you can help it to go forward in its own way. What you can do is not of the positive nature, but of the negative. You can take away the obstacles, but knowledge comes out of its own nature. Loosen the soil a little, so that it may come out easily. Put a hedge round it; see that it is not killed by anything, and there your work stops. You cannot do anything else. The rest is a manifestation from within its own nature." "You cannot make a plant grow in soil unsuited to it. A child teaches itself. But you can help it to go forward in its own way. What you can do is not of the positive nature, but of the negative. You can take away the obstacles, but knowledge comes out of its own nature. Loosen the soil a little, so that it may come out easily. Put a hedge round it; see that it is not killed by anything, and there your work stops. You cannot do anything else. The rest is a manifestation from within its own nature." BRINGING UP CHILDREN • Teach values such as honesty, integrity, patience and self-control gradually and steadily, that too by your own example. • Praise them openly and often, reprove secretly and seldom; reprimand the bad behavior, not your children. • Teach them self-esteem and self-confidence (something they`ll carry for the rest of their lives). • Restrict television watching and recreation time. Keep a watch on your children`s company. • Try to keep alcohol and drugs away from the house, or keep them in moderation. • Maintain a happy and loving home environment. • Give a lot of your time to your children, both quality and quantity. • Make humor and laughter a part of your relationship with children. • Allow children to grow and learn through the mistakes they make. • Hug and show feelings of love whenever possible. • Communicate gently but clearly and firmly.
PAPA OF TINY FEET
• In a time of nuclear families in which wives also contribute to the family kitty, it is imperative that fathers too share the responsibility of bringing up a baby. Don`t view the time spent with your child as a chore. It is an integral part of your life that will help strengthen the parent-child bond. • The keynote in approaching fatherhood is to relax. A baby is responsive to the parent`s feelings. If you are anxious, so will the baby be. • A baby often makes demands on its mother at the most outrageous times, leaving her exhausted. At this time you can encourage her by taking on some of the tasks—such as changing nappies or waking up in the night to look after necessary chores. • It might seem difficult to change your lifestyle that the baby`s presence would inevitably demand. You may have to say good-bye to indulgent hobbies that you have developed over the years, the partying that used to be fun. But if you allow yourself to get involved in the process of your child`s growing up—building blocks with him, doing jigsaws, and reading from picture books—you will discover a new joy, as you watch the wonder of life unfold through its eyes. OLD V/S NEW Current medical wisdom regarding the rearing of children, upholds some traditional Indian practices while rejecting others: • Avoid pre-lacteal feeds like honey water, glucose or formula milk. • Talcum powders serve no purpose and can be avoided. Soaps, if used at all should be mild. • If your religion your child to be circumcised, postpone circumcision till a later stage and make sure that it is done by a qualified surgeon. —Dr Promilla Butani in Parenting • Don`t give the child any water or juices until he starts on solid food. • Avoid applying kohl in the baby`s eyes. • Take any ailment, even a minor fever, seriously in a newborn • Avoid putting ear or nose-rings • Use cotton clothes and diapers. • After feeding, burp the child. Don`t let the child lie down face-up immediately after feeding. • Don`t try tricks such as coating your child`s thumb with chilies to rid it of thumb-sucking habit. These are psychological problems that should be handled by a pediatrician. —Dr Dwarkadas Motiwala SIBLINGS: We alternately love them and hate them, but one thing`s for sure—what would we do without them? Our companions for life, our competitors, our confidantes, our rivals, our comrades-inarms against the whole mad world—what would we do without them? No other bond in the world can beat siblings at sharing such a unique and complex love-hate relationship! The true worth of having had brothers and/or sisters around while we were growing up never strikes us till we are way past our childhood. The most important lesson we learn at that stage of our lives, is how to get along with individuals other than ourselves. That was also when we learnt to develop social values such as cooperation, honesty, kindness, and tolerance . Learning such important social skills usually takes a lot of time, but they are imbibed much
faster while living with brothers and sisters. Children with siblings learn how to share and resolve conflicts quite easily. And with the right kind of guidance from parents, siblings also get a lot of practice in learning how to be cooperative, supportive, and nurturing to others. In other words, we probably turned out much better because we had that bullying older brother or the irritating younger sister__it prepared us for all the important relationships we encountered later in life. Tips for Managing Quarrelsome Siblings • Let siblings express their feelings. • Try to comment only on the disagreeable behavior and avoid telling one child that a sibling is better at something. • Try to give each sibling according to his/her individual need. • Don`t take sides in sibling fights. Instead, try to let the children work out differences on their own. • It takes time and persistence for you to learn new ways of treating your children and for them to learn new ways of getting along. • Don`t give up. FRIENDS: A friend is someone who walks in when the whole world walks out. Our friends are equity shares we earn in life. We continue to reap dividends on them throughout our lives. Yet today how many of us have shoulders to lean on outside our immediate familial relationships? In a highly competitive and result oriented world, we seem to be drifting away from each other all the time. This is not to say that the world is short of amiable individuals, but rather that we have forgotten the art of maintaining positive camaraderie. In a mad rush to keep up with the fast changing pace of urban living, we fail to nurture and care for basic ties of love and warmth that binds us all together. Tips for Better Friendships 1. Being Fully Committed 2. Taking Personal Responsibility 3. Taking Care of Yourself 4. Being honest, and 5. Doing Your Work—will allow you to experience the love, happiness, joy, and quality of life that you deserve, and is worth your best effort! FORRÁS: http://www.lifepositive.com/mind/relationship/relationship.asp
LÁZADÁS VAGY ALKALMAZKODÁS; A TIZENÉVESEK ÚTKERESÉSE
Teen rebellion: When to seek help
Feb 27, 2013 11:00 AM by Sherri Kuhn Posted in Parenting / Age by Age / Tweens, Teens & College
Your teen is testing the limits — both at home and at school. Some may say it’s par for the course for teenagers, but when has it gone too far? If your teenager is getting into increasingly difficult situations, you may need to seek help to get it under control
Is it normal behavior or something more? Teenagers have been asserting their independence from parents for as long as there have been teenagers. Parents of teens are often taken by surprise when struggles begin, but it’s a natural progression on the course to adulthood. When the struggles seem never-ending and the conflicts become more serious, how do you know when to seek help?
Is it really rebellion? What one parent sees as rebellious behavior, another parent may be able to overlook. Regardless of how the behavior is perceived by parents, rebellion in the teen years is normal. “The thing to understand about rebellion is that it's supposed to happen,” says Carl Grody, LISW, MSW, a licensed independent social worker. “It's a transitional phase of development between childhood and young adulthood.” This new phase often takes parents by surprise. “Parents are often confused by this because they're used to their children wanting to please them and be like them,” adds Grody, “but a teen's job developmentally is to start creating his own personality separate from his parents.” One of the most predictable ways teens do this is to begin defying their parents, which is developmentally appropriate at this stage.
