Critically Evaluate Doyles Definition Marketing Essay

Critically Evaluate Doyles Definition Marketing Essay Most academics and marketing practioners consider that there are two basic approaches to marketing which are often categorised as being traditional or relationship based. The traditional approach to marketing has the acquisition of new customers as its central tenet. Indeed, Peter Drucker (1964, p. 91) suggested that a business only existed to create a customer. However, organisations have increasingly begun to recognise that customer retention is as important, if not more so, than customer acquisition. The driving force behind this change in thinking has been the ever increasing cost of acquiring new customers (Holmlund and Koch, 1996). Therefore, in contrast to traditional marketing, the basic premise of relationship marketing is the development of customer relationships with a view to cost reduction within the organisation and increased shareholder value through the creation of high levels of customer satisfaction (Perrien and Ricard, 1995). Indeed, many relationship marketing the orists summarise the difference between relationship marketing and traditional marketing as the creation of customer satisfaction rather than the creation of a customer (Perrien and Ricard, 1995). In terms of the competitive advantage dimension of Doyles definition, Porters Generic Strategies model (1980, p. 39 see Appendix I) suggests that the traditional approach to marketing relies heavily on a strategy of cost leadership and price competiveness. In contrast, relationship marketing focuses on differentiation, in terms of product and/or brand attributes, as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. It can be seen, therefore, that Doyles definition of marketing is closely allied to the relationship marketing school of thinking. However, Doyles definition does not take account of the fact that the implementation of a relationship based approach to marketing alone does not necessarily guarantee that an organisation will achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, or, therefore, a subsequent maximisation of shareholder returns. To have the potential for this, a relationship marketing programme must include attractive and relevant value propositions for customers, which should differentiate an organisations brand and/or products from those of its competitors. In addition, these differentiated value propositions should not be easy for competitors to imitate (Barney, 1991). It is critical, therefore, that an organisation establishes exactly what value its customers are seeking in order for it to be able to design and deliver the appropriate value-enhancing benefits that will facilita te the building of meaningful long-term, and mutually beneficial, customer relationships (Christopher et al, 2002, p. 22). Doyles definition refers only to valued customers suggesting that they are a homogenous group. However, not all customers are alike and Newell (2003, p. 17) articulates this when he states that Customers dont want to be treated equally. They want to be treated individually. Therefore, not only does successful relationship marketing rely on the creation of customer value propositions but also on the process of segmenting and targeting the most appropriate customers and then tailoring and positioning value propositions to appeal to the various, identified consumer segments. Furthermore, the segmentation of consumers by psychographic and behavioural attributes enables an organisation to understand the different motivational factors that influence those consumers in their purchasing behaviour towards specific brands or products, thus facilitating a more individual approach to customers. In addition, segmentation by this method provides an organisation with an insight into the specific va lue benefits that its customers, and potential customers, are seeking when they make a purchase. This, in turn, assists in the creation of desirable and differentiated brands and/or products, and enables their effective positioning for the identified segments (Dibb et al., 1997). The segmentation, targeting, and positioning process is summarised in Appendix II. Doyles definition of marketing specifically identifies developing relationships with valued customers as a means of creating a competitive advantage. However, the definition makes no reference to any other stakeholder groups that an organisation may have, and will certainly need to interact with, if it is to build and sustain a competitive advantage. The six markets stakeholder model indentifies the key stakeholder groups that require attention from any organisation that adopts a comprehensive relationship marketing approach to the achievement of its business growth and profitability objectives (Christopher et al., 2002, p. 76 see Appendix III) Whilst this model is certainly customer centric, it recognises different stakeholder groups as having the potential to engage in active relationships with the organisation and., therefore, be considered for inclusion within its marketing strategy. It is necessary for organisations to effectively manage relationships with all of these groups e specially as they have an interrelationship with each other. For example, shareholders in an organisation are members of the Influencer Markets, but may also be part of the Referral Markets and the Customer Markets. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in terms of support for Doyles definition, research has shown that there is a direct link between the adoption of a successful relationship marketing strategy and profit (Bhote, 1996). None of this is to say, however, that traditional marketing does not have a role to play in the modern-day commercial environment. There is no doubt that many consumers have a short-term outlook, in terms of their purchasing behaviour, and are not necessarily loyal to particular brands. Indeed, such consumers may buy particular brands out of habit or they may actively search for brands regardless of whether or not they are being targeted by relationship marketing programmes (Kotler and Armstrong, 2011, p. 150). In this sense, Doyles definition does not recognise the concept or value of traditional marketing. However, the many exponents of the traditional approach to marketing regard it as a distinct and dedicated management function within an organisation that is responsible for creating transactions with certain groups of customers that satisfy their immediate needs and wants whilst, at the same time, meeting the marketing objectives set by the organisation (Grà ¶nroos, 2006). Organisations that deploy traditional marketing methods tend to view the marketing function as being responsible for the so-called four Ps, namely Product, Place (distribution), Price, and Promotion, rather than the management of customer relationships. Research has also shown that, in fact, very few organisations deploy exclusively either traditional marketing or relationship marketing. More often than not there will be a blending of the two marketing disciplines and, in terms of responsibility within an organisation, traditional marketing may be the domain of the marketing department with customer relationship management being a standalone function. In any case, the choice between using one of the two methods, and using both, should always be based on the industry in question and the needs of the customer. (Zinedlin and Philipson, 2007). However, there remains no doubt that many consumers are willing, and able, to form emotional, as well as practical, transaction-based relationships with organisations. This is particularly the case where an organisation has a recognisable brand as consumers are more likely to identify with a brand, and remain loyal to that brand, than they are to an organisation. Loyalty by customers to a brand is known to be a prime factor in the creation of sustainable competitive advantage and, therefore, business growth and profitability (Aggarwal, 2004). It is for these reasons that, according to Kotler and Armstrong (2011, p. 259), of all the assets owned by an organisation, the brand is the perhaps the most enduring and valuable in terms of its ability to generate shareholder wealth. Consequently, although Doyles definition of marketing has been seen to exclude the still relevant dimension of traditional marketing, it can be effectively applied to the creation and management of the marketing s trategy of an organisation. Even so, Doyles definition does not go far enough in its attempts to encompass the practice and value of relationship marketing as it does not specifically refer to the strategically significant role of brands in building sustainable competitive advantage. Consequently, to apply Doyles definition in a practical sense to the creation and management of an organisations marketing strategy, it is first necessary to discuss and evaluate the role that branding and brand reputation plays. As has already been shown, true relationship marketing demands that brands, and their inherent value propositions, are positioned in a differentiated and competitive sense against the various identified consumer segments. This is only the first step in the branding process and it is critical to the building of a sustainable competitive advantage that, over time, an organisation is able to build and sustain its brand reputation. Brand reputation is to do with how customers think and feel about a brand and, in order to develop brand reputation organisations need to have certain building blocks in place to enable customers to feel confident in developing meaningful relationships with the brand (Keller, 2003). These building blocks include brand salience, perfor mance, imagery, and resonance, which all impact on the judgements consumers make about a brand and, ultimately, how they will behave towards it. This process of brand reputation building is summarised in Appendix IV. If the process is followed effectively, then customers will ultimately progress from understanding, and empathising with, the brands value propositions to having a resonance with the brand and being ready to form an emotional relationship with it. To maximise the value of this potential emotional relationship, organisations have to take advantage of every available opportunity to ensure that engagement between their brand and their customers is positive. These engagements can comprise a number of so called customer touchpoints, such as direct marketing, helplines, advertising, and social media. Every time that a customer engages with a brand through a touchpoint that customers views and opinions about the brand are formulated and, ultimately, this will influence attitudes and behaviour towards the brand. Indeed, Doyle himself (1998) suggested that, by maximising the positive and integrated nature of customer engagements with their brands, organisations could enhance their overall bra nd reputations. Consumers who form emotional relationships with brands can actually become so enthusiastic about these relationships that they develop a loyalty to the brand and may even progress as far as becoming so called brand advocates, recommending the brand to friends, family, and members of their peer and reference groups (Aggarwal, 2004). If the organisation carefully nurtures these loyal customers and brand advocates, then they can become immensely valuable, in terms of future shareholder returns, and groups of them may even form themselves into brand communities on social networking sites, such as Facebook, where their influence over other customers and potential customers will be even greater. In summary and conclusion, it can be seen that the successful management of an organisations customer relationships can lead to customer loyalty and advocacy and is a key factor in an organisations ability to establish and maintain its competitive advantage, which, in itself, is a prerequisite for growth and profitability