Sheila Change during Essay Example for Free

Sheila Change during Essay Sheila was shocked about this, but this was a contrast to between her and the rest of her family; as her family felt no emotion not a surprised or shocked expression in the room. Sheila was so shocked and disgusted about what her mother did she ended up turning on her mother Mother, I think it was cruel and vile. This shows us what Sheila really feels about her mother and she uses strong words against her mothers actions, but if we go back earlier Sheila would never turn on her own mother but because she wants everything to come out and she now see her mother for who she really is. When the inspector told Mrs Birling what she did was completely wrong and what if it happen to her, Sheila was shocked but Mr Birling mind wasnt really on what Mrs Birling did but was on if the press get hold of the situation -The Press might easily take it up-this shows us that Mr Birling takes up his own self interest, this tells us that he is a selfish man, he doesnt care about Eva but cares about the reputation of his family. In the beginning of Act 3 Eric comes in knowing that the family now knows of his drinking problem. It was Sheila that told the family about Eric, this made Eric angry and he feels that Sheila betrayed him You little sneak. This shows us that Sheila was being open about everything not keeping anything a secret which means she is an honest person. It also showed the relationship between Eric and Sheila because this mean the must be very close as the Eric told Sheila his secret trusting Sheila. When Sheila told Eric that she kept the secret for months I could have told her months ago, not of course I didnt. This shows that Sheila as protected Eric and shown loyalty to Eric by not telling their parents. Eric revealed how he came into contact with Eva Smith. Eva and Eric met in a bar and they had a few drinks but they got drunk and Eric insisted to stay with her for the night and that is when they slept with each other. They met again in the same bar and they talked with each other and they slept with each other again. Eric admitted that he wasnt in love with her but he liked her. They met up again and she told Eric that she was pregnant. Eva didnt want to get married because she knew that Eric didnt love her. He realised that Eva didnt have a job so stole some money from small banks his fathers companies had and he gave it to Eva but when Eva discovered the money was stolen so she stopped collecting the money. Eva didnt want to see Eric no more. Eric was wondering how come everyone knew that Eva was pregnant and he asked if Eva told them and Sheila said She told mother. This shows that Sheila is quick to let everything out in the open not letting anyone get away with anything. Eric was furious at his mother telling her that she killed her own grand-child. Before the fight got out of hand the inspector told them all that they all had a part in killing Eva Smith. He told them not to forget it. Telling them what they did exactly and telling Sheila that she didnt start the problem but Birling by not accepting her request. He told them how they all got to look after everyone else. After the speech the inspector leaves, leaving the family in disbelief. The family started again to have disagreements blaming it on each other. But they wonder if the inspector was a real inspector. Sheila says it doesnt matter who he was. The whole point of the inspector coming was to make the family think about their actions. We notice that Sheilas character changes after the inspector leaves. She starts to talk back to her parents, she becomes angry at them (flaring up) this shows us that she as started to stand up to her parents. Sheila tells her parents that they are being Childish. This shows that she has turned the tables on her parents making them see its their fault as well as Erics and hers. Later Gerald had turned up at the Birlings house. Gerald told the Birling family that Inspector Goole doesnt work for the police. This made the family puzzled. Gerald challenged the Birling family asking them is it the same they all saw which may not be true. They may not even know the same girl. The Birling family dont even know if there is an incident today. Mr Birling looks at them triumphantly and puts the theory altogether. They all came up with a conclusion that it was all a hoax. Mr Birling says Im convinced it is. No police inquiry. No one girl that all this happened to. No scandal-Then Sheila says No suicide? this tells us that Sheila is very thankful that there is no death or unborn life on her conscience but the rest of Sheilas family still dont care about Eva Smith, they only care that they is no public scandal. Mr Birling told Sheila that it was all over, Sheila says that everything did really happen but it didnt end in a tragedy so lucky for them she also says -But it might have done This tells us that Sheila is still thinking of what may have happened if there was a girl that died and that they should just make it has a joke. But Mr Birling mocks the fact that a girl might have died and he starts to mimic the inspectors last speech. He tells Sheila to go to bed and she says It frightens me the way you talk. This shows that Sheila is now disagreeing with her family values; she thinks that her family hasnt changed a bit since Inspector Goole was there. Sheila doesnt want a repeat of what happen again, she wants her family to change for the better. Sheila confronts her parents on how they are behaving Youre pretending everythings just as it was before. This is telling us that Sheila is quite upset that her family is pretending that everything is okay but her and Eric learnt their lessons. Unlike the rest of the family Sheila is calm and level-headed. Gerald holds up the ring to Sheila. This is history repeating itself as earlier in the story Gerald gave Sheila a ring announcing their engagement but this time Sheila says No, not yet. Its too soon. I must think. This tells us that she is not ready to step into her old role it also shows that she still doesnt agree with her family value and she knows her