A Study Of Interest Group Lobbying Politics Essay

A Study Of Interest Group Lobbying Politics Essay The introduction of organized interests is nothing new in American politics. Political scientists, politicians, and scholars alike all agree that interest groups are natural phenomena in a democratic regime. Political interests have played a central role in American politics since James Madison first warned the framers of factionalism. Since then, the last five decades have seen an alarming rise of interest groups, changing fundamentally accounting the ongoing transformation of American politics and the pressures of campaign reform. Modern parties as well as established interest groups have demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability. The 20th century saw an increase in penetration of political and economic interests in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, leading to the growth of political activity that have opened doors while closing others. With these changes, interest groups have adjusted their strategy and tactics to adapt to the opportunities and constraints among the decision-making arenas. In line with these changes in American politics, it has revolutionized the representation and success of social movements. With the continuing need for more representation, politicians have come to recognize the impact groups can have when they mobilize support. Though they have impacted American politics in various ways, it is important to understand the methods they have used accounting the changing political environment. These strategies however, are not limited to one particular decision-making arena, but are the most commonly used. Interest groups are involved in American Politics in various ways. This especially is true within the judicial processes. When it comes to strategies used by interest groups, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee has become the most formal strategy pursued by interest group representatives. This process provides opportunity for interest groups to express their opinions directly to the people who have the power to accept or reject a nominee. While the former has been the most popular tactic for groups, it requires a high level of national prestige to acquire an invitation to this committee. In the case of Roberts and Alito nominations, the absence of interest group participation did not reflect their unwillingness to testify. Instead, their influence was mitigated by the committees refusal to allow interest group participation. While the former method has been one of the most effective ways to be represented, it requires prestigious interest groups which often require abund ant human and financial capital. Position taking on the other hand, is a low-cost alternative tactic used to support a judicial nominee. These actions serve to mobilize members and help generate contributions. Advertisements, on the other hand, have been the most common tool used in all decision-making arenas. As a result, interest groups have used television, radio, and billboards to support or oppose a judicial nominees. The growth in communication technologies has increased the number of strategic opportunities for interest groups. In fact, during the Bush administration, nearly all ads for or against Bush nominees were aired on cable new programs, which appealed to audiences who are more likely to be engaged in political affairs. Interests groups are also likely to also participate in mass mailings containing nominee information to fundraising support. More recently however, with the ongoing changes and development of technology, interest groups have begun using technology as a tool in electoral campaigns. Technological advancements have complemented traditional strategies. Websites, e-mails, and blogs, have become a cheap and effective approach over the last decade. When it comes to Interest group influence in elections such as the presidency, parties and candidates must have enough money to communicate and mobilize properly. Candidates seeking funds have found organized interests willing to contribute to those who share their political view. Interest groups involved in campaign contribution have seen the most constraints. Fortunately, federal campaign finance laws have been largely ineffective in limiting the role of special-interest money. Following the federal regulations after 1971, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has administered and enforced numerous federal campaign laws. By setting hard money contribution limits, it subsequently led to the rise of political action committees. Since hard money was defined as money contributed directly to a candidate of a political party (Loomis, 285), it was opportunity for interest groups to donate unregulated (soft) money to the political party as a whole. Subsequently, the Bipartisan Campaign Re form Act in 2002, prohibited unregulated contributions to national party committees. With the ongoing constraints by the FEC, PACs have become vey creative in allocating their resources. One strategy they have used is bundling, when PACs collect checks made out to a particular candidate and then send each candidate the checks all at once (Loomis, 191). Morgan Stanley, for example, bundled nearly $600,000 to the reelection campaign for Bush. In addition, PACs have also funneled money by giving contributions to other PACs or organizations that support their interests. 527 groups which refer to the groups that are not regulated by the FEC found various methods for advocating issues. As a right to free speech, groups were allowed to spent unlimited amount of independent money. They are able to do this by avoiding the use of specific words that include: vote for, elect, support, oppose. As special interest seek to influence government policy and members of Congress, two main strategies are commonly used; electoral and access. Most elected officials want to be reelected therefore they listen to people who can help or hinder that reelection. Interest groups take advantage of this situation by rallying voters to their cause and contributing money to reelection campaigns. Most interest groups cannot legally encourage their members to vote for or against a particular candidate, but they can achieve the same effect by informing their members of candidates stances on issues. For example, for years the Christian Coalition have issued voter pamphlets which describe the candidates positions on issues that are particularly important to group members, such as abortion. Other groups play the ratings game by publishing the positions of all members of Congress on key issues with the hope of swaying voters. Unfortunately, Electoral strategies are highly ambitious and risky which ca n often backfire in future elections. Access strategies however, are known as risk-averse strategies. These are techniques in which interest groups work to get access to directly influence an official. Unfortunately, given how busy members of Congress and other government officials often are, getting access pose major challenges. Sometimes a lobbyist can only get a few minutes of the officials time, so the lobbyist must be prepared to make a pitch very quickly. Some types of people have an easier time getting access than others. Some lobbying organizations use these types of people to help gain access. Actor Michael J. Fox, for example, has lobbied for increased funding for Parkinsons disease research. Both Angelina Jolie and Bono have also successfully lobbied Congress for their causes. When looking at social movements in the 21st century, one of the most successful has been the contemporary environmental movement. While interest groups have had more success in American decision-making institutions in the past, social movements have utilized similar tools to get their voices heard. Through coalitions with interest groups, private funding, technological advancements, the environmental movement has become a formidable force in American politics.

