HW12 Math Problem Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

HW12 - Math Problem Example Prepare the journal entry to record the allocation of net income. (List multiple debit/credit entries in descending order of amount.) Assume the partnership income-sharing agreement calls for income to be divided with a salary of $30,000 to Guillen and $25,000 to Williams, with the remainder divided 45% to Guillen and 55% to Williams. Prepare the journal entry to record the allocation of net income. (List multiple debit/credit entries in descending order of amount.) Assume the partnership income-sharing agreement calls for income to be divided with a salary of $40,000 to Guillen and $35,000 to Williams, interest of 10% on beginning capital, and the remainder divided 50%-50%. Prepare the journal entry to record the allocation of net income. (List multiple debit/credit entries in descending order of amount.) The Best Company at December 31 has cash $20,000, noncash assets $100,000, liabilities $55,000, and the following capital balances: Rodriguez $45,000 and Escobedo $20,000. The firm is liquidated, and $110,000 in cash is received for the noncash assets. Rodriguez and Escobedo income ratios are 60% and 40%, respectively. The Best Company at December 31 has cash $20,000, noncash assets $100,000, liabilities $55,000, and the following capital balances: Rodriguez $45,000 and E

How Has Information Bout Neptune Been Gatheres Essay Example for Free

How Has Information Bout Neptune Been Gatheres Essay How has information about Neptune been gathered? When Neptune was first seen by Galileo Galilei it was thought to be just a star. Neptune was first observed by Johann Galle and Heinrich D’Arrest on the 23rd of September inn 1846. On August 25 1989 the Voyager 2 flew by the planet and it got thousands of pictures which gave us most of the information we have about Neptune today. The thousands of pictures that the Voyager 2 took were pictures of Neptune’s moons and rings. This flyby by the Voyager 2 gave us most of the information we have about Neptune today. The Voyager is the only spacecraft which has flown by Neptune and has gotten information. In 1998 scientists used telescopes on earth as well as telescopes in space to see Neptune’s ring arcs (the ring arcs are the rings of Neptune but at this point they were thought to be sort of like half rings around Neptune. The rings appeared to be a half shaped because of Neptune’s moons) as well as its rings. Neptune has been studied from the ground but it is a very challenging task due to the fact that the planet is a small disk shaped object and also because Neptune’s images are very blurred because of the distance between Earth and Neptune, Earth’s atmosphere also causes the images to be blurred. The Hubble spacecraft has also been used to find information about the planet Neptune. The Hubble spacecraft is a device which has been sent into space by NASA. Neptune’s position in our solar system Neptune is the 8th planet from our sun and the 5th farthest planet from our Earth. It is also the last gas planet in our solar system. The distance between our sun and Neptune is 30.06 AU (astronomical units).Neptune’s distance from our earth is 29.06 AU (astronomical units). Neptune’s orbit around the Sun Neptune revolves/orbits around the Sun once every 164.79 Earth years or once every 60.190 Earth days. Neptune travels at an average speed of 12,253 miles/hour or 19,720 km per hour in its orbit around the sun.

Reflection coaching

Reflection coaching Reflection is defined by Stenhouse 1975 p144 as ‘a capacity for autonomous professional self-development through systematic self-study. Discuss how a coach utilises reflective practise to enhance their coaching performance Reflection is used to improve coaching performance through a variety of ways. Kidman (2001: 50) describes reflection as â€Å"a particularly significant part of empowerment whereby coaches themselves take ownership of their learning and decision making†. The coach is therefore very active in gaining information which could be beneficial to them. Dewey (1919: 3) describes reflection as â€Å"turning a subject over in the mind and giving it a serious and consecutive consideration†. By analysing information repeatedly and seriously, in depth knowledge is gained from it. *(DANS)*Pollard (2002) believes that â€Å"‘Reflective teaching is applied in cyclical or spiralling process, in which teachers monitor, evaluate and revise their own practice continually.† By being dedicated in analysing oneself, analysing others is possible. A slightly different concept of reflection is introduced by Schon. The notion of, ‘reflection in action. Schon (1983; 50) â€Å"Athletes think about what they are doing, sometimes even while doing it†. Expanding on this Schon highlights phrases like, ‘Keep your wits about you and ‘thinking on your feet. Schons belief here is in game reflection is natural and beneficial. Gilbert and Trudel (2001) believe Schons idea as a â€Å"separate type of reflection†. They also offer a different type of reflection which they call â€Å"retrospective reflection-on-action† which is further described as â€Å"that which occurs outside the action-present†. Their belief is that coaches reflect on concerns in between practise sessions and that reflection â€Å"still occurs within the action-present, but not in the midst of activity†. So they firmly believe that reflection-on-action is totally different to reflection-in-action. Gilbert and Trudel (2001) consider reflection to utilise â€Å"a conceptual framework to understand how coaches draw on experience when learning to coach† Ghaye and Lillyman (2000) bring forward the idea that the core of reflection is carried out in a series of ‘frames. Role framing was the coaches role executed correct? Value framing examining