as to think about her this time and know what she wants instead of her parents pushing her to marry Gerald someone rich and of high class. So she turns Gerald down. In the beginning we portrayed Sheila as a very superficial person who was only knows the obvious. She is also a selfish and self-centred person like when she went to Milward only thinking about herself she got Eva Smith sacked from her she also said I couldnt be sorry for her. She heard that she got sacked and she showed no care for other people but herself. She was also an immature, childish and naive person. Sheila was at the bottom of the family which meant she was to answer if she was spoken to. She abused her status to get what she wanted like at Milward where she said she would persuade her mother to close the account they have with Milward unless they sack the girl. She is also a spoilt and inconsiderate person; she can get what she wants if she just uses the power that she has of an upper class citizen. We could see that she was very detached from reality; she didnt know what was going on in the outside world where there were people from the lower class and working class. Sheila doesnt really speak for herself You talk as of we are responsible- Then Birling says (cutting in) Just a minute Sheila This shows that her father wont really allow her to express her own point of view. As we come to the end of the story Sheilas character changes dramatically as she finds out who else was responsible for Eva Smiths suicidal death. Sheila is an independent and takes responsibilities of her actions I know. I had her turned out of a job. I started it. Sheila is willing to take part of the responsibilities of the death of Eva Smith. She is also a changed woman You and I arent the same people who sat down to dinner here this also shows that she know as well that she is a changed woman. She is also very perceptive and inquisitive she is knows what her mother had done before her mother admitted and she is very inquisitive saying to the inspector I dont understand about you. Sheila now also listens to her conscience knowing when Eva was said not to be true she had no death on her conscience but she still felt that the story was really and that there was an Eva Smith. She is an honest deep thinker who thinks about the consequences of her actions on the day of Milward and how that led on to other unfortunate events. Sheila is not anymore as heartless as the others but she is sensitive she doesnt listen to the rest of her family when they say that the inspector was hoax and when they said that there was no suicide Youre pretending like everythings just as it was before. The rest of Sheilas family act like the inspector coming was a dream but Sheila isnt. Sheila is critical of family values she doesnt believe that the family can use their position in a manner that is not useful to other people around them. Finally, she is unwilling to revert to her pervious self; Sheila says to her family Youre ready to go on in the same old way. And Mr Birling says (Amused) and youre not, eh? Sheila says No, because I remember what he said, how he looked and what he made me feel. This is saying that she as learnt a lot from the inspector and she is never going to return to her old self. Sheila even rejects the ring offered back by Gerald because she knows that she is not ready yet and she needs to think. .

Criticisms of Jane Eyre Essay -- Jane Eyre

Criticisms of Jane Eyre The major criticisms of the novel in question to be the melodrama used by the author and the wickedness of character shown in Jane and Mr. Rochester. While most critics admired the style of writing and truth of character portrayal, they did not admire the improbability of circumstances or the characters portrayed. Elizabeth Rigby (later Lady Eastlake) was probably the harshest critic, calling Jane Eyre â€Å"the personification of an unregenerate and undisciplined spirit.† Rigby strongly believed that, while Jane was portrayed with a great degree of accuracy, she was herself a flawed person. By making a flawed person interesting, Rigby alleged, the author was committing the greatest of wrongs. As to Jane’s character, Rigby’s main criticism was that Jane was unchristian. â€Å"Altogether the auto-biography of Jane Eyre is pre-eminently an anti-Christian composition. There is throughout it a murmuring against the comforts of the rich and against the privations of the poor, which, as far as each individual is concerned, is a murmuring against God's appointment—there is a proud and perpetual assertion of the rights of man, for which we find no authority either in God's word or in God's providence—there is that pervading tone of ungodly discontent which is at once the most prominent and most subtle evil which the law and the pulpit, which all civilized society in fact has at the present day to contend with. We do not hesitate to say that the tone of mind and thought which has overthrown authority and violated every code human and divine abroad, and fostered Chartism and rebellion at home, is the same which has also written Jane Eyre.† She expressed the popular sentiment of the time that Jane’s di... ... of Jane Eyre supporters. Bibliography of Works Used 1. Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre: A Norton Critical Edition 3rd ed. Richard J. Dunn Ed. WW Norton & Co. : New York, 2001 2. "Review of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte." Critic (Oct. 1847): 277-8. 3. "Review of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte." Graham’s Magazine (May 1848): 299. 4. "Rev. of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte." Living Age (from the Christian Remembrancer) (1848): 481-7. 5. "Review of Jane Eyre." Spectator. (Nov. 1847): 1074-5. 6. "U. Review of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte." Harbinger (April 1848): 189. 7. "Unsigned Review of Jane Eyre." Douglas Jerrold’s Shilling Magazine (Nov. 1847): 470-474. 8. Lewes, George Henry, "Recent Novels: French and English." Fraser’s Magazine (Dec. 1947): 689-95. 9. Rigby, Elizabeth, "Vanity Fair—and Jane Eyre." Quarterly Review (Dec. 1848): 153-185.