Pen Y Bryn The Princes’ Tower :: British History

Pen Y Bryn The Princes’ Tower Wales has long been known as a country of myth and magic. She hides her secrets in her hollow hills. Pen Y Bryn, The Princes’ Tower is the latest treasure that has come to light and one of the most fascinating. In 1992 Kathryn and Brian Pritchard Gibson bought what they believed to be a thirty-six acre chicken farm with a 17th century Elizabethan manor house and it has changed their lives dramatically. The stone manor and out buildings are nestled against a forested hill in Snowdonia. It is just north of Bangor above the shores of Abergwyngregyn, ‘the mouth of the white shell river’ overlooking the Menai Straights with the mountains forming a protective backdrop behind. Kathryn Gibson says, The locals, it seems, have always called the house Twr Llewelyn, or Llewelyn’s Tower. They told us that’s where the princes lived and that below it there’s a Roman settlement and a bronze age fort. When asked how they came by this knowledge they always answ ered, "Nain (Grandmother) told me." It was only the academics who ignored this local lore that had been handed down for centuries. When you first see the house it is obvious the tower is by far the oldest section. You can also see where windows and doors have been blocked up. There is a distinct difference in the stones or the tower and those of the rest of the house but it has only recently been authenticated that the tower does indeed date back to Llewelyn’s time. Shortly after moving in the Gibsons noticed a hollow sound in a part of the living room floor. Pulling up floorboards they quickly discovered secret stairways, hidden rooms, hollow walls, tunnels, tales of princes and prisoners, lovers and war. As Kathryn Gibson says "We live in the middle of a giant historical jigsaw puzzle." In fact Pen y Bryn is the lost palace of the Princes Llywelyn, Llywelyn Fawr (the Great) and his grandson, Llywelyn the Last, dating back to 1211. It is where Joan, King John’s daughter and wife of Llywelyn Fawr lived and died, and it holds the key to the tragic story of Gwenllian, the first and last true born Pri ncess of Wales. Gwenllian was the only daughter of Llywelyn the Last. Llewelyn had reluctantly been granted the title of "Prince of Wales" in perpetuity by the English crown at the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267.

Why Agriculture Spread During the Neolithic Revolution

Around 10,000 years ago, a dramatic transformation occurred in parts of the Near East that forever affected the human experience. These were the economic and social changes from hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, which characterised over 99 per cent of our long tenure on Earth, to ones emphasising food production and settling down in small villages. This was not an easy transition, nor was it a universal one. Once it occurred, though, it changed the course of human history. Usually known as the â€Å"Neolithic Revolution†. (Simmons 2007: 1)There has been much speculation by academics in many disciplines as to the reasons why agriculture was developed and employed throughout the Neolithic revolution; and how the agricultural developments dispersed across the globe. However, I believe that there are unanimous definitions on both the Neolithic Revolution and agriculture. Both key to the answer of this essay. I believe the Neolithic Revolution to be the first agricultur al revolution to take place globally, which led to people becoming sedentary, resorting to agriculture instead of hunter gathering and mobile communities. Gupta 2010) Cohen (1977: 1) has a similar attitude towards the definition of the Neolithic revolution as he believes it to be, â€Å"the economic and social change [] which witnessed the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture as man’s major mode of subsistence. † Agriculture, as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973), is â€Å"the science and art of cultivating the soil, including the gathering n of the crops and the rearing of livestock†. However, I believe that agriculture includes other aspects, which link in with it to create a fully operating agricultural system.These include, ‘farming’ and ‘domestication’, both pivotal for agricultural success. Farming is described as, â€Å"the business of cultivating land and raising ‘stock’† whilst domestication is â€Å"described as the action of ‘farming or bringing under control’. (More specifically, domestication can be defined as ‘the evolutionary process whereby humans modify, either intentionally or unintentionally, the genetic makeup of a population of plants or animals to the extent that individuals within that population lose their ability to survive and produce offspring in the wild’: Blumler and Byrne 1991: 24). (Barker 2006: 2) Simmons (2007) concurs that the Neolithic revolution was a transformation of the economic system at the time, but it was also a social change in how food was used and viewed in differing ways. To fully understand the impact of agriculture to Neolithic societies, I will use case studies to highlight my points. These will include the Fertile Crescent of the Near East, believed to be the first place where the use of agriculture has been found as Barker (ibid: 11) suggests ‘that the first farming would ha ve started in the ‘Near East’.However, I will also be using case studies from Africa, specifically the Ethiopian Highlands and the Kuk Swamp in Papua New Guinea. As Cohen mentions that â€Å"the most striking fact about early agriculture, however, is precisely that it is such a universal event† (1977: 5) therefore, it will be interesting to discuss the reasons why such rapid dispersion of agricultural development occurred across the Neolithic world. Why did the people around 10,000 years ago resort to a new way of life and with new ways of feeding?A way of life that was completely different from the people before them who had undertook hunting and gathering to feed themselves; a way of life that led to the beginning of agriculture and turning from mobile to non-mobile communities; forager societies that had been, â€Å"relatively unchanged since the depths of the Ice Age†. (Bogucki 1999: 191) There are many reasons that archaeologists have discussed about why this transition occurred in what has been coined as ‘The Neolithic Revolution’. There are many reasons why this transition occurred and I will explore many of these reasons.I will be looking at the reasons that are incorporated in Barbara Stark’s (1986) three main model types, which show the transition of foraging to the production of food in an agricultural sense. â€Å"Push†, â€Å"Pull† and â€Å"social’ models are used by Stark which create an ‘umbrella’ effect on the main underlying reasons which can be incorporated to fully explore the reasons why agriculture began and how it spread across the globe. When there is stress on a population, it can lead to the population being pushed to protect themselves to ensure that