if there was value-positions present? Temporal framing was the order of actions correct? Parallel process framing could the end result varied? Problem framing were problems noticed effectively? These frames provide a practical way of analysing sport practises. Reflective practise can provide an efficient apparatus for monitoring and assessment of athletes. Dewey (1916) who is considered heavily to be the ‘founder of reflection, gives three attributes which are needed in order to participate in reflective practise. Open-mindedness, described as â€Å"an active desire to listen to more sides than one, to give heed to facts from whatever source they come and to give full attention to alternative possibilities†. Whole-heartedness, which is being â€Å"absorbed in an interest†. Responsibility is also needed as consequences are accepted therefore â€Å"securing integrity in ones beliefs†. Deweys beliefs have stood strong for eighty years and still provide modern coaches with a basic outlook on what is needed to be an effective reflective coach. Methods of using reflective practise There are a few ways in which reflective practise is put into action. By using a variety of methods coaches can expand from the basics and look more in detail depending on the type of information that is required. Video analysis is one method used in order to aid reflective practise. A coach can record a session and therefore have exact details of what actions are taken. This allows for precise analysis in which athletes can also see themselves and what they could improve on. McKernan was a firm believer in video recording to aid coaching: ‘†¦might use a video recorder to trap teaching performance as evidence or ‘data to be analysed. More importantly, such a film becomes a critical documentary for reflecting on practice†¦research can be undertaken by reactive methods such as observers, questionnaires, interviews, dialogue journals or through such non-reactive techniques as case studies, field notes, logs, diaries anecdotal records, document analysis, shadow studies. McKernan (1996)(DANS) Using other coaches is one way reflective practise can be more reliable and efficient. Analysis speed is increased as more coaches can observe and acknowledge similar issues that arise and whilst opinions may be divided, an overview of general problems can be addressed more easily. This view is backed up by Gould, Giannani, Krane, Hodge (1990) â€Å"development of craft knowledge which can be fostered through the realms of practical experience and interaction with other coaches.† Using a cognitive based style, reflection can take place through demonstration. Coaches need to reflect on how demonstrations of skills are executed and the coach must ensure that when a learner is receiving a demonstration that it is of adequate quality for the athlete to learn and progress using reflection. Demonstrations Coaching points and ‘logs are a very basic and fundamental way of reflecting on a performer. By making key observations during a practise and after, a coach can identify the problem areas. The more experienced the coach the more this basic method is effective and less need for the more advanced methods. This kind of feedback is usually Benefits to using reflective practise â€Å"by reflecting on practise a coach may expose his or her perceptions and beliefs to evaluation, creating a heightened sense of self awareness, which in turn my lead to a certain openness to new ideas† (Hellison and Templin 1991: 9) Reflective practise can increase ability in perception and creativity. This is due to the self improvement the coach must make themselves but are rewarded through these attributes. These attributes could then be passed onto the learner and thus bridging a gap between coach and learner.(BOOK) (PDF)Anderson, Knowles and Gilbourne (2004) state that â€Å"reflective practice is the latest topical strategic method that could help sports coaches explore their decisions and experiences, aiding them to make sense of the situation and directly influence the learning process.† This is clear that reflective practise can be used in order to help sports coaches. It is also considered one of the more modern uses of coaching in order to achieve higher ability in a more demanding results driven environment. â€Å"Indeed, to maximise learning, critical reflection is the core difference between whether an individual repeats the same experience time and time again or learns from the experience in such a way that the individual is cognitively or affectively changed† (Boyde and Fales, 1983).(PDF) By using reflective practise Boyde and Fales suggest that there is a high chance of learning and developing skills rather than just repeating an experience with no eventual gain. They believe reflection is essential to this as without it there would be no way an individual would know if improvement took place or not. â€Å"if a coach takes the opportunity to understand the consequences, both positive and negative, of the decisions made during a training session, they are better able to rationalise their decisions when under pressure† (Kidman, 2001).(PDF) Kidman here links this in with Schons ‘refelction in action. This is necessary in high tempo environments and is vital in gaining a better decision making process. Whilst reflection is important before and during training or match environments, only ‘reflection in action can gain quick and often needed information to make decisions. â€Å"reflection is thought to have a potent role in helping to bridge the gap between education and knowledge that is generated through practice† (Ghaye Ghaye, 1998).