When it means more Bigger struggles with more serious consequences may signal that there is more than just growing up going on. Grody shares a few questions to ask yourself to tell if your teen’s rebellious behavior is more serious.
Does your child's behavior seem extreme compared to other kids his age? Has the teen suddenly stopped showing interest in things that he likes? Is the teen showing flashes of anger that weren't there before? Is your teen hanging out with peers who are involved with drugs and alcohol? Is there a family history of mental health/behavioral issues? Are there unusual stressors involved such as bullying, loss of a loved one, marital problems or breakup of parents, etc.?
In the end, Grody suggests that you remember your parenting instincts. “Finally, what's your gut reaction? Nobody knows your child better than you do. You should trust your instincts,” he adds. Erica Ives, M.A., MFT, CEDS, is a licensed marriage and family therapist who works with teens and their parents. “Parenting a teen and being a teenager are two of the most challenging jobs in existence,” she says. “Keep lines of communication open with other parents of teenagers to discuss and share concerns to not feel so alone.” She stresses that staying connected to your teen is crucial to making it through this stage. “Ask your teen how they are, check if everything is OK and remind them that you are there for them to talk to.” She says that parents should be proactive, rather than reactive.
A parent’s story Being the parent of a troubled teen can feel isolating. One mother — who blogs at Inelegant Unpremeditated Life — shares her experience with her daughter. “We had problems with her running away, making up lies, sneaking out and sneaking boys in starting at about age 13,” she shares. “I wanted her to see a therapist but her dad said it was a waste of time. Then when she was 15, we got in a fight — she'd stolen our van and drove it into a concrete pillar at the gas station — and she pulled a knife on me. My husband got the knife away and pinned her down until the sheriff's department showed up and took her to juvenile hall.” Her daughter had mandatory counseling but refused to talk with the counselor and was placed on probation. After numerous other issues — including being on the run from the law for a month over a probation violation — police picked her up and the court mandated she go to a group home. “She was there six months,” her mother adds. “We still had issues when she came home from there — just total disrespect for our rules since she had graduated high school and turned 18. We packed her stuff and put it out on the back porch and made her find a new place to live.” She says a few months later they let her move back in. “She is 19 now and has calmed down a lot. She works and has enrolled in college. She still tends to be pretty disrespectful but overall she's in a much better place,” she adds. Keep a watchful eye on your teen’s behavior and seek help if you feel he or she is troubled — before it’s too late. FORRÁS: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/982367/when-to-seekhelp-for-rebellious-teens
Tackling the Teenage Crisis: Helping Parents Survive Adolescent Rebellion Written by Dr. Dave Currie
An alarming story recently made headlines across Canada. Desirae Shannon, an intelligent, well-liked teenage girl – raised in a strong Christian family, on the verge of graduating high school with straight A’s – ran away with her boyfriend. Not just any guy, mind you, but a young man wanted on charges relating to prostitution and physical assault on a child. The girl went by her own choice, and the couple spent nearly two weeks fleeing her parents, her church and the police before finally turning themselves in. It’s the kind of story that sends chills up the spine of every parent. What makes an innocent girl, seemingly so well-grounded, make such a dangerous decision? And, more importantly, could it happen with my kid? Having worked with teenagers and their parents for over 25 years, there is very little I haven’t seen in the way of teenage rebellion. Sex. Drugs. School expulsions. Runaways. Disrespect. Car accidents. Peer pressure. The list goes on. On the topic of raising teenagers, Mark Twain advised, “When a boy turns 13, put him in a barrel and feed him through a knot hole. When he turns 16, plug up the hole.” Faced with the challenges that adolescence brings, this plan begins to look attractive! But is this really the only way to survive the teenage years? Rebellion: Some facts about maturity into adulthood Every parent wants to avoid teenage rebellion if at all possible, and for good reason. Who really wants to see their kids make bad choices and get themselves into trouble? And so I have parents asking me all the time, “How do I make sure my kid stays on the straight and narrow?” You may be surprised by my answer. Here are a few things that will help us keep rebellion in its proper perspective: 1. Adolescent rebellion begins as a result of the desire for independence. It is a developmental norm. In fact, if you have the sneaking suspicion that teenage rebellion may be inevitable, you’re right! Pretty much every teenager will test the limits – and even cross the line – at one time or another. Of course, there are varying degrees of rebellion – one parent’s “rebellious child” may be another parent’s dream child! Nevertheless, even the best-behaved child will go the wrong way at some point. The good news is that this does not have to be a crisis! In fact, believe it or not, rebellion can be a very healthy and integral part of your adolescent’s transition from childhood to adulthood. 2. Normal rebellion, though difficult to live with, is more praiseworthy than the desire for dependence. The opposite of rebellion would be the desire to stay at home, refusal to take responsibility for life, and fear of making decisions. Although this might make the teen years easier to handle for you as a parent, it is ultimately not what you want for your child. 3. Normal rebellion needs to be understood as the natural desire to grow, although being sought after in an awkward manner. Becoming an adult includes beginning to make decisions for oneself. Teens need to question the world around them and begin to own their personal beliefs and actions. Because the teen is inexperienced, this will inevitably lead to mistakes, but that’s okay. Failure plays a critical role in the learning process.
4. Because it does contribute to growing maturity, normal rebellion (increasing independence) should not only be expected by parents – it is actually desirable. Yes, you heard that right: a certain measure of rebellion is a good thing. Don’t force it by putting unrealistic expectations on your kids, but gradually and carefully transfer responsibility for life choices to the adolescent. 5. Much rebellion is fashioned after peer models. What other models do teenagers have of attaining independence? The need for having, doing or being like a peer is great. This can work negatively, but it can also work positively if you can help your kids choose friends wisely. 6. There are unhealthy causes to teenage rebellion, including: o o o o o o
parental discord parental discipline methods family confusion: alcoholic parent, abusive situations, financial pressures peer influence fear of failure low self worth
If you suspect that any of these factors lie behind your teen’s rebellion, you need to deal with the root cause before the behaviour can be changed. Healthy vs. unhealthy rebellion One of the keys to helping your teen grow through their rebellion is being able to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy rebellion. How can you tell the difference? Here are some guidelines. Characteristics of healthy rebellion: o
Healthy rebellion helps teens shed their cocoons and use their own wings. It is born out of increased independence, responsibility and autonomy. As the youth is allowed to make age-appropriate decisions, there may be some missteps, but it is a natural part of their progression to adulthood.
o
Healthy rebellion involves open communication between the parents and the teen. The parent is really willing to listen, taking an active interest in the adolescent and trying to understand their world. They ask lots of questions, and provide reasonable guidelines and restrictions where necessary. Both sides have freedom to share their feelings.
o
Healthy rebellion is gradual, occasional and varied in expression. Rebellion is not a way of life for the teen, and they are not consistently disregarding clear family standards. There is an ever-increasing dynamic of growing maturity.
o
Healthy rebellion is creative in that it makes a man or woman out of the teen. They learn to stand up for their deeply held beliefs in positive, constructive ways, and even to stand against the tide at times.
o
Healthy rebellion forces adults to let go and develop themselves. It can be difficult for us as parents to accept that our children are growing up, but it
is critical that we adjust and drop the “My little boy syndrome.” Failure to give our kids the room they need to grow can actually cause them to act out in more destructive ways. o
Healthy rebellion gives teens confidence and assurance with adults. It teaches them how to relate to adults as peers, and not just as subordinates.