the stress does not damage them.These stresses, in the cause of agricultural causation include population pressure and/or climate change. The stress imposed on the population could have led to the beginning of agriculture being used. (Stark 1986) Many archaeologists have discussed reasons why agriculture began under this umbrella of a ‘push’ model. Childe (1936) began much of the work on the origins of agriculture by developing the Oasis-Propinquity theory; a theory that incorporated a significant climatic change at the end of the Pleistocene, which had a major effect on how animals, plants and humans operated to feed.Childe created the Oasis-Propinquity theory because he believed that this climatic change caused the areas, beginning in the Near East, especially the Fertile Crescent, to become arid and dry, thus becoming deserts. Simmons (2007: 11-12) thought that the new desert conditions of the Near East was causing â€Å"plants and animals [to die] or [they were] becoming scarce. † Without the presence of water nearby to most of the humans, plants and animals in the Near East and North Africa, it led to the congregation of these creatures to areas where water wa s available, such as the desert oases in the Near East.The close proximity that the plants, animals and humans had to undertake daily, it eventually led to the domestication of plants and animals. (Simmons 2007; Bogucki 1999; Pluciennik and Zvelebil 2009) Childe (1936: 77) considers that humans, plants and animals all became â€Å"united in an effort to circumvent the dreadful power of the drought†. The Oasis-Propinquity theory by Childe is only half of the story as to why agriculture began in the Near East. With this theory in mind, the domestication of plants would have been tending to and re-planting year after year.This would have led to the creation of some form of agricultural ideas and system that would have to be used to ensure that the domesticated crops can be utilised to their optimum. This early system of agricultural development would have had to be moulded into the systems that provided significantly greater quantities of food that would be able to sustain a pop ulation that would have been growing because of the change into a sedentary lifestyle. When Childe produced the theory in 1936, his investigations would have been one of the key reasons as to why agriculture developed.Despite still being a key argument in the origin of agriculture, other academics and evidence that has come to light since Childe’s Man makes Himself. Bogucki (1999: 186-187) mentions, â€Å"The difficulty is there is no evidence of widespread desiccation during the period in question between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. † Paleoclimatic and geomorphological evidence of Braidwood’s Iraq-Jarmo project came to the conclusion supporting Bogucki’s (1999) claim that of no evidence of widespread desiccation. (Watson 1995) As Simmons (2007: 13) suggests that â€Å"these projects [] found no support for Childe’s claim of desiccation. This lack of evidence produces a significant amount of doubt to the Oasis-Propinquity. If there wasn’t a global change in climatic behaviour, it cannot be assumed that dry conditions occurred which resulted in the congregations at oases. Also, Childe’s work puts emphasis on the domestication of primarily animals at the oases and does not hold the beginnings of plant domestication, which inevitably lead to agriculture, in high regard and it was not accredited in his work. (Watson 1995; Bogucki 1999)Despite Simmons (2007: 12) mentioning that â€Å"Childe’s model is frequently acted as one of the origins of agriculture†, I believe that due to the climatic evidence of the time disagreeing with the theory of major climatic change resulting in dry and arid conditions, the Oasis-Propinquity theory does not hold as much regard with the origins of agriculture. I feel that other reasons incorporated in the push model have a much greater impact than Childe’s theory. I believe that the evidence found throughout the Fertile Crescent proves a lacking of substance for th e Oasis-Propinquity Theory and could provide evidence against it.Through the Fertile Crescent, establishments and the societies built up within have no been on major waterways (apart from Jericho), which diminishes the theory. This is because the domestication of all the wild resources occurred without the need for a congregation of plants, animals and humans in a small area surrounding oases’. The speed of domestication of Einkorn for example, showed that this congregation did not need to occur. Einkorn could be domesticated easily due to a number of genetic loci that it was able.Wild cereals and Einkorn had very similar ancestors, which allowed domestication to occur quite easily in the Crescents. (Zohary and Hopf 1993) This shows how significant other theories were in understanding the origins of agriculture. The Hilly Flanks Theory was produced to directly contest Childe’s theory. Braidwood was not enthused with the Oasis-Propinquity theory and did not hold it in h igh regard despite it being one of the significant and key models for the origins of agriculture, and pursued answers for the agricultural origin elsewhere. Braidwood 1960; Braidwood and Howe 1960) The Hilly Flanks Theory was created because â€Å"Braidwood thought that the best place to look for early domestication was where the habitats of the wild precursors of wheat, barley, sheep and goats overlapped. [] With desiccation and other widespread climatic changes discounted as a proximal cause of agriculture, Braidwood sought an explanation in human behaviour. He suggested that food production in the Old World emerged in certain â€Å"nuclear zones† in the arc of the Taurus and Zagros mountains of the Near East known as the Fertile Crescent†. Bogucki 1999: 187) I believe that his view on agricultural origins held a decent basis, as it feels natural for first cultivations by farmers on cereals within their natural habitat. (Miller 1992: 49) Braidwood’s theory was based, quite simply, on that the habitats of the Hilly Flank became so familiar to the people who lived there, that they started to domesticate the plants and animals that lived there in their natural habitats. Archaeological sites in Papa New Guinea, especially in the Upper Wahgi Valley, hold evidence for this theory.The importance of the sites in this region cannot be understated because the evidence that has been found as it showed agricultural developments without any significant evidence to suggest social transformations. Therefore, it can be assumed that people relocated to areas of natural wild resources to undergo â€Å"animal and plant exploitation† (Denham 2011). Without evidence for climatic change, this highlights significant headway in the Hilly Flanks theory. As Simmons (2007: 14) suggests that the people on the Hilly Flank had to become â€Å" [settled] in by groups who came to understand and manipulate plants and animals around