Business Lobbying Essay

The topic – It is always better to have clarity on the topic as it allows a clear flow of ideas. Lobbying, in fact, are the attempts made by certain corporate groups to influence the direction of legislative policy of a country/state in such a manner so as to bring benefits to them and safeguard their interests. The objective can be achieved by influencing legislators, members of Parliament and create a lobby to bring forth and get the favourable legislations passed. A lobbyist may be an individual or a group of individuals working for their employer or as an agent to them. Such people can be leaders of labour unions, corporate representatives, legislators, bureaucrats, and leading advocates, exercising influence in legislative circles or other private interest groups. India does not have any clear regulation for or against lobbying, especially when it comes by the name of lobbying. But it is not legal either. Lobbying has now become a well-established service industry, although known by different names such as public relations, external affairs managers, environment management experts, etc. Various established associations, federations, confederations of industry & commerce, etc function as lobbyists to get policies framed in favour of corporates. Dilip Cherian, a known lobbyist and founder of Perfect Relations, states that lobbying functions as a bridge between companies and the government. He speaks in no ambiguous tone, â€Å"We help our clients understand the policy environment of the country. We help them identify key players and their positions in the policy area. The key players could be political parties, bureaucrats, the central government, panchayat, etc.† The lobbying industry has been placing its demand for clear and transparent laws in countries like India where no clarity on the issue is available. So, it is high time that India should decide on making lobbying either legal or illegal by framing a detailed and clear policy. When you speak in favour of the topic i.e. lobbying should be made legal in India, the key points may be: 1. Whenever there have been some big leaps in policy framing in India favouring corporates in one or the other, the issue of lobbying has always come up. Whether it was Enron – the Dabhol power project in Maharshtra, foreign investment in corporate sector, big defence purchases, infrastructure development and now foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi brand retail, all have been shadowed by the issue of lobbying. The person or the company lobbying for certain favour cannot do so till the government, legislative bodies – Parliament or state legislatures – have not considered some path to move on. Lobbying would only smoothen the process. 2. Various chambers of commerce such as FICCI and CII, National Association of Software and Services Companies, and private firms like Vaishnavi Corporate Communications owned by Niira Radia and DTA Associates managed by Deepak Talwar are among top lobby groups. These organizations, however, maintain that they are not lobby groups and work to exercise influence to engage with the government on the policy issues. When so much of lobbying is done by the registered and legal firms and companies in the guise of some or other name and it is a well known fact, making lobbying legal will add to the government’s income by levying good amount of fee and charges on the same. Where does the amount, being paid now on lobbying, go – is anybody’s guess. A transparent legislation will definitely solve this ambiguity and loss of income. 3. The US and some European countries have made lobbying legal with specific conditions like quarterly disclosures on amount spent and the manner in which the same has been spent or so. This provides vital information and transparency to lobbying practices. The furor raised in Parliament over the issue of lobbying by Walmart in the USA could come up due to its disclosures. Corporate giants such as WalMart, Pfizer, Dell, HP, Qualcomm, Alcatel-Lucent, Morgan Stanley and Prudential Financial have been eyeing the Indian market for a long time and have spent millions of dollars to have their business interest move at a faster pace in the growing Indian economy. With the potential growth, more and more companies will engage lobbyists who can directly interact with politicians and bureaucrats and push their agenda. Lobbying, whether legal or illegal, will continue to remain integral to Indian businesses and politics. Doing away with it or making it illegal is not an option. It will be better to make business lobbying legal, of course with certain specific clauses to ensure transparency. 4. Making lobbying legal will bring forward open debates and discussions on all the forums. It will be possible to understand which option is better. Lobbyists and representatives of their companies will openly participate in such debates with the pros and cons on the performance and product. 5. At present, only the section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act may be invoked to call lobbying illegal. This section is not very sound. Think of the money spent on lobbying in a single year. If lobbying is made legal, at least a part of it will find its way to the government coffer. At present, it forms a part of unaccounted money going into the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats and other influential lot, the cost of which will eventually be recovered from the common people in the country. 6. Apart from saving millions of dollars, the country may see rampant corruption in the name of lobbying fading away. 7. Since India is in the process of establishing a larger institutional framework, the government needs creative inputs from various experts. As long as lobbying does not lead to ‘policy or regulatory capture’, it should be allowed. 