Brave New World And Utopia Sample Essay

Utopia Essay Composers of Dystopian Literature not only critique personal and political values but also manipulate textual forms and features in response to their times. This is apparent in Thomas More’s Utopia, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Andrew Niccol’s In Time and Turn On/Turn Off composed by Anonymous. These types of literature create a society that goes against responders’ morals and ethics. These Dystopian societies are characterized by human misery. More uses Utopia to criticize the world in which he grew up in.

This is evident in the quote “Nobody owns anything but everyone is rich – for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom of anxiety”. This quote uses the irony, nobody owns anything but everyone is rich which in turn illustrations to the responder that More is criticising his society’s monetary value. Additionally to this the rhetorical question that is, “for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom of anxiety? , expands on this idea of More’s criticism and allows the responder to understand from which points he is criticising as he suggests to us that monetary value deprives cheerfulness, peace of mind and freedom of anxiety. Conversely the society in which Thomas More has envisioned, whilst indeed criticising his own society, More has created a society which is not entirely appealing. The quote from Book Two illustrates this “all with the same language, laws, customs and institutions. They’re all build on the same plan, and, so far as the sites will allow, they all look exactly alike. This is in reference to the fifty-four big towns on the island and evokes a picture of conformity and tasteless in the responder. The use of the repetition of the term same and also the term all exemplifies this idea of conformity. It suggests to the responder that there is no sense of freedom which in turn goes against most responder’s morals and ethics. Additionally this idea makes the impression that the society in which More envisions will be one that is characterized by human misery.

Similarly, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World criticises the world in which he lived. However, whilst More criticised ideas such as monetary value, Huxley criticises scientific advancements. This is simply due to the society in which they are criticising. More, living in a very medieval society say differing issues to Huxley who lived in a society with significant historical changes in medicine, mass production and technology etc. This idea of historical changes in regards to scientific advancements is evident in the terminology used in the novel.

For example; Podsnap’s Technique, and Brokanovsky’s Process, both of which indicate a society that is out of this world as these terms are unfamiliar to the responder. Indeed Huxley did not propose that the society in which he created in Brave New World was the way in which society at the time should head towards. Quite to the opposite Huxley illustrates a society that is indeed characterised by human misery. As is evident in the quote “you’ve got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art”.

This quote emphasises the fact that human misery is evident in Huxley’s Brave New World due to the emotions that can be created through making this decision. Certainly, the fact that one could suggest that this decision of happiness or high art isn’t really an option, this due to the fact that the character in the novel is torn between this decision of happiness or high art. Another type of dystopian literature is that of film, more specifically, Andrew Niccoli’s In Time.

The ironic nature of the quote within the film “For a few to be immortal, many must die” states that one life is worth more than another, this in turn contrasts with the majority of responder’s morals and ethics. It suggests to the responder that one life is worth more than another, which is quite disturbing when one considers the fact that this film was released in 2011, suggesting that society nowadays is not nearly as far as we would like to think, in regards to all human lives being equal. The use of non-diegetic sound, that is background music, sounds other noises etc. rings the film to life and allows for the responder to envision themselves inside Niccoli’s film and imagine a world where time is the currency and that one life is better than another. This dystopian society that Niccoli has created is characterised by human misery, as is evident in the plot of the protagonist’s mother being killed. This in turn brings us to the fourth text, Turn On/Turn Off, a poem by an Anonymous composer, as this poem is characterised by human misery. The repetition of the words Turn On suggests to the responder this idea of power and control.

This is evident as there is a control over ‘turning on’ the lights or the pain, this shows there is a higher power as there must be somebody to “turn on the lights and pain” so to speak, this suggests corruption and inequality within the society that the poem is based within. This corruption and inequality goes against responders morals and ethics as well as suggesting to the responder that the society in which the poem is taking place is full of human misery. Thus, this concept of Dystopia can be found in all forms of literature.

This is evident as composers of Dystopian Literature critique personal and political values and also manipulate textual forms and features in response to their times. Such diversity of the forms of literature includes the novels Utopia and Brave New World by Thomas More and Aldous Huxley, respectively. As well as the film, In Time composed by Andrew Niccol and the anonymously composed poem Turn On/Turn Off. All of these types of literature create a society that goes against responders’ morals and ethics as well as societies that are characterized by human misery.

Creativity And Innovation

Barriers to creativity and innovation can prevent us from unlocking the creative potential that we are all capable of. Being aware of the barriers should prepare us for recognising when they occur and arm us with the potential to break past them. From my perspective, there are some barriers to creativity and innovation and these barriers are affecting my business under existing environment: * Individual * Teams * Organization These are some barriers to creativity and innovation: * Functional fixedness: this is a term used by psychologists and means to only see the obvious ways of looking at a problem.