them. From Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flank Theory, there are many assumptions to be made about the origins of the first agricultural systems and I believe that the Hilly Flank Theory holds significant worth to the argument. I believe that it would be sensible for the first farmers to begin cultivating land that they foraged on and/ or lived on as mobile communities. I think this because the ‘raw materials’ were already en situ and the farmers did not have to relocate anywhere else. However, with this idealist notion of ‘being sensible’ views can only be mentioned due to indsight and the difference in culture that we see in our western cultures today. It must be noted that with over two millennia of the populations on earth being hunter-gatherers and foragers, the idea of becoming a sedentary farmer would have been very alien to them. Braidwood’s work on the Hilly Flanks Theory and the subsequent dismissal of Childe’s Oasis-Propinquity theory resulted in a signif icant change in the way agricultural origins were looked at and discussed. However, I believe that the push model had a significant result on why the origins of agriculture were continually discussed.I also must consider population pressure as an important argument for the origins of agriculture. In the early transitional period that occurred during the Neolithic Revolution could have been that many of the populations that existed changed from being mobile communities to becoming sedentary; non-mobile communities. The population that the mobile communities had was in relation to the â€Å"mobility and flexibility of hunter-gatherer organisation† (Green 1980; Lee 1972). Green (1980) discusses that population pressure is because of the decrease (or lack of) logistical mobility.When the population causes an effect on the mobility and flexibility, it can be assumed that the sedentary lifestyle was adopted. It could be argued that with a sedentary lifestyle, the population of the community could increase exponentially as Bellwood (2005: 23) says, â€Å"any major increase in the degree of sedentism [] would have encouraged a growing population, via shorter birth intervals, and would also have placed a greater strain on food supplies and other resources in the immediate vicinity of the campsite or village†.This resulted in the development of Binford’s (1968) Population Pressure model, which; Argued that once people (the early Vatutian in the Levant) became sedentary, populations inevitably increased, leading to an increasing use of locally available plant foods, such as cereals, that had previously been considered marginal. From this intensive use of cereals, and the technology ass65ociated with this processing, a regular cycle of plants and harvesting occurred, ultimately resulting in domestication. (Simmons 2007: 15)This increase in the population could have been down to a number of reasons including; an improved and more regularity in diets, i ncreased life expectancy and fertility, greater protection from diseases and â€Å"the need for more people to assist in seasonal harvests of wild plants† (Simmons 2007: 14-15; Bellwood 2005). Flannery (1969) elaborated further on Binford’s Population Pressure model, as Miller (1992: 49) mentions that Flannery â€Å"suggested that subsistence changes that took place prior to agriculture – during the â€Å"broad spectrum revolution†, could have been a response to population growth in the marginal zone†.A significant population increase can cause dramatic effects on the resources of the surrounding area. It would have come to the point that a foraging and hunter-gathering society no longer has the ability to provide resources for the whole population and leads people to try and find other sources for the resources. These resources, which provide the basis for sustaining life, could be pushed into competitions for the resources. With such competition, I believe that with the knowledge that resources would eventually run out, the population would have resorted to basic domestication of plants and animals for more reliable sources of resources. Neilson 2006) In times where pressures on the population seem great, the adoption of agriculture can lead to too much stress being inflicted on the availability of resources on the population. Stark (1986) emphases that this could create a pushing factor onto the population into agriculture. Without the push into agriculture, the population would have ceased to exist. Despite population pressure having a obvious impact on the ability for sufficient resources to be gained from hunter-gathering, it could have lead to the adoption of agriculture.However, some do not value the Population Pressure theory and believe it â€Å"inadequate as an explanation [because] for it necessary the increased population must be a purely local phenomenon which cannot exist without [locational] factors [or const raints]† â€Å"(Bronson 1975: 74). Sauer (1952) also believes with Bronson that a resource crisis due to pressures on the population due to a significant increase was not a highlighted reason for the genesis of agriculture. Sauer makes it known that the transition that occurred in the Neolithic was due to an altering relationship and the interaction between culture and the environment.This could lead to assumptions that Sauer did not believe that the transition developed out of a lack of food and resources to the ever-growing population. Green (1980) also argues â€Å"that population growth does not necessarily precondition either innovation or increased economic productivity†. As innovation would have to be the precondition to agricultural development, Green’s argument provides significantly altering evidence, which could lead to a different viewpoint on the origins of agriculture.This change in the relationship with culture and environment led to Stark’ s pull model. This cultural change that Sauer discussed had the ability to pull people into adopting the agricultural way of life, discarding the old hunter-gathering way of life. The pull model was based on a shift towards an unprecedented reliance on specific resources, which led to an alteration in the relationship between humans, animals and plants. This reliance ensured that the population was pulled into agriculture (Stark 1986).The pull model also put emphasis on the technological innovation that was developed pre-agriculture and such technology ‘pulled’ the population into the uses of agriculture and to benefit from such implementation of agriculture. The pull model â€Å"prevents a group from reverting to its earlier pattern of resource use† and this can be why, in the eyes of those who believe the pull model was the reason for agricultural development, that the pull model was so successful, effectively pulling those in further along in advancement. Dona ld Henry (1989) proposed a â€Å"pull† model for agricultural arising in the Near East.In his view, there were two key moments in the process of agricultural origins in the Levant. The