in todays globalised and highly competitive marketplace. Although Doyles definition recognises the increasingly significant role of customer relationship management within the marketing discipline, it fails to take account of the other key stakeholder groups that interact within an organisation, and with each other. Equally, certain strategically important aspects of a comprehensive relationship marketing strategy that will maximise competitive advantage and, in turn, shareholder returns, are not referred to in Doyles definition. These shortcomings include a lack of recognition of the value and role of brands in the marketing process as well as the significance of s egmentation, targeting, and positioning. In addition, Doyles definition totally excludes any reference to the important role that traditional marketing is still able to play within a successful marketing strategy Even so, although Doyles definition does fall short in certain areas, it is still a solid foundation for the framing of an organisations marketing strategy. This is because modern-day organisations have to understand that, in order to deliver the returns that their shareholders demand, a significant element of marketing practice has to be focussed on the building of long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with customers rather than on new customer acquisition. This is especially true as consumers not only have an increasingly heightened awareness of brands but also take more account of a brands reputation when making a purchasing decision. Equally, consumers are more willing to express their brand awareness by either defection from, or loyalty to, particular brands. Organisations can encourage customer loyalty to their brands by developing and communicating, at every available opportunity, consistent, relevant, and powerful brand propositions that are customised to their identif ied market segments. In this way, brands can build competitive advantage through differentiation rather than through the adoption of low pricing policies which impact negatively on profitability and, thereby on shareholder returns. -

Concept of Beauty According to the Western Philosophers Essay

Beauty is an emotional element, a pleasure of ours, which nevertheless we regard as a quality of thing. The ideas of beauty is found in almost every culture and at almost every time in human history, with many similarities. Beauty was and still is a term of great esteem linking human beings and nature with artistic practices and works since the early civilizations. From the early cultures, beauty, goodness and truth are customarily related. Beauty here carries a double meaning, inclusive and exclusive. In the inclusive sense, beauty pertains to anything worthy of approbation, to human virtues and characters, to nobility and goodness, to hidden things and truth, to the natural and divine worlds. In the exclusive, restricted sense, it pertains to how things appear, their manifestations, and to the joys human beings experience when presented with beautiful things, human bodies, artifacts, natural creatures and things. When we talk about the beauty in works of art, we are talking about this latter beauty, and experiencing this beauty refers to the aesthetic experience. Such beauty is the higher degree of it and the experience of it last in us beyond the time and space. The nature of beauty and its role in philosophy and aesthetics was explained from the early periods and its evolution as described by the philosophers and writers as follows: ~PLATO~ ( 428 or 427 – 348 or 347 B. C ) Plato had a love-hate relationship with the arts. He must have had some love for the arts, because he talks about them often, and his remarks show that he paid close attention to what he saw and heard. He was also a fine literary stylist and a great story-teller; in fact he is said to have been a poet before he encountered Socrates and became a philosopher. Some of his dialogues are real literary masterpieces. On the other hand, he found the arts threatening. He proposed sending the poets and playwrights out of his ideal Republic, or at least censoring what they wrote; and he wanted music and painting severely censored. The arts, he thought, are powerful shapers of character. Thus, to train and protect ideal citizens for an ideal society, the arts must be strictly controlled. Plato had two theories of art. One may be found in his dialogue The Republic, and seems to be the theory that Plato himself believed. According to this theory, since art imitates physical things, which in turn imitate the Forms, art is always a copy of a copy, and leads us even further from truth and toward illusion. For this reason, as well as because of its power to stir the emotions, art is dangerous. Plato’s other theory is hinted at in his shorter dialogue Ion, and in his exquisitely crafted Symposium. According to this theory the artist, perhaps by divine inspiration, makes a better copy of the True than may be found in ordinary experience. Thus the artist is a kind of prophet. Here are some features of the two theories: 1. Art is imitation This is a feature of both of Plato’s theories. Of course he was not the first or the last person to think that art imitates reality. The idea was still very strong in the Renaissance, when most people thought that a picture must be a picture of something, and that an artist is someone who can make a picture that â€Å"looks just like the real thing†. It wasn’t until late in the nineteenth century that the idea of art as imitation began to fade from western aesthetics, to be replaced by theories about art as expression, art as communication, art as pure form, art as whatever elicits an â€Å"aesthetic† response, and a number of other theories. So art is imitation. But what does it imitate? In the Republic, Plato says that art imitates the objects and events of ordinary life. In other words, a work of art is a copy of a copy of a Form. It is even more of an illusion than is ordinary experience. On this theory, works of art are at best entertainment and at worst a dangerous delusion. Whereas in the Symposium, he talks of art as imitation of the divine beauty and eternal truth. 