Characteristics of unhealthy rebellion: o
Unhealthy rebellion takes place in the context of closed communication channels. There is a lack of constructive discussion, and the relationship becomes increasingly strained over time.
o
Unhealthy rebellion features sudden, extreme expressions of independence. Defiant outbursts are common, and explosive anger surfaces.
o
Unhealthy rebellion leads to a lack of mutual trust. The teen may be flagrantly dishonest and deceptive. They are caught in lies as they attempt to cover up or explain away their actions.
o
Unhealthy rebellion results in increasing resentment of restrictions, explanations and discipline. Instead of discovering the necessity and wisdom of the family standards that have been set up, the youth becomes more persistent in pushing against the limits.
o
Unhealthy rebellion is marked by bitterness. Barriers of anger and withdrawal continue to build up between the teen and the parents, and the rebellion snowballs.
o
Unhealthy rebellion manifests itself in a negative attitude toward all authority figures. The adolescent closes themselves off from encouragement or guidelines from any adult in their life.
o
Unhealthy rebellion may be rooted in adults who won’t let go and insist on high levels of control. These parents fail to understand that their job, ultimately, is to release the child to live independently as an adult.
o
Unhealthy rebellion is damaging to all parties involved. Instead of leading to positive growth, it actually delays maturity.
Coping with rebellion: Every teen’s quest for freedom and responsibility Once we have understood the nature of our teen’s rebellion and accepted that it may be an important part of their growth process, we are ready to begin dealing with it. Approaches will vary based on the seriousness and type of behaviour that is occurring, but here are some basic principles to keep in mind: 1. Practice loving and consistent discipline early. Inconsistent discipline encourages kids to test the limits, to see what they can get away with; discipline apart from love breeds resentment and bitterness. Instead, discipline in a way that your kids know exactly what the rules are and what to expect when they break them – and above all, assure them of your unending love and support even when you are disappointed by their behaviour.
2. Continue to set limits, but gradually work toward reasonable responsibility and decision-making opportunities. Decide in advance which hills you are ready to die on, and which areas have more room for flexibility. Remember that your ultimate goal is to release your child to live their own life. 3. Work on being approachable, flexible and understanding. Allow exceptions when you can, be willing to change, and apologize for your mistakes. Create a safe environment for your teen to take risks to grow, and be a safe landing place when they fail. 4. Seek to provide adequate substitutes for banned activities or practices; don’t continuously prohibit without providing an alternative. 5. Take time for and spend time with your teen! Do fun things together, attend their activities and show your interest. They don’t need less of you during the teen years, but more. 6. Never, under any circumstance, withhold acceptance, forgiveness or encouragement. Try to think of one justifiable reason before God why you could withhold these! We are to model the character of God to our children, and above all He is a God of grace. Helping your kids through the teen years should not be feared. It has been a good time with all four of our kids, and now that the last one is graduating, I would take those teen years again in a heartbeat. It is a great time of life! FORRÁS: http://powertochange.com/family/rebellion/
ELŐÍTÉLETEK, TÁRSADALMI PROBLÉMÁK ÉS AZOK KEZELÉSE
Prejudice The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: i.e. making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. In recent times, the word has come to be most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their group membership.[1] Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs[2] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." [3] Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."[4]
Historical approaches The first psychological research conducted on prejudice occurred in the 1920s. This research was done to attempt to prove white supremacy. One article from 1925 reviewing 73 studies on race concluded that the “studies take all together seem to indicate the mental superiority of the white race”.[5] This research among others led many psychologists to view prejudice as a natural response to inferior races.
In the 1930s and 1940s, this perspective began to change due to the increasing concern about anti-Semitism. Theorists of this time viewed prejudice as pathological and looked for personality syndromes linked with racism. Theorist Theodor Adorno believed prejudice stemmed from an authoritarian personality. Adorno described authoritarians as “rigid thinkers who obeyed authority, saw the world as black and white, and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies”.[6] Adorno believed people with authoritarian personalities were the most likely to be prejudiced against groups of lower status. In 1954, Gordon Allport linked prejudice and categorical thinking. Allport claims prejudice is in part a normal process for humans. According to him, "The human mind must think with the aid of categories… Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it."[7] In the 1970s, research began to show that much of prejudice is based not on negative feelings towards other groups but favoritism towards one’s own groups. According to Marilyn Brewer, prejudice "may develop not because outgroups are hated, but because positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy, and trust are reserved for the ingroup."[8] In 1979, Thomas Pettigrew described the ultimate attribution error and its role in prejudice. The ultimate attribution error occurs when ingroup members "(1) attribute negative outgroup behavior to dispositional causes (more than they would for identical ingroup behavior), and (2) attribute positive outgroup behavior to one or more of the following causes: (a) a fluke or exceptional case, (b) luck or special advantage, (c) high motivation and effort, and (d) situational factors."[6]]
Contemporary theories and empirical findings Social psychologist Henri Tajfel and colleagues found that ingroup favouritism can occur even in groups with no prior social meaning. In the minimal group experiments it was found that when voluntary study participants were assigned into groups based on something trivial such as a coin toss those participants exhibited in-group favouritism, giving preferential treatment to in-group members.[9] The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception that members of an out-group are more similar (homogenous) than members of the in-group. Social psychologists Quattrone and Jones conducted a study demonstrating this with students from the rival schools Princeton and Rutgers.[10] Students at each school were shown videos of other students from each school choosing a type of music to listen to for an auditory perception study. Then the participants were asked to guess what percentage of the videotaped students’ classmates would choose the same. Participants predicted a much greater similarity between out-group members (the rival school) than between members of their in-group The justification-suppression model of prejudice was created by Christian Crandall and Amy Eshleman.[11] This model explains that people face a conflict between the desire to express prejudice and the desire to maintain a positive self-concept. This conflict causes people to search for justification for disliking an out-group, and to use that justification to avoid negative feelings (cognitive dissonance) about themselves when they act on their dislike of the out-group.