first occurred around 10,500 BC when a global temperature increase promoted long-term settlement and necessitated a shift from what Henry calls â€Å"simple† foraging to â€Å"complex† foraging. A variety of high-yield resources, including wild cereals, were exploited, and restraints on population growth were relaxed. About 2000 years later, this complex foraging system collapsed possibly as the result of a second climatic change, and the foragers had two options, depending on where they lived.In the highly productive areas of the Levant, where the highest populations were, they began to cultivate cereals. In the marginal areas, people reverted to a simple foraging system. (Bogucki 1999: 190) Henry’s continuation on Stark’s pull model shows that he believes that envi ronmental pull factors resulted in the origins of agriculture. This is especially clear in the Levant where location dominated the resource development, for example: either hunter gathering and foraging or cultivation and domestication – resulting in agriculture.It can be assumed that the majority of highly populated areas of the Levant went to cultivation and that led to the growth of domestic dwellings. Those in marginal areas would have shifted towards domestic dwellings instead of staying as a mobile community. I also believe that technological advancement had a significant impact on the origins of agriculture and the further development of agricultural ways of life. Diamond (1997a) hold technological advancement as one of three linked developments which can be included within Stark’s pull model to try and develop a reason for the agricultural genesis.Technological development allowed people greater ways to â€Å"collect, process and store foods† (Simmons 20 07: 21), which is crucial when harvesting and cultivating is used to process foods and store the years amount of food. Without this development ensuring significantly greater storage capabilities, it causes hunting and gathering daily obsolete. Technological advances created developments, which could be used to â€Å"kill or displace hunter/gatherers† (ibid: 21-22). With violence being a consequence of technology, it would have force those hunter-gatherers into some form of agricultural developments just to survive.Technological advances started to produce greater items for warfare that were superior to what hunter-gatherers were using, mainly for the collection of resources, not fighting. Also, the other variables within Diamonds reasons for the origins were that there was a significant drop in species that used to be wild and resulted in the â€Å"human occupation of available habitats in order to decrease the risk of unpredictability† (ibid: 21). With the decline of wild species, the only option for the population would be to occupy their habitats to ensure that food could be hunted.However, by moving into the habitats were wild species were growing and living, it would have led to significant domestication of the species to ensure that the food is always present. However, there is some opposition to pull models, as Green (1980) says that â€Å"invention-pull models, which attributed agricultural change to technological innovation [which resulted in] considerations of agricultural change being dependent on technological innovation were considered non explanatory because they did not deal with the causes of innovation†.By being pulled into a change, populations would not be able to revert back to their earlier systems of gathering and hunting for food. However, others believe that social changes had a significant impact on the agricultural origins and were developed as one of Stark’s models for agricultural origins – the so cial model. Within the social model, there are numerous theories as to the origin of agriculture, however, all the theories, as Bender (1978) emphasised and â€Å"found that social changes acted independent of technology and economy to create pressures in production† (Simmons 2007: 18).Similar to Bender, Tilley (1996) also believes that greater social and ideological beliefs and their significance played an overwhelming part in the domestication of food rather than economic reasons. The theories that are under the umbrella of the social model are based on social development and competition. Competition feasting was a key theory set forward for the social model.It represents food as power and has been categorised as the â€Å"â€Å"food fight† model† (Simmons 2007: 18) by both proponents and critics (Hayden 1995: 282; Smith 2001: 218-221) With certain individuals accumulating surpluses of food, these could be transformed into items with value. With the accumulati on of surplus food, it would allow people to create feasts for the population. The individuals creating the feast would be held in higher regard in the community because it shows people who were generating the most food for the population.Feasting is a key part of the social model â€Å"given that the Neolithic revolved around food in one way or another; it seems somehow appropriate that feasting be considered as a reasons for its origin† (Simmons 2007: 18-19). By feasting, it was the first aspect of competition within communities. Competitive feasting would have been used as a method for the development and consolidation of power. Competition is a very important aspect of human society as it leads to the best being in positions of power. Within the Neolithic, extra resources must be utilised to ensure that power, influence and status is promoted and competed for. Feasting, gift exchange, trade, and other forms of codified, often ritualised contact† (Pluciennik and Zvel ebil 2009: 469) are the main ways for people to promote their own standings. This promotion of people’s own standards resulted in the need for extra resources beyond their dietary needs in the immediate timescale. This would result in overproduction. Overproduction by hunting and gathering would have got significantly harder with the climatic ever so slightly changing during the early Neolithic.Therefore, agriculture, a â€Å"more intensive system of exploitation† (ibid: 469) must be adopted to ensure overproduction can occur. Hayden (1995) believes that the need for competitive feasting lead to the first domestication of both plants and animals for the production of extra foodstuffs. With the use of food designated as prestige items, the accumulators could exceed their rivals in the consolidation of power (ibid). Runnels and van Andel (1988) have suggested that social customs, such as trade and competitive feasting would have led to motives for food production.Cowgill (1975) mentions that the more food an individual produces, the greater social and political power they possess. This analogy perfectly shows how important food was within a competitive environment and was used significantly to gain the upper hand. Without the implementation of agriculture, the excess food would not have been able to be produced and the ability to gain competitive edge over other