2. Art is powerful, and therefore dangerous Poetry, drama, music, painting, dance, all stir up our emotions. All of the arts move people powerfully. They can strongly influence our behavior, and even our character. For that reason Plato insisted that music (especially music), along with poetry and drama and the other arts, should be part of the education of young citizens in his ideal republic, but should be strictly censored to present, at first, only the good. Plato’s influence came into the medieval European tradition through the filter of Neoplatonism, a much later modification of Platonic teachings that flourished in the centuries just before and after the time of Jesus. The most famous neo-Platonist was Plotinus. Plotinus and the other neo-Platonists made much of the idea of Beauty, and the soul’s quest for it, as described in the Symposium. Through neoplatonism, Plato’s second theory (art as imitation of eternal Beauty and eternal Truth) became the channel of his influence on the western middle ages and the renaissance. ~ARISTOTLE~ ( 384-322 BC ) In The School of Athens, the fresco by Raphael, Plato and Aristotle stand side by side. Plato points to the heavens, to the ideal world of the Forms. Aristotle is shown with his hand open toward the earth. The painting shows how passionate Renaissance intellectuals were about the views and achievements of the ancient Greeks and Romans. It also accurately portrays the difference between Plato and Aristotle. It’s a difference that shows up in their approaches to the arts. Aristotle took time and change more seriously than did Plato. Not surprisingly, he was also somewhat friendlier to the passions than was Plato; though he, too, thought that the moral virtues were various habits of rational control over the passions. Like Plato, Aristotle thought that art involved imitation (mimesis), though on this point as on many others he was flexible and allowed for exceptions. He also thought harder than Plato about what art imitated. For example, he says that Tragedy is an imitation â€Å"not of persons but of action and life, of happiness and misery† (Poetics 1451b). Thus he leans toward the â€Å"art as imitation of the ideal† theory that Plato might have developed, but never did. Aristotle’s Poetics is largely devoted to drama, in particular to tragedy. Aristotle provides both a history of the development of poetry and drama, and a critical framework for evaluating tragic drama. The Poetics is the first systematic essay in literary theory, full of insight, and showing a high degree of flexibility in the application of its general rules. Like many of Aristotle’s other attempts to systematize knowledge about an area, this framework has had a strong influence up to the present day, and was particularly influential during the Renaissance and the early modern European periods. Aristotle stresses the need for a work to be unified. The plot should be unified, portraying, in effect, one extended action which is set up, develops, and comes to a climactic conclusion. The character of the protagonists should be consistent, and the action should be the sort of action those characters would produce under those circumstances. The time of the action should also be unified, so that the plot can be held in memory as one action. Aristotle thought this would usually imply that the action would occur within one day. These â€Å"Unities† of action, character, and time were developed and added to by Renaissance writers to produce a code of â€Å"decorum† for dramatic productions, and failure to observe the â€Å"Unities† was often taken to mean failure of a work. Of course this brought a rebellion against Aristotle, who was not in fact responsible for the excesses of this code, and no doubt had no intention of producing a set of rules for dramatists in the first place. His critical standards no longer rule the evaluation of plays and novels, let alone other works. But the Poetics remains an impressive accomplishment, and many of its insights continue to ring true. It still seems a good general rule that a plot should be unified; that in a drama character should be revealed by action; that surprising turns are a great help to a plot, as long as they are not implausible; that one should not try to cover too great a length of actual time within the time of the play. The idea of catharsis is a potent one; and so is the idea that art portrays the universal, â€Å"not a thing that has been, but a kind of thing that might be. † ~RENE DESCARTES~ (1596-1650) He described the beauty and perfection of god’s works and the divine light. As late as the eighteenth century, beauty retained its relation to divinity and perfection, expressed in art. Even so, with Descartes and his time a transformation of the world began that included alterations in the practice and understanding of art and in the thought of beauty and beautiful things. In a universe made by god, the beauty and perfection of the world are immediate and infinitely important. ~GEORGE BERKELEY~ (1685-1753) â€Å"A man needs no argument to make him discern and approve what is beautiful; it strikes as first sight, and attracts without a reason. And as this beauty is found in shape and form of corporeal thins, so is there analogous to it, which is a beauty of another kind; an order, a symmetry, and comeliness in the moral world. And as the eyes perceive, so do by a certain interior sense perceive the other, which sense, talent or faculty is ever quickest and purest in the noble mind. † George Berkeley (1685-1753) is Irish philosopher and critics. He had moral sense theory of ethical judgment, which eliminates the traditional conception of moral rules as divine commands known by revelation as a main target of Berkeley’s attack. Francis Hutcheson offered his account