The realistic conflict theory states that competition between limited resources leads to increased negative prejudices and discrimination. This can be seen even when the resource is insignificant. In the Robber’s Cave experiment,[12] negative prejudice and hostility was created between two summer camps after sports competitions for small prizes. The hostility was lessened after the two competing camps were forced to cooperate on tasks to achieve a common goal. Another contemporary theory is Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) developed by Walter G Stephan.[13] It draws from and builds upon several other psychological explanations of prejudice and ingroup/outgroup behaviour, such as Realistic Group Conflict Threat and symbolic racism.[14] It also uses the Social Identity Theory perspective as the basis for its validity, that is, it assumes that individuals operate in a group-based context where group memberships form a part of individual identity. ITT posits that outgroup prejudice and discrimination is caused when individuals perceive an outgroup to be threatening in some way. ITT defines four threats:
Realistic threats Symbolic threats Intergroup anxiety Negative stereotypes
Realistic threats are tangible, such as competition for a natural resource or a threat to income. Symbolic threats arise from a perceived difference in cultural values between groups or a perceived imbalance of power—for example, an ingroup perceiving an outgroup’s religion as incompatible with theirs. Intergroup anxiety is a feeling of uneasiness experienced in the presence of an outgroup or outgroup member, which constitutes a threat because interactions with other groups cause negative feelings (e.g., a threat to comfortable interactions). Negative stereotypes are similarly threats, in that individuals anticipate negative behaviour from outgroup members in line with the perceived stereotype, for example, that the outgroup is violent. Often these stereotypes are associated with emotions such as fear and anger. ITT differs from other threat theories by including intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes as threat types. Additionally, Social Dominance Theory states that society can be viewed as group-based hierarchies. In competition for scarce resources such as housing or employment, dominant groups create prejudiced "legitimizing myths" to provide moral and intellectual justification for their dominant position over other groups and validate their claim over the limited resources.[15] Legitimizing myths, such as discriminatory hiring practices or biased merit norms, work to maintain these prejudiced hierarchies. Prejudice can be a central contributing factor to depression.[16] This can occur in someone who is a prejudice victim, being the target of someone's else's prejudice, or when people have prejudice against themselves that causes their own depression.
Controversies and prominent topics
One can be prejudiced against, or have a preconceived notion about someone due to any characteristic they find to be unusual or undesirable. A few commonplace examples of prejudice are those based on someone’s race, gender, nationality, social status, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, and controversies may arise from any given topic.
Sexism Main article: Sexism The term sexism is generally linked to negative female sentiments that derive from the belief that females are worth less or less capable than males. [17] The discussion of such sentiments, and actual gender differences and stereotypes continue to be controversial topics. Throughout history, women have been thought of as being subordinate to men, often being ignored in areas like the academic arena or belittled altogether. Traditionally, men were thought of as being more capable than women, mentally and physically.[17] In the field of Social Psychology, prejudice studies like the “Who Likes Competent Women” study led the way for gender-based research on prejudice [17] This resulted in two broad themes or focuses in the field: the first being a focus on attitudes toward gender equality, and the second focusing on people’s beliefs about men and women [17] Today studies based on sexism continue in the field of psychology as researchers try to understand how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence and are influenced by others.
Nationalism Main article: Nationalism Nationalism is a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism. [18] It suggests a “shared identity” amongst a nation's people that minimizes differences within the group and emphasizes perceived boundaries between the group and non-members. [19] This leads to the assumption that members of the nation have more in common than they actually do, that they are “culturally unified,” even if injustices within the nation based on differences like status and race exist.[19] Nationalism, during times of conflict between one nation and another, is controversial since it may function as a buffer for criticism when it comes to the nation’s own problems since it makes the nation’s own hierarchies and internal conflicts appear to be natural.[19] It may also serve a way of rallying the people of the nation in support of a particular political goal.[19] Nationalism usually involves a push for conformity, obedience, and solidarity amongst the nation’s people and can result, not only in feelings of public responsibility, but also a narrow sense of community due to the exclusion of those who are considered outsiders.[19] Since the identity of nationalists is linked to their allegiance to the state, the presence of strangers who do not share this allegiance may result in hostility.[19]
Classism Main article: Classism Classism is defined by the World English Dictionary as, “...a biased or discriminatory attitude on distinctions made between social or economic classes.”[20] The idea of separating people based on class is controversial in itself. Some argue that economic inequality is an unavoidable aspect of society, so there will always be a ruling class. [21] Some also argue that even within the most egalitarian societies in history, some form of ranking based on social status takes place. Therefore, one may believe the existence of social classes is a natural
feature of society.[22] Others argue the contrary. According to anthropological evidence, for the majority of the time the human species has been in existence, we have lived in a manner in which the land and resources were not privately owned. [22] Also, when social ranking did occur, it was not antagonistic or hostile like the current class system. [22] This evidence has been used to support the idea that the existence of a social class system is unnecessary. Overall, society has yet to come to a consensus over the necessity of the class system, nor has society been able to deal with the hostility and prejudice that occurs because of the class system.
Sexual discrimination Main article: Homophobia One’s sexual orientation is a “predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality”. [23] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are not immune to prejudice or stereotypes from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexual preferences; a term for such intense hatred based upon one’s sexual orientation is homophobia. Due to what social psychologists call the vividness effect, a tendency to notice only certain distinctive characteristics, the majority population tends to draw conclusions like gays flaunt their sexuality.[24] Such images may be easily recalled to mind due to their vividness, making it harder appraise the entire situation. [24] The majority population may not only think that homosexuals flaunt their sexuality or are “too gay,” but may also erroneously believe that homosexuals are easy to identify and label as being gay or lesbian when compared to others who are not homosexual.[25] The idea of heterosexual privilege seems to flourish in society. Research and questionnaires are formulated to fit the majority— heterosexuals.[26] This discussion of whether heterosexuals are the privileged group and whether homosexuals are a minimized group is controversial. Research shows that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a powerful feature of many labor markets. For example, controlling for human capital, studies show that gay men earn 10% - 32% less than heterosexual men in the United States, and that there is significant discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in many labor markets.[27]
Racism Main article: Racism Racism is defined as the belief that races exist, that physical characteristics determine cultural traits, and that racial characteristics make some groups superior.[28] By separating people into hierarchies based upon their race, it has been argued that unequal treatment among the different groups of people is just and fair due to their genetic differences. [28] Racism can occur amongst any group that can be identified based upon physical features or even characteristics of their culture.[28] Though people may be lumped together and called a specific race, everyone does not fit neatly into such categories, making it hard to define and describe a race accurately.[28] Scientific racism began to flourish in the eighteenth century and was greatly influenced by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary studies, as well as ideas taken from the writings of philosophers like Aristotle; for example, Aristotle believed in the concept of “natural slaves”. [28] This concept focuses on the necessity of hierarchies and how some people are bound to be on the bottom of the pyramid. Though racism has been a prominent topic in history, there is still debate over whether race actually exists [citation needed], making the discussion of race a controversial topic. Even though the concept of race is still being debated, the effects of
racism are apparent. Racism and other forms of prejudice can affect a person’s behavior, thoughts and feelings, and social psychologists strive to study exactly that.