individuals would have been diminished. As Miller (1992: 51) says, â€Å"[cultivation was] to ensure a reliable food supply or to increase their food supply to satisfy growing social or dietary needs†.However, Hayden has also put an argument across that does not believe the social model to be a significant reason for agriculture to begin. Hayden (1990: 57-62, 1992: 13) mentions that the social model could not have resulted in a Neolithic revolution to occur immediately as a lot of arguments believe happened. Hayden comments include the fact that a new culture of sharing food would ha ve taken a large amount of time to implement and the fist domesticated plants and animals would not have been appropriate for daily consumption due to his belief that they would have been delicacies.Despite this, I find this argument extremely thin and in my opinion, find it difficult to dismiss such a inquisitive social model, which, due to the change in social behaviour in the Neolithic, could have been very likely to occur, especially when the Neolithic â€Å"was an ideological phenomenon, a new way of thinking† (Simmons 2007: 20). I find that the Neolithic was an era where new ideologies and cultures were being developed and implemented globally throughout the Neolithic on an unprecedented scale.The arguments about how and why agriculture was developed and adopted throughout the globe in the Neolithic have produced very different and sometimes contradictory reasons why the origins of agriculture occurred. However, no one can deny the importance that agriculture had on the world as a whole and the impacts that it had to society as a whole. The impact that agriculture had, in my opinion, is unprecedented and extremely important to how we live in the society today. I can assume that most academics on the topic of agriculture believe that the impact of its adoption during the Neolithic was massively important to the world.Cole (1967: ix) made this quite clear by saying, â€Å"the development of full food production was an evolution rather than a sudden revolution; yet there is no doubt that the consequences of this change were revolutionary in the fullest sense of the world† and as Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) also put forward the idea that the adoption of agriculture was one of revolutionary proportions, a â€Å"quantum leap in human history, and the basis for the development of widespread societal characteristics, both good and bad. †There are many main impacts that can be connected to the implementation of agriculture as the main characteristic of subsistence. By domesticating both plants and animals, it led to â€Å"increased sedentism, smaller social units, individual domiciles, investment in burial ritual and trade† (Bogucki 1999: 191), â€Å"specialisation in diet [was] also encouraged by the localisation of agricultural production† (Rindos 1984: 270) and â€Å"populations practicing agriculture come to be more successful relative to both domesticating and on-domesticatory. These populations not only will be generally larger but will also be dispersing at far greater rates [than populations that are not practicing agriculture]† (ibid: 267). Pluciennik and Zvelebil (2009: 467) mention that the impacts include â€Å"sedentism, population growth, certain endemic diseases, social and political hierarchies, literacy, cities, specialised arts and crafts, widespread environmental degradation, extensive trade, property, laws, morality, and more generally civilisation. It could be very easy to use these and suggest the impacts that agriculture had on today’s society, without thinking about the immediate impacts that occurred to the Neolithic society when agriculture was implemented. When agriculture was implemented in the early Neolithic, it can be assumed this would have led to a population increase due to the majority of early farmers becoming settled and becoming sedentary, resulting in a decrease in mortality rates due to better diets and better immune systems.With improved sedentary conditions, population numbers would begin to increase at a much quicker rate, putting significant pressure on food stores, resulting with the need for improved agricultural efficiency and crop numbers. This continues the cycle of population increase, greater sedentary conditions and thus, more agriculture. However, in the background of this cycle, an evolution of social, economic and religious (Bogucki 1999) norms would have occurred changing the culture of the Neolithic signi ficantly.With the culture changing constantly to include agriculture, it would have led to the societies having a greater involvement with agriculture especially when it became the main and/or only way for food to be acquired. The agricultural revolution led to the societies throughout the globe being hit by these impacts and resulting in a totally different world, and in the grand scheme, the beginnings of agriculture and the beginning of the Neolithic revolution could be argued to be the beginnings of civilisation, as we know it today.The impacts that agriculture had on societies throughout the last 10,000 years are unprecedented and the effects of which are still seen today – with some arguing that without agriculture, the world, as we know it in the modern time would not be the same. â€Å"Social, economic, and political complexity [] would not have emerged without the existence of agriculture† (ibid: 203)To conclude, â€Å"in the last 30 years, archaeologists hav e made considerable progress towards understanding the origins of agriculture, but the question of why prehistoric people made the transition from foraging to farming is still elusive† (ibid: 191) pinpointing one reason for why agriculture was adopted would be impossible. However, in my opinion, I believe that understanding why agriculture was developed, a number of reasons must be acknowledged and inter-link to fully determine the true reasons why agriculture was developed during the Neolithic revolution.The â€Å"push†, â€Å"pull† and social models that were established by Stark (1986) provided the most efficient way of trying to understand why agriculture was developed and it led to a significant advance in the way of thinking for its origins. However, â€Å"in the 1990s, social factors [had] begun to assume prominence in attempts to explain the origins of agriculture, although â€Å"push† and â€Å"pull† models still have considerable importan ce† (Bogucki 1999: 190).I believe that the social model provides more all-round reasons for agricultural origins, especially competitive feasting which provided an activity for the whole society to undertake together, thus, producing the beginnings of a society, and trade. This would increase in importance with the development and the increase of more sedentary populations. Despite this, I also feel that the push and pull models are very important. Without population pressures and some climatic change, agriculture would never have been produced.In my opinion, agriculture