(PDF) Making coaches acknowledge their achievements is possible via reflection as it is a conscious and active way of fortifying the positives and negatives of individual and group practise. Difficulties in using reflective practise Whilst there is lots of evidence to strengthen the idea that reflective coaching is a useful practise, there are certainly problems that need addressing and limitations which clearly show it is not a full proof method even when applied properly. Crum (1995) â€Å"If a practitioner holds a ‘training-of-the-physical view of coaching and believes his or her role is only to improve fitness and adopt a technical/utilitarian approach, then becoming a coach who reflects in depth is not going to be paramount†. Whilst reflective practise does have its place, it would seem that it is limited. Some areas such as social negotiation and mentality may be difficult to improve through reflection practise but in many environments that reflective practise is used these are vital skills. Playing in high tempo and contact sports require both of these skills in abundance and gaining it through the individual is the most logical approach but if reflective practise is used then the coach is providing the information and techniques which arent transferable to individuals in these areas. â€Å"As many coaches will testify, written reflection, usually in the form of ‘logs, are frequently sanitised to deliver what is deemed as being necessary knowledge, thus being corralled into conformity (Chesterfield, Jones, Mitchell, 2007), possibly stifling coach creativity.†(PDF) Whilst Hellison and Templin believe in reflection in opening creativity, the basic form of a ‘log could be evidence that reflection does hinder creativity. Conformity is compliance with what already exists, if coaches comply to current practises such as ‘logs then there is no space for new practises to be introduced and composed. (PDF)Johns (1995) argued that â€Å"reflective practice is profoundly difficult, and it is therefore necessary to have a detailed model that guides and supports coaches.† Reflection does require many skills and outside opinions to be useful. There is a certain amount of complexity that comes with reflecting before, during and after sessions. Gibbs six-staged cyclical model for example is a complex calculated formula designed to give detailed analysis and evaluation. Whilst this could be beneficial it is only useful to coaches with prior experience or high ability levels. So as a general overall practise reflection can be difficult. â€Å"Trust is a vital part of a reflective conversation and, according to Maister, Green, Galford (2002), trust is a two-way relationship where people can be honest and respect each others openness. Without a real trusting relationship with significant others (e.g. a tutor, mentor, supervisor, coach) personal reflections may stay ‘safe and predictable and the real issues may go unresolved.†(PDF) Social dynamic in any relationship is extremely important. The relationship between coach and athlete is as open to flux as every other relationship. Trust is vitally important and is open to change to high and low levels. If trust is broken then coach performance or athlete obedience could drop. Reflection here is then a problem if not enough trust is spread and responsibility fall onto other people to provide strength in connecting and creativity in avoiding playing the ‘safe option which could potentially break trust. Conclusion To conclude, I believe that reflection is a very useful practise for coaches to undertake in developing athletes. Reflection can take place before, during and after which makes it very flexible and adaptable to a variety of environments. The coach does however need a certain level of ability in order to reflect appropriately and constructively. Detail is paramount and a coach analysing a level too high above them will struggle using reflection. I personally believe that the best method of reflection is video analysis. I think this because it gives an exact recollection of technical display and thanks to modern technology is available at a wide range of levels. It is, however, important that a coach doesnt rely on one method such as video analysis. During a competition or quick based environment it may not be possible to use this method and therefore a variety of reflective methods should be learnt and applied by coaches. This will make them more rounded and adaptable to their environment. One thing that I found intriguing was the amount of reflection that the coach must put on themselves. This ‘self reflection is vital as if this isnt carried out coaches methods may stagnate or accurate analysis and therefore feedback for the athlete cannot be attained thus making the practise useless. coach needs adaptable refelective ability, depending on the athletes, age, gender, ability etc†¦.. To sum up †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.states and defines refelction very clearly â€Å"†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..†

Death to Feminists in Ode to the Death of a Favorite Cat :: Feminism Feminist Women Criticism