8. The Indian government itself has a lobby firm presenting its case with American lawmakers, while a number of Indian companies and entities also indulge in lobbying activities in the US through their respective lobbyists. At various platforms like in the UN, World economic summits, in sports, in organizing Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc, countries lobby their stake. Lobbying, in fact, brings more competitiveness and improvement in quality as things are to be explained and highlighted in comparison to any other stake holder. India would gain a lot by making lobbying legal. When you speak against the topic, the key points may be: 1. The common man of India, who is otherwise reeling under the pressure of corruption and unemployment, will be left penniless once lobbying is made legal. All the majors will lobby for their interests in the economy, will facilitate the entry riding the common man who hardly earns his bread and butter. Those who have more power and pelf will become greater lobbyist and will ensure that their interests are not compromised. 2. National interests will be cornered as lobbyists will have one-line motto of watching their own interest and will not at all be concerned about the country’s interest as they will not be from this country. 3. Lobbyists will make corruption legal. Politicians and influential people will still garner their share from lobbyists at the cost of the nation. 4. Legislators, who are law makers, if influenced by lobbyists, may get inclined towards serving them, becoming oblivious of the national interests. 5. Lobbying in defence production and purchases might put national security at stake. 6. India is a vast country and has a lot of complexities and problems. The lobbying company has no perception of the diversity and the nature of problems. The government might simply gamble on the tactics of the lobbyist and that might become harmful in future. 7. There is no mechanism in India to bring accountability to lobbying, and publicly reveal the lobbying positions of companies and the money spent. Self-regulation in lieu of a formal legislation is often proposed by industry players. In India, nobody knows the lobbying position of companies, leave alone looking for consistencies in lobbying positions and their impact on issues on sustainable development. Making it legal will add to the woes of Indian businesses. The efforts made so far in India- The Planning Commission has set up an expert group to look into the processes that comprise lobbying. Arun Maira, member of Planning Commission, stated â€Å"We will be considering various interests of all the stakeholders involved. This expert group comprises industries and government secretaries. There is an on-going dialogue with the industry associations for their views. We want lobbying to be transparent and representative. We are looking at the best benchmarks for processes of lobbying in other countries. However, this is a very large issue and the final solution is far down the road.† However, given the political exigencies of framing policies and complex nature of polity, this task will require the consummate skills of great statesmen.

The Function of a Social Contract - 1676 Words

What is the Function of a Social Contract? Philosophers have been concerned with the theories of a social contract for thousands of years. Plato mentions the concept in Crito and in Republic. These theories have stemmed from the concept of justice and for our society to be just. I will look at the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and finally with John Rawls after which a overall view into the function of a social contract can be derived as well as any problems with the theory(s). The basic concept of a social contract is for members of society to enter into a voluntary contract, which allows society to go from a state of nature to a state of civilisation. What is meant by a state of nature is quite similar to how†¦show more content†¦Rousseau attempted to tackle this by the fact that for a society to be set up there is a need for unanimity and  ¡Ã‚ ¥the majority binds the rest ¡Ã‚ ¦. This concept can also be threatened by a corrupt government who can appear to be projecting the general will when they are just serving their own ends and benefits. John Rawls is regarded as one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. His works included the theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness. He is particularly concerned with the concept of justice in a society. The question is raised on what would be regarded as a just society. Rawls basically stated that just was seen as fairness. Arguments are also raised on why there should b e a just society. This was tackled by the fact that there are many injustices in society and this needed to be remedied. There is however no example of a just society existent in the world today. Also if there is no existence of justice how can we know what injustice really is. It is important to remember that because of this that the concept is an ideal type. It can be used to measure existing societies against this ideal type. This also provides society with a goal and the will to move towards improvements. It is safe to say that it is a process not a product. Rawls theory was formulated after the other thinkers already mentioned. He tried to develop his theory with regards to them, as well as striking similarities to the Kantian view ofShow MoreRelatedEssay on What is the Function of a Social Contract?1637 Words   |  7 Pages What is the Function of a Social