guernica Essay Example

guernica Essay On April 27th, 1937, unprecedented atrocities are perpetrated on behalf of Franco against the civilian population of a little Basque village of Guernica in northern Spain. Chosen for bombing practice by Hitlers new war machine, the little city is pounded with high explosives and incendiary bombs for over three hours. Townspeople are cut down as they run from the crumbling buildings. Guernica burns for three days. Sixteen hundred civilians are killed or wounded. This powerful painting captures Picassos horror at the brutal destruction that man commits against man. This monumental work tells the story. Guernica, painted by Pablo Picasso in 1937, is a cubist work depicting the evils of war. It is clear that Picasso abhorred war, and all its aggregates. The mural stands eleven feet tall and is twenty-six feet in length. The immense size of this painting aids in portraying the monumental effect of war on the people of Spain. Using a monochromatic template, Picasso adds to this effect by c reating an eerie and dark mood to reflect the tragedy of war. He uses only grays in his painting, and includes areas of only black and white. Picasso deliberately distorts the proportion of the animals and figures he has created. They look almost like something from a nightmare. When I see this painting I look from left to right, seeingfirst an image of a woman mourning the loss of her newborn baby. Above her is the head of a bull, representing Spain. As I pan across the work, a horse trampling the body of a fallen warrior is shown. A ghost it seems holds a candle to light the scene, but light only shines to the right. Following the light is a woman struggling to walk. To the far right is a person screaming at the end of a dark hall. Picasso has drawn teeth-like figures on the hall to give it the appearance of a mouth. As I look at this painting, I feel I get a real sense of war. It seems that you could look for hours and still have more to see.

George Herbert Mead †Symobolic Interactionist

George Herbert Mead – Symobolic Interactionist Free Online Research Papers George Herbert Mead Symobolic Interactionist George Herbert Mead, a symbolic interactionist, focused his thought on the role taking of individual behaviors. By emphasizing the process underlying social structures, Mead presents a very dynamic view of society for not only is society shaped by role taking, it can be altered by the unchanged processes. Mead was the originator of the thought of Mind, Self, and Society. This thought is shaped by thinking about your individual self through mind and how society sees you. Mead liked to look at the mind as something reflective; he said the mind was created by responses to environmental stimuli. He looked at the self as emerging out of the facility of using symbols and taking roles of others. He also said that there were two phases of self, the â€Å"I† which is spontaneous, inner creative and subjective, and the â€Å"me† which is the organized attitudes of others and the broader community. The â€Å"me† is derived from taking the role of others. What emerges from Meads view of society is not a vision of social structure but the underling patterns of social interaction from individualized role taking. His perception on society was that it is maintained by virtue of human’s aptitude to role-take and to assume the perspective of generalized other. Mead had many different influences in his work. He borrowed ideas from the four biggest intellectual perspectives of his time: Utilitarianism, Darwinism, Pragmatism, and Behaviorism. For utilitarianism, Mead emphasized three points: actors seeking rewards, actors as attempting to adjust to a competitive situation, and actors as goal directed and instrumental in their behaviors. Mead was interested in certain aspects of Darwinism. Mead argued that at birth, an infant is not a human. He said that infants acquire the unique behavioral capacities only as it adapts to social environments. Mead borrowed ideas from his intellectual peers who considered themselves pragmatists. Mead believed in the concept that humans use facilities to adapt and survive, and therefore said that everyone who wishes to adapt and survive has to adopt pragmatism. Mead rejected extreme behaviorism but accepted its general principle: Behaviors are learned as a result of gratifications associated with them. His behaviorist ideals tie in with his thoughts on mind, self, and society because he believed that the most distinctive behaviors of humans are covert, involving thinking, reflection, and self-awareness. In retrospect, we can conclude that mead borrowed ideas from a number of intellectual perspectives. Mead was not only influenced by these general intellectual perspectives, he also borrowed specific concepts from a variety of scholars, only some of whom worked within these general perspectives. Mead was able to take specific concepts and incorporate them into metaphors Research Papers on George Herbert Mead - Symobolic InteractionistRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenThree Concepts of PsychodynamicInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married MalesThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseCapital PunishmentAnalysis Of A Cosmetics AdvertisementCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite Religion19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraComparison: Letter from Birmingham and Crito

Completing a Synopsis Appraisal of a Qualitative Research Study Article

Completing a Synopsis Appraisal of a Qualitative Research Study - Article Example In this case, they wanted to produce a description of combined experiences and social processes that health care providers within a region in New Zealand have to face while testing the clinical guidelines framework, and at the same time providing their feedback and comments in their use. This is to assess the applicability of the PARIHS framework in nearly all medical situations, which in this particular research is the applicability of the framework in rural health settings. Data was collected through focus group interviews of all 32 participants, which consisted of three focus groups for primary healthcare nurses, one focus group for general practitioners, one for primary healthcare managers, and one focus group for planners or funders (McKillop, et al., 2012). The main findings generated by the research were able to explain the barriers as well as the enabling situations in the implementation of the PARIHS framework based on context of usage, current work culture experienced by the participants, leadership within the work place, and of evaluating the performance of the PARIHS framework in work settings. It was found out that while having a culture of practicing the guidelines as applicable was a strong enabler in the usage of the framework among participants, the lack of a formal or a proper integration plan of said guidelines into actual clinical practice was a major barrier in its adoption in medical settings, suggesting the need of modifying the framework to adjust for the needs of the medical practitioners. Despite this setback the researchers were able to conclude that the PARIHS framework is still an invaluable tool in guiding practitioners on promoting better patient health. Since the research aims to find out information based on working experiences of healthcare providers, in order to control biases and preconceptions about the effectiveness of the