Death to Feminists in Ode to the Death of a Favorite Cat For any scholar, the feminist method of criticizing literature is something that can no longer be pushed under the carpet and ignored. But before this modern idea overruns literary society and causes many great pains, one should read a simple, yet subtle, poem by English poet Thomas Gray. In "Ode to the Death of a Favorite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of Goldfishes", Gray gives a solemn warning to those who would use Feminism too freely and without checks to guards its attempts to overrun literary criticisms. Feminist critique is a relatively new method. It has its origins in the 1950's and 60's but did not really take shape until the feminist movements of the 70's and 80's. Only in the 90's has it become standard in textbooks. This triumph of feminine thought has come to a head, and many authors seek to use this technique to criticize society. Authors such as Eleanor Wilner, for example, have used their feminist poetry to slander the "male-dominated" society in which humans currently reside. Before this method runs amuck, however, one should consider the fate of one who aims for the triumph of feminist thought, or "gold" as Thomas Gray phrases it, too hastily. Thomas Gray exemplifies this in "Ode to the Death of a Favorite Cat" by using the cat as a symbol for the females who seek to use the method for their own ends, such as Eleanor Wilner. In line 23, Gray notes, "What female heart can gold despise?" This 250-year-old question serves as an ominous warning for those who see it. Using the feminist method again and again can also lead to trouble. With time, people may become so fed up with the idea that everything views women as inferiors that it may become an idea on its own. Without a following, the idea will cease to be practiced. The following Gray points out are Dolphin, Nereid, Tom, and Susan, but none came to save their drowning comrade for "A fav'rite has no friend!" (Line 34-36)

Only God has the right to interfere with our genes

Our genes are the sequence of DNA or genetic codes that determine our characteristics. So by changing our genetics we must be effectively changing our characteristics and ultimately ourselves. Is this simply medical care that is no different from taking everyday medicine like antibiotics? Or are we inauspiciously playing God and immorally defying nature in order to safeguard our species? In my opinion scientific progress is enabling lives to be saved and a loving God would not condemn this. A religious person may look at different aspects of genetic engineering and thus hold a different view. Genetic engineering in humans is the development or manipulation of genes used to prevent disease and disabilities. Genetic diseases are serious and affect a vast number of people. Diseases or ‘genetic disorders' like Huntington's, Sickle -cell anaemia, muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis can cause mental retardation, physical deformity or early death. Research into genes and genetic engineering can help prevent these problems and is surely ethical and not immoral. Most genetic research is based on germline therapy that enables genetic changes to the cells carrying the disorder from generation to generation. This means that permanent changes can be made in the person's genetic code that prevents the transmission of these cells. So the person's genes have been changed, they are not the exact same person they were in terms of the constitution of their cells and their potential child's character has been altered. Does this mean God's work in creating the person and their eventual children will have been undone? Surely if the genetic disorder has been reduced or removed then God's work needed was rightly improved. More recent progress means that we can grow healthy cells to replace the malfunctioning ones and so cure disease in that person. This process involves creating stem cells. Either from embryos that were produced by IVF but not used, or from adult bone marrow or blood. The stem cells are kept alive so they can multiply and be transplanted into diseased cells to produce a cure. Stem cell research was banned In the UK because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology act said that the technology could only be used to treat infertility. I consider this an absurdity that this morally debateable technology was permitted to treat infertility but not to cure disease! Surely saving life is as important as creating it. This I think was realised by the government and in 2001 the research was permitted. So should this research be allowed or should stand idly by while people who could potentially be cured are suffering from the diseases and problems above and not uncommonly dying painful deaths. It is clear that I agree with the government's decision, along with a number of non-religious and religious people for a number of reasons. It offers the prospect of cures for currently incurable diseases and gives those suffering a glimmer of hope. Non-religious people argue stem cell cloning would only use embryos until it was easier to use the adult cells. Genetic research is an integral part of medicine research and is bound to include some genetic engineering. All genetic research is closely monitored by the law and so will not directly oppose religious morals but also has vast potential benefits. There are many non-religious people who would counter argue that genetic engineering has too little information about the long term consequences. They say that it should not take place because the effects are irreversible. This means that should anything go wrong the damage would be permanent. Knowledge is power and people argue genetic engineering gives vast amounts of power to the scientists who could, they say, could act in a malevolent way to create scientifically produced human beings. This power is almost godly and is too excessive for the scientists to have. These scientific processes treat humans no different from commodities like plants. The research and advances could grow to the extent that they introduce the possibility of people having to be genetically screened before getting life insurance or even jobs. Then a Gattaca like situation becomes imminent where anyone likely to develop illness or dir young would be refused the insurance, the job and would be denied a range of opportunities. Although these arguments are perhaps extravagant they are possibilities and the potential of scientific progress could have inhumane consequences. Religions recognise that in the modern world they must deal with issues like genetic engineering and amongst them there are