Religious discrimination Main article: Religious discrimination While various religions teach their members to be tolerant of those who are different and to have compassion, throughout history there have also been instances where religion has been used to promote hate.[29] Researchers have done various studies explore the relationship between religion and prejudice; thus far, they have received mixed results. A study done with US college students found that those who reported religion to be very influential in their lives seem to have a higher rate of prejudice than those who reported not being religious. [30] Other studies found that religion has a positive affect on people as far as prejudice is concerned. [30] This difference in results may be attributed to the differences in religious practices or religious interpretations amongst the individuals. Those who practice “institutionalized religion,” which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice.[31] Those who practice “interiorized religion,” in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.[31]
Linguistic discrimination Main article: Linguistic discrimination Individuals or groups may be treated unfairly treatment based solely on their use of language. This use of language may include the individual's native language or other characteristics of the person's speech, such as an accent, the size of vocabulary (whether the person uses complex and varied words), and syntax. It may also involve a person's ability or inability to use one language instead of another. In the mid-1980s, Linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, captured this idea of discrimination based on language as the concept of linguicism. Kangas defined linguicism as the ideologies and structures used to, "...legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language."[32]
Multiculturalism Humans have an evolved propensity to think categorically about social groups, manifested in cognitive processes with broad implications for public and political endorsement of multicultural policy, according to Crisp and Meleady.[33] They postulated a cognitiveevolutionary account of human adaptation to social diversity that explains general resistance to multiculturalism, and offer a reorienting call for scholars and policy-makers who seek intervention-based solutions to the problem of prejudice.
Reducing prejudice Academics Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp conducted a meta-analysis of 515 studies involving a quarter of a million participants in 38 nations to examine how intergroup contact reduces prejudice. They found that three mediators are of particular importance: Intergroup contact reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increasing empathy and perspective taking. While all three of these mediators had mediational effects, the mediational value of increased
knowledge was less strong than anxiety reduction and empathy. [34] In addition, some individuals confront discrimination when they see it happen, with research finding that individuals are more likely to confront when they perceive benefits to themselves, and are less likely to confront when concerned about others' reactions.[35] FORRÁS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action In recent years, affirmative action has been debated more intensely than at any other time in its 50-year history. Many supporters view affirmative action as a milestone, many opponents see it as a millstone, and many others regard it as both or neither -- as a necessary, but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease. My own view is that the case against affirmative action is weak, resting, as it does so heavily, on myth and misunderstanding. Here are some of the most popular myths about affirmative action, along with a brief commentary on each one. Myth 1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies. Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it. Myth 2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation. Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies. Myth 3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today. Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 77 cents for every male dollar (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality, and just over half the proportion of people who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.
Myth 4: The public doesn't support affirmative action anymore. Public opinion polls suggest that most Americans support affirmative action, especially when the polls avoid an all-or-none choice between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever (see Table 1). For example, according to the Pew Research Center (2007, p. 40), 70% of Americans are in favor of "affirmative action programs to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education." What the public opposes are quotas, set-asides, and "reverse discrimination." For instance, when a poll asked people whether they favored programs "requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women," 63% opposed such a plan (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995a). As these results indicate, most members of the public oppose racial preferences that violate notions of procedural justice -- they do not oppose affirmative action. Survey Results Suggesting Majority Support for Affirmative Action Item
Sourcea
Responses in %
Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and
Gallupb
Favor: 58
women for job hiring in the workplace?
Date: 8/01
Oppose: 36
Size: 1,523
Don't know/Refused: 5
Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and
Gallupc
Favor: 56
women for admission to colleges and universities?
Date: 8/01
Oppose: 39
Size: 1,523
Don't know/Refused: 6
In general, do you think we need to increase, keep the same, or decrease
Gallupd
Increase: 28
affirmative action programs in this country?
Date: 4/03
Keep the same: 37
Size: 1,044
Decrease: 26 Don't know/Refused: 10
Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for women
CNN/USA
Favor: 58
and minorities?
Today
Oppose: 33
Date: 1/00
Not sure: 9
e
Size: 1,027
What's the best thing to do with affirmative action programs giving
CBS/NY Timesf
Leave as are: 24
preference to some minorities -- leave the programs as they are, change
Date: 12/97
Keep but change: 43
the programs, or do away with the programs entirely?
Size: 1,258
Do away with: 25 Not sure: 8
What about affirmative action programs that set quotas ... Do you favor
Associated
Favor with quotas: 16
affirmative action programs with quotas, or do you favor affirmative action
Pressg
Favor without quotas: 47
programs only without quotas, or do you oppose all affirmative action
Date:7/95
Oppose all: 28
programs?
Size:1,006
a
b
c
Don't know: 9 d
All polls are from the Roper Center for Public Opinion [RCPO] or Gallup. RCPO (2001a). RCPO (2001b). Ludwig (2003). eRCPO
(2000). fRCPO (1997). gRCPO (1995b).
Myth 5: A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued. Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 2.6 million unemployed Black civilians and 114 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 2% of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be even smaller. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995). Myth 6: If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same. This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. Over the past four centuries, Black history has included nearly 250 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination, and only 50 years of anything else. Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face. Myth 7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance. Myth 8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities. Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995c). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).
Myth 9: Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats. In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned a dozen different presidential administrations -- seven Republican and five Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats. Myth 10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates. Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum: 1.
Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d).
2.
Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630. Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount. Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2011).
3.
4.
Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another (due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records), a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support, adheres most closely to popular conceptions of fairness, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994). Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates -- used routinely in college admissions -- has deeply divided the nation (with the strongest opposition coming from White males and conservative voters.) And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones. Some writers have criticized affirmative action as a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality. Yet affirmative action was never proposed as a cure-all solution to inequality. Rather, it was intended only to redress discrimination in hiring and academic admissions. In assessing the value of affirmative action, the central question is merely this: In the absence of sweeping societal reforms -- unlikely to take place any time soon -- does affirmative action help counteract the continuing injustice caused by discrimination? The research record suggests, unequivocally, that it does.