It’s where the individual does not leave their comfort zone when thinking about solutions to a problem domain. * Self-censorship: is that inner voice that holds us back and tries to prevent us from making a fool of ourselves or looking stupid. It’s the negative thoughts that come into our mind, such as “that will never work”. * Micro-management: stifles a person’s ability to be creative as micro managers provide too much detail related to how a particular task or problem should be tackled. This reduces the ability for the person to think for themselves and add their own creative flair. Over-thinking: about a problem or task uses the logical conscious side of our mind. Often creativity comes from the subconscious mind so rather than over thinking it might be wise to go for a walk or simply start daydreaming. * Creativity myths: act as barriers through their power to shape everyday behaviour. * Image risks: Is where people worry about the impression that people will have of them after suggesting an idea. If an individual’s role does not specifically call for creativity or innovation then they believe that co-workers will think negatively of them if they try and come up with better ways to do things.

It’s the thought of making someone angry by initiating change that upsets the status quo. * Lack of time: and / or opportunity. People often feel that they are too busy with their day-to-day efforts to have time to focus on being creative. Resolve this by setting some planned time a side each and every day for creative efforts. * Lack of sleep: lack of sleep not only forms barriers to creativity but to most other things too! Try and lead a healthy well balanced life with lots of exercise and water and healthy nutrition.

We’re more likely to generate ideas if we are well rested and feel great about ourselves. * Criticism: by others can off put us from proceeding any further with our ideas. Try and dismiss negative thinkers or win them over by demonstrating the validity of our idea with a prototype. * Rules, policies and procedures: If the organization that we work in has lots of rules, policies and procedures then these can sometimes stifle creativity due to the bureaucracy that they create. If we can’t advance our project forward without five signatures then we will find it difficult to maintain momentum.

There are a number of factors that prevent innovation from occurring. Being able to recognise and work through these factors will help you to create an innovative culture in your organisation and help you to make your business successful. The most common barrier to innovation in organisations is a leader or manager that is not open to new ideas. This negatively impacts the team by discouraging creative thoughts. Employees won’t be motivated to come up with new ideas if nobody is going to bother listening to them.

There are also managers who listen to ideas but are reluctant to take them any further, resulting in lost opportunities. Managers are also guilty of shooting down ideas before they are given a chance. If employees come up with new ideas, they should at least be given a chance to explain and justify them, rather than have a manger who immediately says ‘no’ based on past experiences or because an idea isn’t directly in line with the business’ regular operations. Just because something hasn’t been done before doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea.

Time and resources are also significant barriers to innovation. Employees are often so busy with just doing their regular work that there is insufficient time and incentive to generate new ideas. When ideas are generated, they are not taken any further due to the potential risks associated with developing the idea. Generally, innovation is also seen to be too expensive for small businesses to get involved in. However, there are cost effective ways to generate new ideas and managers need to look at the potential benefits that come as a result of investing in innovation.

Often, organisations lack direction in terms of innovation. Whilst people require freedom to be creative, some boundaries or guidelines can help focus their efforts and motivate them to achieve outcomes. Without structures in place, the wrong ideas are be prioritised and time and resources can be wasted. Organisations with the inability to implement and commercialise new ideas are the biggest barrier to innovation. After spending the time, resources and effort to develop an idea, they fail at the final step and the product is never successful in the market.

It takes careful management and planning, as well as commitment from an organisation, to generate profitable returns from good, innovative ideas. In many organisations there can be tension between those promoting creativity, design and user centred approaches to Innovation and those who are bound entirely by procedures, plans and spread sheets. I have often remarked that many people think of Innovation as a machine where you turn a handle after feeding in your ingredients, and a nice new Innovation will pop out. This is not the case!

We should be focusing on the process of innovating (the people) rather than the end product. But what could be going wrong? Well here is a short list of things to beware of: * Being unrealistic Innovation takes time, often more than we allocate for it. The results can also not be what we are expecting. Unrealistic (or irrelevant) objectives and timescales will kill . Try to think of the impact of your Innovation project rather than listing the results in a table. You should be explicit though! * Protecting ego If you’re scared to be wrong, you won’t be able to lead innovation or lead the innovation process.

Since Innovation is all about discussing new ideas you have to be prepared to be wrong or immerse yourself in completely alien concepts. If you are not doing this you are just reworking old stuff, not innovating. * Believing process will save you Innovation processes are not what Innovation is about. They provide a framework within which leaders and facilitators work their magic. They also provide a sort of ‘incubator’ within which anything can happen and which is allowed to flourish when it does. Beware of allowing everything to happen though! You are in business to make money. Varied backgrounds and experience are not the same as cross functional teams In a bid to be innovative, many companies have put together cross functional teams. Such teams are a good idea since your project teams are liberated from the silos (departments) that may make up your business. However, what you are really looking for are different perspectives and experiences. It’s the people you must mix, not the functions. * Believing that we know everything We often do know most things about our markets and customers BUT what we do not seem to be able to do is get started.

We believe that we have all of the motivation and inspiration that we need. We sit at our desks and pore over emails but very few answers arrive that way. Go outside for inspiration, take your camera (or mobile phone) and see what is going on in the world. Drop in on an old lady for a cup of tea and ask her opinion. Do anything but sit on your chair all day! * Talking rather than doing We often like to rubbish the ideas of others and try to make sure we have a complete solution before trying anything.