different views of weather we, as humans, have the right to interfere with our own genes. Christianity is not harmogenous and so within it there are different attitudes towards genetic engineering. It is mainly the more liberal protestant Christians who think that genetic engineering is a good thing and see the positive aspects like the potential curing of disease and the negative, which would be the potential creation of artificially produced ‘perfect humans'. There are religious reasons why these Christians support this scientific research and action. Jesus was a healer who showed that Christians should do what they can to heal and help healers and to cure disease. They believe that as humans we stewards on God's earth and by discovering the genetic make up of humans in order to help improve human life is fulfilling this stewardship. They believe that this is no different from researching medicine that can improve human life and reduce suffering. Regarding the potential of this technology getting out have hand, these Christians believe that creating cells is very different from creating people. Creating people via science rather than through sex would be wrong because as it would be taking over ‘God's creator of life role', but creating cells is working with God. As far as â€Å"killing† embryos for the genetic research is concerned; an embryo is not considered human life until it is 14 days old (This is then the time limit set by the Human Fertilisation and embryology authority for genetic research. ). They also use some of the non-religious arguments to support genetic engineering. It is mainly the Roman Catholics who believe that that genetic engineering is okay under certain circumstances. As long as the technology is for work into curing diseases and does not use human embryos it is permissible. The reason they condemn the use of embryos is because they believe that life begins at conception, whether in a womb or a glass dish. Killing an embryo is killing a human life and is immoral and banned in the Decalogue. Some Christian are opposed to any kind of genetic research because they believe God has created the genetic make up of each human at the moment of conception and people have no right to interfere with God's will. Genetic engineering means ‘playing' God and by doing this we are defying him which is a terrible sin. They believe we are doing wrong by trying to create a perfect world, as only heaven is perfect. Many Christians believe that all humans should be living their â€Å"normal† lives† in accordance with ‘natural' law (Aquinas) and that only God has the right to interfere with the natural genetic make up of all humans. They also feel that when creating artificially â€Å"perfect humans† we are not thinking about the people that are being produced. A scientifically created person will have no biological parents and many feel that what we are giving the child genetically, we are taking spiritually. These little ‘genetic miracles' will be lacking in spirit. This idea is well portrayed in the film Gattaca. The Christians against genetic engineering would also use the non-religious arguments against it. Islam is another religion trying to decipher between where the lines are in ethics of medical issues such as genetic engineering. Islam is usually in agreement over issues like this however there are two different Muslim attitudes to Genetic engineering. Some Muslims believe that the genetic make up of all human's has been established by God and so therefore human's artificially altering genes would be and attempt to ‘play God' which is absolutely an unacceptable sin, shirk the greatest Muslim sin. They also believe that using human embryos in research is abortion as they believe life begins at fertilisation and therefore do not agree with this kind of genetic research. They believe scientists who are trying to create life from stem cells are trying to play God a so this is also shirk. These Muslims also accept the non-religious arguments against genetic engineering. Other Muslims hold a similar view to Catholics, that genetic engineering is only good to an extent. As long as it is being to done in an effort to cure disease and not producing humans by scientific means. These Muslims support genetic engineering firstly because the Qu'ran and the Hadith teach that Muslims should do everything in their power to prevent diseases and improve human's lives. In the way that some Christians believe in stewardship, these Muslims believe that humans should work as vice-gerents in hiding and supporting lives. This no different from researching medicine that will help improve lives and reduce suffering. These Muslims also believe there is a difference between creating cells and creating people and that creating cells is working with God. They also consider that embryos can be used for research up until they are 14 days old, this is when the human life begins according to teachings of the Shari'ah. It is very difficult to foresee if the potential good of genetic engineering and ‘interfering with genes' outweighs the potential bad and whether it is ethical in it's current state of research. I think that at the moment we have a very good idea of what the positive effects of ‘interfering with our genes' would be. It could cure diseases and prevent them from being passed on to generation after generation. The negative effects are slightly unclear. Will we end up producing genetically modified â€Å"perfect humans† who are lacking in will and spirit through no fault of their own? Is producing humans without sex wrong even? Is it against the will of God? Personally I think that the these questions go unanswered by the critics of genetic engineering who do not have plausible enough arguments to stop the research into curing disease and saving human life.