of the sense of beauty as an introduction to his theory of the moral sense, Berkeley extended his attack to Hutcheson’s aesthetics. He exclaimed his response to beauty need not always be a response to the appearance of usefulness; e. g. Greek columns are tapered to look stable even though they would actually be stable with being tapered. The arguing issue raised remained a live one for aesthetics theory entities radical transformation in the post- Kantian period. ~IMMANUEL KANT~ (1724-1804) Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German Enlightenment philosopher whose original and powerful philosophy has shaped most subsequent western thought. He was a popular lecturer, and was capable of a lively, readable style; although his major works are as dense and difficult as they are influential. (Kant defended this as a deliberate choice, since he wanted to examine what could be known about the mind in itself, or a priori, without depending on particular examples.) Kant produced an early treatise on aesthetics, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1763), and did not write on the subject again until the end of his career, in the Critique of Judgment (1790). In between the two works came the development of his influential critical philosophy. Although Kant saw the Critique of Judgment as the key work which connected his writings on epistemology (the theory of knowledge) in the Critique of Pure Reason with his writings on ethics in the Critique of Practical Reason, it is not necessary to know these other works in order to understand the most influential parts of Kant’s aesthetics. Like many other writers on aesthetics before him, Kant’s main interest was not in art per se, but in Beauty (and along with other eighteenth century writers, in the Sublime). Thus most of his remarks are as relevant to the beautiful or sublime in nature as in art. Like other Enlightenment writers, (e. g. , Hutcheson and Hume), Kant also thought that Beauty or Sublimity were not really properties of objects, but ways in which we respond to objects. And like these other writers, Kant was concerned to show that this focus on the subjective aesthetic response did not make aesthetic value a mere function of individual or personal taste. Kant’s way of working out these problems is what makes his aesthetics original and influential. He claimed that judgments of taste are both subjective and universal. They are subjective; because they are responses of pleasure, and do not essentially involve any claims about the properties of the object itself. (What matters is not the picture I see; rather it is the pleasing effect of the picture on me.) On the other hand, aesthetic judgments are universal and not merely personal. That’s because in a crucial way they must be disinterested. When I am appreciating a painting aesthetically, I am not thinking about how much money it’s worth, or whether it is a portrait of a family member, or even about who painted it, except in so far as knowing the painter helps me see what’s in the work. These non-aesthetic interests are extraneous to my appreciation of the painting. Rather I am pleased by the painting just for what it is, apart from anything I may get out of it. In fact I do not even take an ethical interest in the painting’s subject (that is, any ethical interest is separate from this disinterested pleasure I take in the painting). â€Å"Taste that requires an added element of charm and emotion for its delight, not to speak of adopting this as the measure of its approval, has not emerged from barbarism†. Kant thought that for aesthetic judgments to be both subjective and universal, they had to be about form. Beauty should be â€Å"a question merely of the form†. More specifically, the object being contemplated (e. g. , a work of art, or an actual landscape) must display a kind of undefined purposive ness, such that it seems to be organized with a final purpose in mind, although it is not possible to say what that purpose is. Thus a work of art, or a beautiful natural object, displays a kind of free play of forms, consistent with the presence of a purpose to which we don’t have access. So intent was Kant on emphasizing the formal properties of the objects of aesthetic attention that he was unwilling to include color among the aesthetically relevant properties of an object. Color, in his view, is mere decoration; design and composition are what really matter . To sum up this point about form in Kant’s own words: â€Å"A judgment of taste which is uninfluenced by charm or emotion (though these may be associated with the delight in the beautiful), and whose determining ground, therefore, is simply finality of form, is a pure judgment of taste. † Kant divided the kinds of aesthetic response into responses to the Beautiful and the Sublime. The one represents a pleasure in order, harmony, delicacy and the like. The other is a response of awe before the infinite or the overwhelming. While the beautiful presents the appearance of form, the sublime may often seem formless. The pleasure it gives us derives from our awareness that there is something in us that transcends the overwhelming power or infinity outside us. Finally, Kant had things to say about genius. In short, he thought that genius has its own rules, and one cannot dictate to it. How Kant arrived at his conclusions is not easily shown; and it is no surprise that the philosophical reasoning that grounds those conclusions did not follow them into the cultural mainstream. But the conclusions themselves proved quite influential. His remarks on genius, and on purposive ness in art and nature, had an impact on the development of Romantic aesthetics. Later, the idea of a disinterested appreciation of form became a watchword for philosophers and critics like Clement Greenberg who defended abstract art. In literary criticism, the New Criticism which focused on the text itself, and its philosophical defense by Beardsley and Wimsatt, were similarly inspired.