Get prototyping (or playing) early on and get feedback and gather more ideas. We cannot learn by doing nothing, and hence we cannot innovate either. * Converging (executing) rather than diverging (exploring) ‘Cycle often and close late’ is one of the main precepts of creativity in business. Too often we wish to nail everything down. The CEO wishes to know who is doing what and what the timescales are before we have finished exploring all of the possibilities. Senior managers must learn to live with a little ambiguity.

Id Rather Be A Senator Than A Member Of The House Of Representatives

Clinton’Id rather be a senator than a member of the house of representatives’ Both houses need each other in order to function as they are both part of the legislative branch of government however there are many arguments to suggest that senate is more prestigious that the house of representatives. American citizens see a lot more pride in their senator as they represent the entire state not just a small region within it. For example Representative Joe Baca represents a single congressional region in California whereas Jerry Brown represents the entire state.

The senator has a greater reputation for representing the views of the state over what the party tells them or their own personal views which make the individuals within the state feel as though they are able to trust their senator. A typical American would know their own senator and a number of others that had perhaps run for president or have had a high profile in the media but they would know little about members of the house and would probably only know their own representative. Senators are also one of only 100 whereas there are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and so the senator’s ideas and opinions are more likely to be heard.

Members of the house only serve 2 year terms whereas terms are 6 years in the senate and so they are more likely to make a difference or even gain higher positions of leadership within their party. For example in 2003 republican senator for the state of Tennessee became the leader of the majority after 8 years sitting in the senate, representatives can still gain levels of leadership however, they just take much longer for example Nancy Pelosi also became house minority leader in 2003 but she had been in the house since 1987.

The House of Representatives has 3 main exclusive powers that could be seen as more important than the senate such as the power to initiate money bills, this is because at the beginning of America history the founding rather believed that as it was directly elected, the house should be responsible for how peoples money was spent. This is a huge responsibility as they are ultimately responsible for the state of the economy and therefore responsibly for the lives of everyday American citizens as especially in today’s economic crisis where there are many people unemployed and homeless nd so it is very important that money is spent correctly. The second power of the house is the power to impeach a member of the executive or judiciary if they feel they are not behaving correctly, this has happened 17 times since 1789, in 1980 they impeached 3 judges and in 1999 President Clinton. The final exclusive responsibility of the house is that if the Electoral College produced a deadlock the house would have to choose the president, this has only happened twice, in 1800 and 1924.

These responsibilities of the house are all of great importance for the American political system to function and could and have been fundamentally responsible for the leader of the country. On the other hand the responsibilities of being a senator could be more attractive as there is a greater platform to launch a presidential campaign than from the House of Representatives. Presidents such as Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Barak Obama were all members on the senate before starting their campaign.

In 2008 Obama himself and 5 of his competitors all had seats in the senate and 2 former senators were also running for president in 2008: John Edwards and Fred Thompson. The case is similar for those in the recruitment pool for vice-president, 4 of the last 6 vice presidents were either former or serving members of congress including the current vice president Joe Biden. The democrats have nominated a member of the senate to be vice president in 14 out of the last 15 elections. However Since 1789, 19 Presidents and 33 major presidential nominees served in the U.

S. House of Representatives at some point in their career so being in the senate is not the be all and end all. Senators have many more exclusive powers that are seen as more prestigious that the exclusive powers of the house. They have the power to confirm or deny any appointments made by the president, in late 2006 when secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld resigned, Bush had to get the approval of the senate to appoint his replacement, Robert Gates. The senate confirmed this nomination by 95 votes to 2.

The other exclusive power is its power to ratify with a super majority all treaties negotiated by the president, which means it is very important for the president to keep the senate informed about all treaty negotiations in order to make it more likely for them to ratify his decisions. Also although House of Representatives has the power to impeach someone the senate has the power to question this impeachment and investigate as the whether the person is guilty of what they are being accused of, if they are found guilty by the two thirds majority the individual is removed from office.

In the example of the 1980s where three judges were impeached the senate found all three guilty, whereas in the case of President Clinton in 1999 the senate acquitted him. Another exclusive power which could essentially be one of its most important functions is in the chance of the electoral college producing a deadlock, it is the responsibility of the senate to elect the vice-president- if the president is killed, died, is impeached, or convicted then the vice-president takes up office so it is very important that they make the correct decision.

To conclude it is clear that a senator and a member of the house both have very important roles to play but I believe that being a senator comes with greater responsibilities. Although both houses have equal power in the passage of legislation and both have to agree on any constitutional amendments the fact that a senator represents an entire state and actually takes consideration of the states wishes would give more job satisfaction, they also serve longer terms than members of the house which would could mean even the founding fathers saw their role as more important.

Although being in the house of representatives does have some very important exclusive powers for example in an electoral college they choose the president whereas the senate only choose the vice-president so that could be seen as a greater responsibility.

Looking at all the roles and responsibilities of both the house and senate I would agree with the statement ‘id rather be a senator than a member of the house of representatives’ as it is clearly a good platform for running for office and greater opportunities for promotion, also I feel that because your state knows are relies on their senator it would be greater motivation for doing an honest job.

error: Content is protected !!