T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship Essays

T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship Essays T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship Paper T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship Paper Critically discuss T. H. Marshall’s theory of citizenship as outlined inCitizenship and Social Class ( 1949/1992 ) . At the Centre of the development of citizenship in modern Britain is the pioneering work of T.H. Marshall ( Faulks, 1998 ) . T.H. Marshall proposed an highly influential theory in respects to citizenship ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Through his analysis of citizenship, Marshall has to be acknowledged as placing an original theoretical base point from which to understand a societal phenomenon ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ) . Few British Social Scientists other than Marshall have straight considered the construct of citizenship and made it their cardinal focal point in their work ( Lister, 2010 ) . Therefore, it has been Marshall’s part that has been considered a get downing point for farther research into the topic of citizenship rights ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ) . Furthermore, as Roche ( 1992 ) has identified, Marshall’s writings organize a cardinal text which he has labelled the ‘Dominant paradigm’ within citizenship theory in Britain ( Faulks, 1998 ) . When reviewing the work of Marshall it is of import to recognize how defining citizenship is built-in to understanding the constructs expressed in his work and others to day of the month. Marshall defined citizenship as ‘full rank of a community’ ( Marshall, 1963: 72 ) . Marshall so clarified that full citizenship position involved rank of a national community ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Marshall’s deduction was that each person considered a citizen could, hence, expect certain rights of entitlement from the province and in return would be expected to continue certain criterions or responsibilities within the community to be considered a ‘citizen’ . As the definition of citizenship has developed over the old ages so has the constructs of which it encompasses. As such, when reviewing Marshall’s work it is of import to admit the epoch during which the theories considered were proposed as noted by Dwyer ( 2010 ) . The fortunes during the clip of this essay were well different to those of modern society within Britain. Marshall’s work was considered following the Second World War and the constitution of the station war public assistance colony ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Consequently, this has led to critical treatment of Marshall’s theories sing citizenship and its value by a figure of faculty members to day of the month ( Alcock, 1989 ; Delanty, 2000 ; Dwyer, 2010 and Lister, 2010 ) . Marshall considers each facet by analyzing each attack historically to the development for rights. Marshall outlined three interlinked elements of rights that took the signifier of civil, political and societal rights ( Lister, 2010 ) . The construct of civil rights in Britain came to prominence during the 18th century and included ; ‘the rights necessary for single freedom, autonomy of the individual, freedom of address, thought and faith, the right to have belongings and to reason valid contractors, and the right to justice’ ( Marshall, 1963: 74 ) . Discussion of political rights followed during the 19th century, which included, the right to vote and stand for political office ( Marshall, 1949/1992 ) . The concluding component of rights was concluded with the ownership of societal rights to to the full categorize person as a citizen. The construct of societal rights developed chiefly in the station Second World War period. Marshall’s definition of societal rights has undergone much examination due to his equivocal theoretical position. Powell ( 2002 ) and Dwyer ( 2010 ) in peculiar remark on this deficiency of lucidity, â€Å"He is clear that there is no overarching cosmopolitan rule that decidedly defines what citizenship grants or requires† ( Dwyer, 2010:39 ) . As Marshall ( 1949/92 ) high spots on several occasions, civil citizenship rights are wholly of the conditions of a free market economic system, including a free labor market. Conversely, Marshall appears to be instead cognizant of the contradictions within the assorted strands of citizenship, although the facets seem to complect it would look they do non ever agree. Potential contradictions between societal and civil citizenship, Marshall openly discussed in footings of the struggle between citizenship and category ( Bagguley, 2013 ) . As Turner ( 1993 ) indicates, Marshall’s analysis of capitalist economy versus democracy contained a figure of ambiguities, but as a whole, Marshall strongly argued that the public assistance province would restrict the negative impact of category differences on single life-chances. Ultimately this would heighten the individual’s committedness to the system. Additionally, the epoch of which societal rights were development may impact how some persons may construe them ( Lister, 2010 ) . The development of civil freedoms was a important measure in the undoing of the hierarchal crude restrictions of position or responsibility to an individual’s societal higher-ups ( Lister, 2010 ) . Civil freedoms were besides a necessary foundation for