Animal Farm’s Utopian Society Essay

Animal Farm by George Orwell is a novel detailing a farm’s revolution as the animals fight to take back what is theirs and keep it for themselves rather than supply a farmer and his needs. The animals succeed in recapturing their farm, and one of the first things they do is set up a list of seven commandments to provide structure to their utopian society. By the end of the book, one realizes that the utopian society the animals set up was riddled with holes, and this leads one to wonder if a utopian is ever really achievable. The purpose of this essay is to discuss Animal Farm’s flaws in its utopian society and the idea of the utopian society as a whole. To begin, one of the main flaws of the animals’ society is the fact that they wanted to be completely self-sufficient without any help from the outside world. A farm cannot sustain on its own: tools break, you can run low on fuel, and things need to be modernized. Orwell wrote the first commandment as â€Å"Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. † (24). With this as its first and primary thought, the pigs ultimately set their society up for failure. One crucial example of this failure is when the animals tried to construct a windmill to provide electricity for the farm. The animals couldn’t break up the stone to build the windmill, because as Orwell put it, â€Å"There seemed no way of doing this except with picks and crowbars, which no animal could use, because no animal could stand on his hind legs. † (60) The animals were not men and were foolish to think that they could achieve everything just as easily as man could. The windmill took several years to finish, and in the end wasn’t used to provide electricity to the farm, but to grind corn. The belief that all humans are the enemy and should be avoided was one of the nails in the coffin of Animal Farm’s utopian society, because they eventually did have to interact with the humans and trade with them. As well as the first commandment, the fact that the animals had two leaders led to the society’s destruction. The pigs Snowball and Napoleon were of completely different minds and had completely ideals. They argued over everything and eventually plotted against each other. Having two different leaders with different ideas and different styles of governing and taking care of Animal Farm was a mistake because it would be much more difficult to reach an agreement or do anything that would greatly improve life on the farm. There is also the fact that one of them would eventually take over completely, which did happen. Napoleon chased Snowball off the premises and slowly but surely convinced the animals that Snowball was the worst of them all. Napoleon even got to the point where if anything bad happened, the animals would blame Snowball for it. To be successful, the leaders of a society must want to cooperate and to work for the good of the people they are leading. Napoleon did not want to work with Snowball in the slightest, and this led to the totalitarianism state that Animal Farm became under Napoleon’s leadership and guidance. Considering these flaws in utopian societies, one is led to wonder if a utopian society is really attainable. To be a utopian society, all people must be equal and have equal worth. This in itself is impossible. A society must have at least one leader to guide it and lead the people, but there are no leaders in equality. There has to be different social classes or else all there is going to be is a great deal of working in the lowest of low jobs in factories or farms. There is also no absolute way to please everyone, which is another characteristic of a utopian society. If one thing happens that will make one person happy, there is a great chance it will make someone else angry. Utopian societies are unreachable and unattainable, and will surely turn into dystopian societies, just like Animal Farm. In brief, the society created in Animal Farm was condemned from the first commandment and the first appointment of its leaders. Trying to live life on a farm without the aid or contact with humans was illogical in itself. As previously stated, a farm cannot sustain on its own. The animals were foolish to think it could. The leading of Snowball and Napoleon also led to the destruction of the farm’s utopian society. They couldn’t possibly do any good for the farm because they were too busy arguing at the Sunday debates. All in all, a utopian society is not achievable, at least not in the near future. Equality cannot possibly be reached because a society needs a leader, which is against the idea of equality. Everyone also cannot be pleased at the same time because it is against human nature. Animal Farm never could have been a true utopian society; it was doomed before it had even begun.