FORRÁS: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
AZ ÜNNEPEK FONTOSSÁGA AZ EGYÉN ÉS A TÁRSADALOM ÉLETÉBEN Some people think that spending a lot on holding wedding parties, birthday parties and other celebrations is just a waste of money. Others, however, think that these are necessary for individuals and the society. Discuss both views and give your opinion. In most cultures around the globe celebrating important events in one‘s personal life with others is common. It is debatable whether the money spend on these festivities is well invested. In my view, it is important for one‘s personal and social life to mark and share significant occasion but I would advocate to limit expenses to the host‘s means. On the one hand, there is a long tradition of celebrating birthdays and marriages. These celebrations enrich our social lives, express our culture and bring us closer to family and friends. For many people religious and national holidays have become less significant in recent years. Therefore, events in our personal life are often regarded important occasions now for a break in our daily routine. How we celebrate those is an expression of our culture and traditions. Moreover, we can show our appreciation for people that matter to us: the person we marry or the friend, who holds a birthday party. Celebrations bring extended families together or let us catch up with friends we have not seen in a long time. Also, celebrating together can create cohesion among guests and it can be a good way to keep in touch with relatives and friends. On the other hand, lavish celebrations can come with high costs, even leaving the hosts in debts or may only be held to impress other people. There are certainly longer lasting investments than throwing a party. For example, instead of blowing their money on an expensive marriage young couples could invest in property or higher education. In some countries it is common for couples to make debts to pay for their nuptials. In my opinion, celebrating should not overstretch the means of the hosts. It would be wiser to scale down the event to the available budget. Then, some people argue are only held to impress guests rather than share happy moments in one‘s life. Certainly, demonstrating one‘s status and riches can play a role: even if the expensive cars and clothes are only rented for the event. In conclusion, I believe celebrating events in one‘s personal life with friends and family is a valuable tradition worth preserving. One should aim to keep the cost within the available budget instead of trying hard to
impress guests and show off. After all, it is about sharing the joy of a marriage or a birthday with people close to us. not sure if i should have written more on teh necessary for the society thing... FORRÁS: http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic91515.html Hi every one.. This is really a nice topic.. and the discussion is going on really good..This website really helps us a lot.. Thanks to everyone.. Iwould also like to submit my essay..Kindly somebody comment on this.. Celebrating birthday parties, anniversaries and so on in an extraordinary manner has become a tradition in our society these days. It has incorporated deeply into our lives, We are in a situation to follow on the same trend irrespective of our financial status. Meanwhile, these occasions also tend to bring people together in this occupied world. In this essay , I would like to explain why these events play a vital role in our life . I would also like to add on with consequences and solutions for this. Parties and get together are meant to bring people together. No one would really forget a birthday party spends with their friends, a wedding anniversary enjoyed with relative and the list goes on endless. They are obviously quite Cherisable moments in ones life.In my countryIndia, There are innumerable ceremonies done, for example they arrange parties events like piercing the ears, shaving the hair for the first time buying or building a new house and so on. They would like to share every moment of happiness with others. Moreover, these occasions gives people time to relax, catch up with their friends. It also helps to develop intercultural relationship. Though it is an ancient tradition to arrange these celebrations the aim of doing it has changed .People today prefer doing this just for pride and spend money in vain. This lavish behavior by the hosts can even worsen their good financial status and leave them in debt. All the money that has been saved for a long time is spent on a single day just for the enjoyment for few others.
I would like to suggest that, even though it is quite important to arrange those occasions, care should be taken so that the money spend on it is reasonable. FORRÁS: http://writefix.com/?page_id=2722/about-thisforum/spending-a-lot-on-holding-wedding-parties-birthdayparties-and-other-celebrations-is-just-a-waste-of-money madinarafi5 AZ ÖLTÖZKÖDÉS MINT A TÁRSADALMI HOVATARTOZÁS KIFEJEZÉSE Dress code Dress codes are written and, more often, unwritten rules with regard to clothing. Clothing like other aspects of human physical appearance has a social significance, with different rules and expectations being valid depending on circumstance and occasion. Even within a single day an individual may need to navigate between two or more dress codes, at a minimum these are those that apply at their place of work and those at home, usually this ability is a result of cultural acclimatization. Different societies and cultures will have different dress norms although Western styles are commonly accepted as valid. The dress code has built in rules or signals indicating the message being given by a person's clothing and how it is worn. This message may include indications of the person's gender, income, occupation and social class, political, ethnic and religious affiliation, attitude and attitude towards comfort, fashion, traditions, gender expression, marital status, sexual availability and sexual orientation, etc. Clothes convey other social messages including the stating or claiming personal or cultural identity, the establishing, maintaining, or defying social group norms, and appreciating comfort and functionality. For example, wearing expensive clothes can communicate wealth, the image of wealth, or cheaper access to quality clothing. All factors apply inversely to the wearing of inexpensive clothing and similar goods.The observer sees the resultant, expensive clothes, but may incorrectly perceive the extent to which these factors apply to the person observed. (cf. conspicuous consumption). Clothing can convey a social message, even if none is intended. [citation needed]
If the receiver's code of interpretation differs from the sender's code of communication, misinterpretation follows. In every culture, current fashion governs the manner of consciously constructing, assembling, and wearing clothing to convey a social message. The rate of change of fashion varies, and so modifies the style in wearing clothes and its accessories within months or days, especially in small social groups or in communications mediainfluenced modern societies. More extensive changes, requiring more time, money, and effort to effect, may span generations. When fashion changes, the messages communicated by clothing change.
History Europe See also: Sumptuary laws In the Middle Ages the European nobility used a dress code to differentiate themselves from the other classes.
The Americas The indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast had a complex social structure, including slaves, commoners, and nobles, and dress codes to indicate these social distinctions. John R. Jewitt, an Englishman who wrote a memoir about his years as a captive of the Nuuchah-nulth people in 1802-1805, describes how, after some time living there, Maquinna and the chiefs decided that he must now be "considered one of them, and conform to their
customs". Jewitt resented the imposition of this dress code, finding the loose untailored garments very cold, and attributed to them a subsequent illness of which he almost died. He was not allowed to cut his hair, and had to paint his face and body as a Nootka would.[1]
Signifier
A placard informs tourists about the minimum clothing standards for entering St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican
Poster in Qatar calling on foreign women to dress modestly
Gender In some traditions, certain types of clothing are worn exclusively or predominantly by either men or women. For example, the wearing of a skirt tends to be associated with female dress, while trousers are associated with male dress. See also: Cross-dressing
Social status In many societies, particular clothing may indicate social status, reserved or affordable to people of high rank. For example, in Ancient Rome only senators were permitted to wear garments dyed with Tyrian purple; and in traditional Hawaiian society, only high-ranking
chiefs could wear feather cloaks and palaoa or carved whale teeth. In China before the establishment of the republic, only the emperor could wear yellow.[citation needed]
Occupation Military, police, and firefighters usually wear uniforms, as do workers in many industries. School children often wear school uniforms, while college and university students sometimes wear academic dress. Members of religious orders may wear uniforms known as habits. Sometimes a single item of clothing or a single accessory can declare one's occupation or rank within a profession.