the ulterior development of the 2nd type of rights noted by Marshall as political rights. Marshall acknowledges four major purposes to his essay. First, he examines whether citizenship is compatible with the category construction in a capitalist society such as Britain. Although he states this is possible, persons such as Faulks, ( 1998 ) feel he is ‘cautious’ in saying this. The tenseness between citizenship and capitalist economy arises out of the fact that citizenship high spots equality, while capitalist economy presumes inequality ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . For Marshall, the compatibility of citizenship with capitalist economy was due to societal rights by ‘civilising’ the impact of the market ( Faulks, 1998 ) . Marshall identifies the addition of incomes, the growing of nest eggs and the success of mass production as enabling society to redistribute wealth and societal power ( Lister, 2010 ) . Developments such as the progressive revenue enhancement system and the usage of legal assistance are shown to cut down the influence of category, efficacious ly, making societal justness via societal rights ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ) . As his 2nd consideration, truly, Marshall argues that citizenship in Britain can non be to the full achieved without changing market operations of the clip ( Faulks, 1998 ) . Third, Marshall identifies the displacement to rights away from duties and the consequence of this, and he considered this to be the most of import facet of citizenship in modern Britain ( Somers, 2004 ) . Finally, Marshall attempts to set up the bounds of societal equality and find merely how far the battle for societal justness could realistically travel ( Tilly, 1996 ) . Marshall contended an image of an ‘ideal citizenship’ and thereby, a end towards which aspirations can be directed. T.H. Marshall’s attack to societal citizenship has been regarded as a democratic socialist position. As Delanty ( 2002 ) recognised, societal democracy and Marshall’s classless liberalism had several facets in common. Other influential minds such as Richard Titmuss shared a similar passion within the societal democratic tradition ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Dwyer ( 2010 ) and Alcock and Oakley ( 2001 ) have identified the attacks of Titmuss and Marshall, who portion several resemblances. Each author showed a considerable importance to universal unrestricted public assistance rights. Furthermore, both Marshall and Titmuss, outlined the designation and consideration of the ‘class struggle’ which is notably identified as an of import facet of the development of societal citizenship. Marshall and Titmuss besides suggest that the development of British industrial capitalist economy is of greater significance for the outgrowth of societal rights ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Additiona lly, the two authors shared the same optimism about the motives that underpin human nature. Titmuss and Marshall both assumed that citizens would largely act in a responsible mode and expression to heighten their ain lives, and the lives of fellow members of their national community, instead than mistreat any benefits that societal rights may convey for single addition ( Alcock and Oakley, 2001 ) As Dwyer ( 2010 ) , truly provinces, personal reading is finally what pins down the determination about whether or non the work of T.H. Marshall can be seen as societal democratic. Key subjects that are cardinal to Social Democracy have been identified as: the publicity of equality, freedom, societal integrating and cosmopolitan rights to welfare ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ; Turner, 1993 ) . Arguably Marshall’s ( 1949/92 ) indorsement of these beliefs identifies him as a societal Democrat of kinds, even if possibly he moved off from this place in ulterior life. Delanty ( 2000 ) refers to Marshall’s positions as a socially democratic left flying broad attack to citizenship. Marshall’s Citizenship theory, although seen as pioneering, has been the head of many reviews ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . As Tilly ( 1996 ) provinces, Marxist critics of Marshall’s work on citizenship are widely known, depicting the analysis Marshall has given every bit superficial as it does non highlight, a citizen’s right to command economic production, which has been argued as a necessity for continual shared richness ( Somers, 1994 ) . Furthermore, feminist positions as stated by Lister ( 2008 ) states Marshall’s theory as being highly confined in being entirely on work forces, while non admiting, the societal rights of adult females. ( Held and Thompson 1989 ) . Therefore, Marshall’s Theory reflects that of merely the on the job category white male position ( Lister, 2003 ) . His statement that in England wholly people were free and had civil rights can be seen as fancied, as at the clip merely work forces had ‘legal freedom’ or the capable ness to exert political or civil rights ( Lister, 2008 ) . Additionally, Marshall does non discourse other facets of society including 2nd category citizens and gender and racial hierarches ( Tilly, 1996 ) . Although Marshall did non discourse the issues associated with 2nd category people, he acknowledged that citizenship itself plays a portion in societal inequality ( Marshall, 1942/92 ) . As one time noted earlier it is of import to