Obedience Is, As Stanley Milgram Writes, “As Basic An Element

Obedience is, as Stanley Milgram writes, â€Å"as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to† (Milgram 1). The act of obedience holds positive connotations, but the sometimes negative effects of blind obedience are explored in Stanley Milgram’s â€Å"The Perils of Obedience† and Diana Baumrind’s â€Å"Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience.† Though Milgram does analyze how the subjects of the experiment blame their actions on the experimenters, Baumrind argues the bad effects of Milgram’s experiment on a subject’s mental state. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, wanted to further understand how far a person would be willing to go in harming another person by the orders of an authoritative figure. Milgram†¦show more content†¦The learner, which is an actor, is put in another room and believed to be getting these shocks because of an audio, provided by the lab, of the learner releasing sounds of pain and loud complaining. Milgram states that â€Å"At 285 volts, his response can be described only as an agonized scream† (Milgram 10). Because the subjects are â€Å"inflicting increasing pain on a protesting victim† (Milgram 9) by the order of an experimenter, the subjects believe that they will not and do not have to assume any responsibility if anything happens to the learner who is â€Å"receiving† shocks. Milgram finds it astonishing that the subjects will continue to willing cause pain for someone if they are ordered to do so. One of the subjects of Milgram’s experiment, Fred Prozi, becomes the prime example for this lack of responsibility. When the learner begins to holler in pain from the shocks, Prozi does not want to go on with the experiment because he did not want to be responsible for whatever happens to the learner. The experimenter convinces Prozi to continue the experiment by saying, â€Å"I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue, please† (Milgram 39). Milgram continues to provide evidence of more subjects that distance themselves from the responsibility of their actions in a section of his writing called â€Å"Duty Without Conflict.† Milgram states that, â€Å"The essence of obedience is that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anotherShow MoreRelatedEssay on Authority and Obedience2310 Words   |  10 PagesAuthority and Obedience Thesis: We consciously or unconsciously obey authority in all walks of life on a daily basis. Obedience is when there is legitimate power, there is pressure to comply. Compliance with that which is required by authority; subjection to rightful restraint or control. Authority being the legal or rightful power; a right to command or enforce obedience on another. This essay shall discuss, explore and evaluate the explanations as to why peopleRead MoreThe Trials Of The Nazis During The Holocaust1913 Words   |  8 Pages Can the average person, when confronted by authority and ordered to hurt another human being, be able to do so? According to the results of Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on Obedience to Authority and the numerous testimonies from Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials, the answer is yes, provided that the individual committing the act was ordered to do so by an authority figure and/or believes that responsibility will be deferred to said higher authority. There is therefore potential that the actionsRead MoreOrganizational Behaviour Analysis28615 Words   |  115 Pagesactually no such thing as ‘management theory’ in terms of a separable area of study, and what normally goes under that rubric is really an ideological stance vis-à  -vis more general consideration of organisational and human phenomena. Most of the main elements are taken from the field called ‘Organis ation Theory’, which, despite its name, is not a single unified body of knowledge, but a ‘secondary’ subject area built on material taken from other more distinct disciplines. This is both its strength andRead MoreDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 PagesAssessment 106 Time Management Assessment 107 Type A Personality Inventory 108 Social Readjustment Rating Scale 109 Sources of Personal Stress 111 SKILL LEARNING 112 Improving the Management of Stress and Time 112 The Role of Management 113 Major Elements of Stress 113 Reactions to Stress 114 Coping with Stress 115 Managing Stress 117 Stressors 117 Eliminating Stressors 120 Eliminating Time Stressors Through Time Management 121 Eliminating Encounter Stressors Through Collaboration and Emotional IntelligenceRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesBounty Hunters 89 Case Incident 1 Long Hours , Hundreds of E-Mails, and No Sleep: Does This Sound Like a Satisfying Job? 90 Case Incident 2 Crafting a Better Job 91 4 Emotions and Moods 97 What Are Emotions and Moods? 98 The Basic Emotions 100 †¢ The Basic Moods: Positive and Negative Affect 100 †¢ The Function of Emotions 102 †¢ Sources of Emotions and Moods 103 Emotional Labor 108 Affective Events Theory 110 Emotional Intelligence 112 The Case for EI 113 †¢ The Case Against EI 114 †¢ Emotion