Contract? Philosophers have been concerned with the theories of a social contract for thousands of years. Plato mentions the concept in Crito and in Republic. These theories have stemmed from the concept of justice and for our society to be just. I will look at the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and finally with John Rawls after which a overall view into the function of a social contract can be derived as well as any problems with theRead MoreModern Liberalism and Political Policies1337 Words   |  6 PagesState of Nature. Their notions on the social contract reflect their position on the political spectrum. These three philosophers also examine the purpose and function of the government to individuals of the state. Modern liberalism is the philosophical standpoint for an increase in social progress. Jean Jacques Rousseau provides a compelling account of modern era liberalism through his advocation because of his notions on good government, his social contract, and his beliefs in complete freedom.Read MoreEssay on Role and Functions of Law960 Words   |  4 PagesRole and Functions of Law The law is a delicate yet malleable set of rules and principles that are formed to suite the needs of those deciding its purpose. The role of law for business and society is to provide set rules and procedures that fall within general functions which reflect the position of the people. In various types of governments the law is adjusted to suite the needs of the dictator, its citizens or its elected body as seen fit. In a republic, such as the United States of AmericaRead MoreJohn Locke: Founding Father of Modern Era Liberalism1444 Words   |  6 Pagesidentify which thinker’s theory reflected modern era liberalism the most. For this paper I will be arguing that, John Locke provides a more compelling framework of modern era liberalism because of his perception of the state of nature, the social contract and the function of government. Before explaining how Locke’s philosophy reflects modern liberalism, it is important to first understand the characteristics that make up modern liberalism. Modern era liberalism stresses the idea that individuals areRead MoreAnalysis Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan1008 Words   |  5 Pagesare both negative and positive natures. People crave power and wealth by nature; but, if people are free to act on these desires, a state can never acquire the protection necessary for peace. Peace, is a positive nature that encourages social contracts. These contracts will inevitably be breached if a government enables its citizens to act on their negative desires. The most essential right of nature is that of self-preservation. Self-preservation, or the ability for one to survive, is the core ofRead MorePolitical Philosophy in the 17th Century947 Words   |  4 PagesLockes view was completely opposite of Hobbes. His view of man was that they were peaceful and happy by nature. What all three men did agree on was the need for a society; that people needed people. Locke felt it was human nature for people to be social with one another. Hobbes felt that uniting people as a group with leadership would be the best way to fix human nature. All three men knew there was a need for government. Hobbes felt a strong government would fix problems such as civil war dueRead MoreThe Law Of Obligation Is A Private Law1672 Words   |  7 Pagesheart of both Contract and Tort law, it is a pervasive phenomenon of our social life. Both Tort and Contract law protect the rights, and ‘that protection cannot be legitimately compromised to achieve the aim of just distributing’ . This proposition may be true in the late 19th century, in the present time, however, the law of obligation has been ‘built on the law of its predecessors, manipulating it so as to avoid its more inconvenient consequences and adapting it piecemeal to social and economicRead MorePower What Is Power Essay903 Words   |  4 PagesReferences: Fook, J.. (2003). Social work, Critical theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp. 45- 55). This article focus on the definition of power what is power, examining the phenomenon of powerful and the powerless. This will help my essay in explaining that power is not owned, one can’t simply own power but it is rather given. Parada, H., Barnoff, L., Moffatt, K. M. Homan. (2011). Promoting Community Change: Making it happen in the real world. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education. (ppRead MoreDefinitions Of Offer, Acceptance, Legal Consideration, Capacity, And Legality Of A Contract1208 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction The purpose of a contract is to enforce the agreement that the parties have prepared and to define their privileges and tasks in accordance with that contract. The legislative should implement a legal contract as it is created, unless there are factors that impede its enforcement. It is the purpose for the declaration to advance the improvement of agreements between proficient gatherings for lawful bases .As a universal statute, contracts by able parties, justifiably prepared, are compellingRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Social Contract1004 Words   |  5 PagesSocial contract denotes that a government or sovereign body exists only to serve the will of the people because the people are the source of political power that is enjoyed by the entity. The people can choose to give or withdraw the power. Not all philosophers agree that the social contract creates rights and obligations; on the contrary, some believe that the social contract imposes restrictions that restrict a person†™s natural rights. Individuals who live within the society gain protection