understand the fortunes during the clip of this essay were well different to those of modern society within Britain ( Dwyer, 2010 ) Furthermore, Neo-liberal positions and free market political orientation asserts that the non-engagement of the province from economic protection is the foundation of a society with strength and goodness ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ) . Consequently they are wholly opposed to the societal rights proposed by Marshall ( Turner, 1993 ) . Neo-liberals alternatively suggest that public assistance plans such as some of the societa l duties discussed by Marshall to assist the hapless in efficaciously using their civil and political rights, have promoted passiveness among the hapless without bettering life opportunities and have created a civilization of public assistance dependence ( Held and Thompson, 1989 ; Roche, 1992 ) . Citizenship, or the equality of rights it generates, becomes an integrative procedure antagonizing the inclinations towards societal division and struggle generated by the economic system. For Marshall, inequality was non an issue within itself. His focal point was to happen an acceptable balance between the forces for inequality and those for equality ( Lewis 1998 ) . Marshall distinguished between countries of the public assistance province where greater grades of inequality where acceptable and those where this was non the instance, as the contrasts between the wellness service system and legal assistance high spot ( Marshall, 1949/92 ) . Furthermore, this illustrated that for Marshall, citizenship concepts an affinity between rights and responsibilities. However, this balance is non distributed every bit among all who might do the claim to citizenship ( Lewis, 1998 ) . To reason, while sing whether citizenship is compatible with the category construction in a capitalist society such as Britain, Marshall seems cautious in saying that this is possible ( Faulks, 1998 ) . Marshall provided an evolutionary position of citizenship, developing through assorted phases and degrees to make its concluding incarnation in the rules of British public assistance political relations ( Turner, 1993 ) . The extent of rights and responsibilities that citizenship entails is unfastened to ongoing argument and has been challenged over clip. However, Marshall seems positive about the enrichment of citizenship at the clip of authorship ( Dwyer, 2010 ) . Initially, Marshall put the relationship between the citizen, the province and the societal public assistance at the Centre of his analysis. Marshall achieved this by his suggestion of consisting citizenship into three complecting facets. Marshall viewed civil, political and societal rights as a consequence of an evolution ary procedure, with each component overlapping ( Turner, 1993 ) . Marshall’s citizenship is a position rendered to people who can claim full citizenship of a community. Although, as noted by Lewis ( 1998 ) Marshall did non clearly province a standard to which people may get such rank. Furthermore, there is a long and on-going argument as to whether Marshall intended his historical analysis to be interpreted as a general theory of citizenship or whether the essay was merely a commentary on the developments of citizenship within England ( Faulks, 1998 ) . Bibliography. Alcock, P. ( 1989 ) . ‘Why Citizenship and New Welfare Rights Offer new Hope for Welfare in Britain, ’ Critical Social Policy,Vol 19, no 2, pp 32-43 Alcock, P. and Oakley, A. ( 2001 ) . ‘Introduction’ , in P.Alcock, H Glennerster, A. Oakley and A. Sinfield ( explosive detection systems )Welfare and Wellbeing: Richard Titmuss’s part to societal policy,Bristol: The Policy Press, pp1-9 Bagguley, P. ( 2013 ) Industrial citizenship: a re-conceptualisation and instance survey of the UK ,International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,Vol. 33 no: 5/6, pp.265 279 Delanty, G. ( 2000 )Citizenship in a Global Age: Society Culture and Politics,Buckingham: Open University Press Dwyer, P. ( 2010 ) .Understanding Social Citizenship: Subjects and positions for policy and pattern. 2nd erectile dysfunction. Great Britain: The Policy Press. Faulks, K ( 1998 ) .Citizenship in Modern Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Held, D. and Thompson, J. ( 1989 ) .Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, G. ( 1998 ) . Citizenship. In: Hughes, G.Imagining Welfare Futures. London: Routledge Ltd. pp 103-50. Lister, R ( 2003 ) .Citizenship: Feminist Positions. 2nd erectile dysfunction. New York: New York University Press. 2003. Lister, R ( 2010 ) .Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy.Great Britain: The Policy Press. Marshall, T.H. ( 1949/92 ) ‘Citizenship and societal class’ , in T.H. Marshall and T.Bottomore,Citizenship and societal category, London: Pluto Press Marshall, T.H. and Bottomore, T. ( 1992 )Citizenship and societal category,London: Pluto Press Powell, M. ( 2002 ) ‘The Hidden History of Social Citizenship’ ,Citizenship Studies,Vol 6, no 3, pp 229-45 Somers, M. R. ( 1994) , Rights, Relationality, and Membership: Rethinking the Making and Meaning of Citizenship. Law A ; Social Inquiry, 19: 63–114. Tilly, C ( 1996 ) .Citizenship, Identity and Social History.International Review of Social History, 40, pp 1-17. Turner, B ( 1993 ) .Citizenship and Social Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Student Exam figure: Y82850301