created the easiest and most efficient way for agriculture to spread and disperse across the globe through trade. Socially, trade was very important within a society, but in the greater picture, it played a much more important role in its dispersal. With the increase in trade, societies would have improved in prosperity and developed. Without agriculture, this would not have been possible. This leads to how mu ch of an impact agricultural development and its adoption had on societies across the globe.Without food production from agriculture, cultural advancements leading to the growth of urban areas, including technological, economic and political developments, which eventually led to the modern societies, we know today (Simmons 2007; Diamond 1997a). The impact that agriculture had on societies cannot be measured electronically, scientifically or any other way because the impacts are on an unprecedented scale; impacts spanning from one corner of the globe to the other and affecting everything.With the beginning of agriculture came the beginning of the New World, a world of new culture, beliefs and ways of life, economic, political and technological change and developments, resulting in the way we are today. Food production triggered the emergence of kings, bureaucrats, scribes, professional soldiers, and metal workers and other full time craftsmen. Literacy, metallurgy, stratified societi es, advanced weapons, and empires rested on food production. (Diamond 1997b) Word Count: 5298 Bibliography: Barker, G. (2006) The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why did foragers become farmers?UK: Oxford University Press Bellwood, P. (2005) First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Bender, B. (1978) ‘Gatherer-Hunter to farmer: a social perspective’ in: World Archaeology 10: 204-222 Binford, L. (1968) ‘post-Pleistocene Adaptations’ in: New Perspectives in archaeology. Eds: Binford, S. and Binford, L. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Blumler, M. A. and Byrne, R. (1991) ‘The ecological genetics of domestication and the origins of agriculture’ in: Current Anthropology 32: 23-54 Bogucki, P, (1999) The origins of human society.UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Braidwood, R. (1960) ‘The agricultural revolution’ in: Scientific American 203: 130-141 Braidwood, R. and Howe, B. (1960) Prehistoric inve stigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. USA: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Bronson, B. (1975) ‘the earliest farming: demography as cause and consequence’ in: Population, ecology and social evolution. Eds: Polgar, S. Netherlands: de Gruyter Mouton Childe, G. (1936) Man makes himself. UK: Oxford University Press Cohen, M. N. (1977) The food crisis in prehistory: overpopulation and the origins of agriculture.USA: Yale University Press Cole, S. (1967) The Neolithic Revolution. UK: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) Cowgill, G. L. (1975) ‘On causes of ancient and modern population changes’ in: American Anthropologist 77: 505-525 Denham, T. (2011) ‘Early agriculture and plant domestication in New Guinea and island southeast Asia’ in: Current Anthropology Vol 52, No 4: 379-395 Diamond, J. (1997a) Guns, gems and steel: the fates of human societies. USA: Norton Diamond, J. (1997b) ‘location, location, location: the first far mers’ in: Science Vol 278, No 5341Flannery, K. (1969) ‘origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East’ in: The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. Eds: Ucko, P. J. and Dimbleby, G. W. USA: Aldine Publishing Company Green, S. W. (1980) ‘towards a general model agricultural systems’ in: Advances in archaeological method and theory. Eds: Schiffer, M. B. USA: Academic Press Gupta, A. K. (2010) ‘origins of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration’ in: Current Science Vol 87, No 1: 19 Hayden, B. 1990) ‘Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The emergence of food production’ in: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69 Hayden, B. (1995) ‘an overview of domestication’ in: Last hunters, first farmers: New perspectives on the prehistoric transitions to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Henry, D. O. (1989) From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the Ice Age. USA: University of Philadelphia Press Lee, R. (1972) ‘the intensification of social life among the ! Kung Bushmen’ in: Population growth: anthropological implications. Eds: Spooner, B.USA: MIT Press Little, N; Onions, C. T; Friedrichsen, G. W. S; Fowler, H. N; Coulson, J. (1973) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. UK: Oxford University Press Miller, N. (1992) ‘the origins of plant cultivation in the Near East’ in: the origins of agriculture: an international perspective. Eds: Cowan, C. W. and Watson, P. J. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Neilson, R. (2006) The little green handbook: seven trends shaping the future of our planet. USA: Picadore Pluciennik, M. and Zvelebil, M. (2009) ‘The origins and spread of agriculture’ in: Handbook of archaeological theories. Eds: Bentley R. A. and Maschener, H. nd Chippindale, C. UK: Alt amira Press Rindos, D. (1984) the origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective. UK: Academic Press Ltd Runnels, C. and van Andel, T. H. (1988) ‘trade and the origins of agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean in: Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 83-109 Sauer, C. (1952) agricultural origins and dispersals. USA: American Geographical Society Simmons, A. H. (2007) The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: transforming the human landscape. USA: The University of Arizona Press Smith, B. (2001) ‘the transition to food production’ in: Archaeology at the Millennium: A sourcebook.Eds: Feinman, G. and Price, T. D. USA: Plenum Publishing Company Stark, B. (1986) Origins of food production in the New World. USA: Smithsonian Institution Press Tilley, C. (1996) An ethnography of the Neolithic: Early prehistoric societies in Southern Scandinavia. UK: Cambridge University Press Watson, P. J. (1995) ‘Explaining the transition to agriculture’ in: Last h unters: first farmers; New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture. Eds: Price, T. D. and Gebauer, A. USA: School of American Research Press Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. (1993) Domestication of plants in the old world. UK: Oxford University Press

The Host Club A Narrative Fiction - 2815 Words