Ethnic and political affiliation In many regions of the world, national costumes and styles in clothing and ornament declare membership in a certain village, caste, religion, etc. A Scotsman declares his clan with his tartan. A French peasant woman identified her village with her cap or coif. A Palestinian woman identifies her village with the pattern of embroidery on her dress.[2] Clothes can also proclaim dissent from cultural norms and mainstream beliefs, as well as personal independence. In 19th-century Europe, artists and writers lived la vie de Bohème and dressed to shock: George Sand in men's clothing, female emancipationists in bloomers, male artists in velvet waistcoats and gaudy neckcloths. Bohemians, beatniks, hippies, Goths, Punks and Skinheads have continued the (countercultural) tradition in the 20th-century West.
Religious affiliation
Mannequins with traditional Muslim veil at a Saturday market in Tira, Israel. A Sikh or Muslim man may display his religious affiliation by wearing a turban and other traditional clothing. Many Muslim women wear head or body coverings (see sartorial hijab, hijab, burqa or niqab, chador and abaya) that proclaim their status as respectable women and cover the so-called intimate parts. A Jewish man may indicate his observance of Judaism by wearing a yarmulke.
Marital status See also: Visual markers of marital status Traditionally, Hindu women wear sindoor, a red powder, in the parting of their hair to indicate their married status; if widowed, they abandon sindoor and jewelry and wear simple white
clothing. However this is not true of all Hindu women; in the modern world this is not a norm and women without sindoor may not necessarily be unmarried. In many Orthodox Jewish circles, married women wear head coverings such as a hat, snood, or wig. Additionally, after their marriage Jewish men of Ashkenazi descent begin to wear a Tallit during prayer. Men and women of the Western world may wear wedding rings to indicate their married status, and women may also wear engagement rings when they are engaged.
Sexual display Some research has indicated that women's clothing choices are influenced by menstrual phase. Among normally cycling women (i.e., those not on hormonal contraception and with intact uterus and ovaries), revealing clothes are more common at the periovulatory phase of the cycle, while less revealing clothing is more common perimenstrually.[3] Evolutionary psychologists have speculated that this may be related to signaling of fertility to males. Of course, since many women bloat and feel uncomfortable around the time of menstruation, it also just makes sense for them to wear looser, less revealing clothes at this time; women may also wear more concealing clothes due to concerns about staining. Many biological mechanisms exist to disguise fertility and almost none exist to reveal it; therefore the selection of revealing clothing to display fertility runs counter to our biology.
Laws and social norms Main article: Clothing laws by country In Tonga, it is illegal for men to appear in public without a shirt. In New Guinea and Vanuatu, there are areas where it is customary for the men to wear nothing but penis sheaths in public - this is uncommon in more developed areas. Women wear string skirts. In remote areas of Bali, women may go topless. In America there are nude beaches and in China women have started wearing only the top of their traditional dresses baring their legs entirely to copy west . In the United States, a few businesses or restaurants display dress code signs requiring shoes and shirts, claiming to be there on account of a health code, [citation needed] although no such health codes exist.[4] Also, it is common belief that there are laws against driving barefoot. However, no such laws exist. It is quite uncommon for people to be nude in public in the United States. However, there are a few private beaches and resorts that cater to such a population.
Private dress codes
Dress code for a private club in Soho, London Private organisations may insist on particular dress codes or standards in particular situations.
Religious bodies may insist on their standards of modesty being followed at their premises and events. Employees are sometimes required to wear a uniform or certain standards of dress, such as a business suit or tie. This may depend on particular situations, for example if they are expected to interact with customers. (see also International standard business attire) These policies vary depending on the industry with lawyers, bankers, and executives often wearing suit and tie. Some work places require that tattoos be covered. Schools usually have dress codes for their students and teachers and may require students to wear a school uniform in school and while travelling to and from school, or a sport uniform on sporting occasions. Patrons of a disco or nightclub are sometimes expected to dress in a particular style, such as clubwear; and bouncers of a disco or nightclub at times refuse entrance to those whose clothing they consider not consistent with the atmosphere of the venue. Patrons of a casino, shop or restaurant are usually expected to dress to a minimum standard, such as smart casual. The organisers of some parties sometimes specify a costume or theme for the event, such as a naked party or toga party. Fetish clubs often require patrons to dress in fetish clothing or else all in black.
Dress codes function on certain social occasions and for certain jobs. A military institution may require specified uniforms; if it allows the wearing of plain clothes it may place restrictions on their use. A "formal" or white tie dress code typically means tail-coats for men and full-length evening dresses for women. "Semi-formal" has a much less precise definition but typically means an evening jacket and tie for men (known as black tie) and a dress for women. "Business casual" typically means not wearing neckties or suits, but wearing instead collared shirts, and more country trousers (not black, but more relaxed, including things such as corduroy). "Casual" typically just means clothing for the torso, legs and shoes. "Wedding Casual" defines yet another mode of dress, where guests dress respectfully, but not necessarily fancily. Organisations which seek to maintain standards of modesty have difficulties with sheer and see-through clothing.
Dress codes usually set a lower limit on body covering. However, sometimes it can specify the opposite, for example, in UK gay jargon, dress code, means people who dress in a militaristic manner. Dress code nights in nightclubs, and elsewhere, are deemed to specifically target people who have militaristic fetishes (e.g. leather/skinhead men). See also shoe etiquette, mourning, sharia, Dress code (Western).
Work place White collar work place clothing has changed significantly through the years. In a corporate office, appropriate clothes are clean, business casual clothes such as a dress shirt, polo shirt, and trousers, or other similar outfits. Suits, neckties, and other formal wear are usually only required in law offices and financial sector offices. Previous business dress code eras (the 1950s in the U.S.) featured standardised business clothes that strongly differentiated what was acceptable and unacceptable for men and women to wear while working. Today, the two styles have merged; women's work clothes expanded to include the suit (and its variants) in addition to the usual dresses, skirts, and blouses; men's clothes have expanded to include garments and bright colours.[citation needed] Casual wear entered business culture with the advent of the Silicon Valley, California, technology company featuring casual work clothes on the job. Additionally, some companies set aside days — generally Fridays ("dress-down Friday", "casual Friday") — when workers may wear casual clothes. This practice has moderated somewhat since the end of the dot com era. The clothing a company requires its worker to wear on the job varies with the occupation and profession. Some businesses observe that anti-discrimination law restricts their determining what is appropriate and inappropriate workplace clothing. Yet, in fact, most businesses have much authority in determining and establishing what work place clothes they can require of their workers. Generally, a carefully drafted dress code applied consistently does not violate antidiscrimination laws.[5]
Business casual Main article: Business casual Business casual dress, also "smart casual", is a popular work place dress code that emerged in white-collar workplaces in Western countries in the 1990s, especially in the United States and Canada. Many information technology businesses in Silicon Valley were early adopters of this dress code. In contrast to formal business wear such as suits and neckties (the international standard business attire), the business casual dress code has no generally-accepted definition; its interpretation differs widely among organizations and is often a cause of sartorial confusion among workers. The job search engine Monster.com offers this definition: In general, business casual means dressing professionally, looking relaxed, yet neat and pulled together. A more pragmatic definition is that business casual dress is the mid ground between formal business clothes and street clothes. Examples of clothing combinations considered appropriate for work by businesses that consider themselves as using the business-casual dress code are:
for men: a shirt with a collar (polo shirt) and cotton trousers (or "khakis" in American English). for women: a tennis shirt and trousers.