â€Å"Welcome to the Host Club.† A chorus of voices said in unison as the door opened. It revealed a group of seven boys, all gathered together in a formation. They were all dressed in the standard uniform, but there was still something unnerving about them. Maybe it’s the fact that they’re all beautiful? Probably not. Hyuga took a step forward. Adia was shocked still, along with everyone else. Hyuga was seemingly able to not fall under their silently cast spell. â€Å"We’re here from Seirin. The superintendent told us to find an empty music room to put all our things in. Could you please tell us somewhere that’s a little less inhibited?† He was greeted with a short span of silence. The seven opposite them quickly got out of their pose, obviously realising they weren’t here for whatever it was the ‘Host Club’ did. Kyouya pushed Haruhi forward. Haruhi sent a him. Kyouya wasn’t affected, but the other five had a look of absolute terror on their face. But she put on a smile when she faced the Seirin team. â€Å"Of course. If you could follow me, please?† The personas voice was sort of high. It occurred to all of Seirin that this person wasn’t actually a boy. It didn’t truly bother them–to each their own, right?– but Hyuga was in a sort of clutch time mode. He always was for the first few minutes somewhere new. Obviously, the rest of the team could sense it as well. Being the most diplomatic of the group, Kuroko stepped forward. He shook the others outstretched hand and said, in a louderShow MoreRelatedGothic Realism And The Vampire Sub Cultures1512 Words   |  7 PagesVampires have ultimately transcended narrative boundaries and genre divides and the Vampire sub-cultures flourish in neo-gothic aesthetic from science fiction and fantasy, romantic and young adult literature and in celluloid. Vampire graphic narratives are finding increased popularity and have since developed into an â€Å"Iconic popular culture phenomenon drawing an obsession and fascination globally†. (Jacqueline, Ng, 2014) So what inspired this new genre of graphic narrative? Ghouls, ghosts and terrifyingRead More Comparing Colonialism and Imperialism in Heart of Darkness and Kiplings Poetry1515 Words   |  7 PagesDarkness is Conrad’s autobiographical description of his trip up the river of Congo and his encounter with the atrocities of European rule in Africa.3 Conversely, Kipling’s â€Å"White Man’s Burden† was written to welcome the United States of America to the club of imperialistic nations. The event that prompted Kipling to write this poem was the United States’ intervention in the Philippines. Under the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the Philippine sovereignty was transferred from Spain to the United States and thusRead MoreExploring Young People s Literacy Practices Across Corporate And User Produced Platforms6165 Words   |  25 Pagessimultaneously chatting with other gamers on the same platform, using printed commercial game guides to select gear, consultin g player-produced walkthroughs on Youtube, posting live updates on her progress through a level of the game, and writing fan fiction based on her avatar’s exploits. Rather than viewing the aforementioned gamer’s practices as grounded in a particular context (e.g., a living room or a video game or an affinity space), focused on a particular activity (e.g., writing or watching aRead MoreEntertainment Powers Of Oprah Winfrey2052 Words   |  9 Pagescycled through a series of small broadcasting positions until she was given the opportunity to hose a talk show. The spinoff began, and Oprah was a immediate sensation. Part of this popularity came from the fact that â€Å"Winfrey s goal [was] to use her narrative, not only to promote herself, but also to show her audience by example how they too can overcome difficulties† (Hall 651). Oprah’s past had a large influence on her popularity. She was speaking out about being raped and her strength to do so onRead More Visions of The Primitive in Langston Hughes’s The Big Sea Essay examples6201 Words   |  25 Pagesand to refine a picaresque narrative structure which resists th e single broad meaning that would impose an illusion of unity upon human experience. There is no exertion for absolute resolution of contradiction and external imposition of symmetry. Achieving a sense of closure, of robust and definitive conclusion, is a condition regarded as neither possible nor desirable. Hughes’s experience reveals the urgent need for fellow African American authors to replace other fictions about their voices and storiesRead MoreCause and Impact Analysis on the Main Character’s Suffering in Elizabeth Gilbert’s Novel Eat, Pray, Love7348 Words   |  30 Pagesfrom something. - Impact is striking of something. - A main character is someone the representation of a person in a narrative or dramatic work of art. - Elizabeth Gilbert is the author of the novel â€Å"Eat Pray Love† Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In chapter two, the researcher gave review of related literature such as; literature; fiction; novel; definition of novel; kinds of novel; the elements of novel; theme; setting; plot; characterization; conflict; subject matterRead MoreBlack Slaves And The Slave Owners2438 Words   |  10 Pagesrecognized neither the right nor the desire nor, in fact, human nature. If expressed in purely legal terms, it is the creation of the slaves, deprived of every kind of personality - simply the property of his master. However, despite what the legal fiction, all slave owners (except, maybe even more so hardened villains) are aware that they are dealing with human beings. Despite the significant differences between the world of the masters and the world of slaves, it should be recognized: first, theRead More Simulation Proliferation and the City Essay3639 Words   |  15 Pagesinterrogate, as a point of departure, the philosophy of fantasy in a highly commercial, idyllic, anti-city movie. Those lucky children of the 80’s witnessed the depiction and eventual summarization of the relation between fantasy, imagination, fiction, story, and control in the politico-creative manifesto, The Neverending Story (Wolfgang Peterson 1984). In the movie, Sebastian (a somewhat troubled young boy) reads a book (whose unfolding is the main content of the screen) and is then implicatedRead MoreR.K.Narayan and Swami and Friends7399 Words   |  30 Pagesbasically a very average student and has a laid back attitude towards studies. Apart from his regular friends like SOMU, SHANKAR, SAMUEL a.k.a PEA, and his best buddy is the good-for-nothing MANI. MANI is a big bully who often carries a pair of wooden clubs, monopolizes theLAST BENCH, never brings books or does homework sleeps bravely in the class. Swami is proud to have his friendship. RAJAM, the son of police superintendent, is the new student in the First A. He is the only boy in the class toRead MoreFigurative Language and the Canterbury Tales13472 Words   |  54 Pageshousing. Let us march on segregated schools. Let us march on poverty. Let us march on ballot boxes.... --Martin Luther King, Jr. †¢ Mad world ! Mad king! Mad composition ! 6. antagonist: the character or force opposing the protagonist in a narrative; a rival of the hero 7. apostrophe: addressing an absent or dead person or a personified abstraction †¢ â€Å"Eloquent, just, and mighty Death ! whom none could advise....† †¢ O WORLD, I cannot hold thee close enough! 8. approximate rhyme: also