Generally, neckties are excluded from business casual dress, unless worn in untraditional ways. The acceptability of blue jeans and denim cloth clothing varies — some businesses consider them to be sloppy.
Inverse dress codes Inverse dress codes, sometimes referred to as "undress code", set forth an upper bound, rather than a lower bound, on body covering. An example of an undress code, is the one commonly enforced in modern communal bathing facilities. For example, in the public bath SchwabenQuellen, no clothing of any kind is allowed in the sauna part of the resort. Other less strict undress codes are common in public pools, especially indoor pools, in which shoes and shirts are not allowed. Places where social nudity is practiced may be "clothing optional", or nudity may be compulsory, with exceptions, see issues in social nudity.
Violation of clothing taboos Some clothing faux pas may occur intentionally for reasons of fashion or personal preference. For example, people may wear intentionally oversized clothing. For instance, the teenage boys of rap duo Kris Kross of the early 1990s wore all of their clothes backwards and extremely baggy.
Rebellion against dress codes Social attitudes to clothing have brought about various rules and social conventions, such as keeping the body covered, and not showing underwear in public. The backlash against these social norms has become a traditional form of rebellion. Over time western societies have gradually adopted more casual dress codes in the workplace, school, and leisure. This has especially been the case since the early 1960s. FORRÁS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_code
A FOGYASZTÓI TÁRSADALOM, REKLÁMOK
The consumer society and advertising – Andrew McStay By lucyhird64 Industrial revolution brought about change so that cheap production meant ordinary people could afford technologically advanced goods like never before. This was intrinsincally linked to the growth of advertising as better education meant that more
of the public were able to understand and read advertisements. The rise of competition for status within social groups meant that the need for consumerism grew and with that advertising. Commercial media was able to emerge as a result as the media relied and still does rely on advertising revenue to be able to run. Consumption in a media sense means to be used up, purchased, taken in and absorbed. We have all been born into a society where it is everyday occurrence to consume from the moment we wake up. Our bought alarm clock goes off, we wash our hair with branded shampoo, we clean our teeth with branded toothpaste, we eat our favourite cereal, we watch morning T.V with adverts to buy the latest product or features on which gadget to buy next etc. etc. “Consuming is something we do, but it also have to do as part of our role and status in the world.” – it has benefit to the economy, what we buy enables us to show who we are, where we shop puts us in particular categories and social groups. We are defined by what we consume. When we buy something, we are not buying it’s use-value, but more it’s status value. “Oh this dress is from “My T.V. is a the latest “Oh I just get my clothes from charity shops.”
French with 3-D
Connection” technology”
Even people who actively avoid brands are saying something about who they are and though they would like to think otherwise; are still consuming. Manufacturers created products that became solutions to social problems, certain lifestyles and aspirations are attached to products. We can see products and brands as ‘signs’ that convey particular messages to the consumer. Take two boxes of cereal for instance, which one would you think tasted better?
Is it true? Would you know on a taste test? Would you feel embarrassed buying own brand shopping? Or even value brands? Or are you proud to shop in cheaper establishments as it makes you feel empowered against consumerism even though you are still partaking in it?
The idea of ‘simulation’ is where the reality of goods is distorted in order to persuade us to buy them. Certain trainers are designed for long-distance runners, but we have been made to think we need them in everyday life. Simulated intimacy creates a feeling between a product and a consumer using special communication techniques and a relationship develops. This is where brands make you feel like they care, like they have a special relationship reserved for you. An example of this could be when a clothing range brings out a ‘fair-trade’ range or works with a charity. As consumers we get the feeling that we are ‘free’ – free to choose whichever designer we prefer, free to buy or not to buy, whilst we are actually obeying the rules of consumerism, whichever way it is consumed. FORRÁS: http://lucyhird.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-consumersociety-and-advertising-andrew-mcstay/
TÁRSADALMI VISELKEDÉSFORMÁK What Is Social Behavior? Social behavior is a term used to describe the general conduct exhibited by individuals within a society. It is essentially in response to what is deemed acceptable by a person’s peer group or involves avoiding behavior that is characterized as unacceptable. This type of human behavior primarily determines how individuals interact with one another within a group or society. While social conduct is often modeled to create a comfortable social environment, anti-social behavior, such as aggression, scapegoating and group bullying, may also be defined as negative social behavior, particularly in instances where other individuals within a peer group all behave accordingly. Just as positive interactions among individuals in a society help create a pleasant environment for citizens, activities defined by peer groups to be acceptable, even if harmful to select individuals or subgroups within a society, are also part of social behavior. Studies of massive human rights violations have helped illustrate the extent by which harmful, but socially acceptable, behaviors have persisted in some societies. Examples of widespread acceptance of negative behavior within a peer group include historical incidents of mass genocide and human enslavement. With the use of specially designed behavior therapies and programs, doctors, educators and others can help individuals who are suffering from social disorders, such as shyness or unrestrained anger, learn how to overcome these issues to become more productive members of society. Not only is the study of how social conduct affects members of mainstream society important, but in studying anti-social behavior, in particular, mental health professionals are able to help people isolated from society become rehabilitated and engage in positive interactions with others. Even when considering the prevalence of the dual inheritance theory, which attributes human behavior to a combination of genetic selection and cultural influence, social conduct programs may have a positive impact in correcting socially maladaptive behaviors in individual patients. Research within sociology and psychology have questioned
whether traits, such as altruism, may be genetically influenced while, at the same time, be rooted in social psychology. Through the study of social psychology, it is known that humans are not the only beings influenced by social groups. Researchers studying animals and insects have found that social behavior governs the activities of these groups, as well. This is particularly evident in animals and insects that live their entire lives within a group of the same species and where each member has a role to play in that group’s survival. FORRÁS: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-social-behavior.htm#didyouknowout
