War and Society Essay Example For Students

War and Society Essay Do you agree with Pat Hudsons argument in her chapter the Economy and theState?In this chapter Pat Hudson focuses on economic growth during the industrialrevolution, she questions whether or not this growth was as extreme aspreviously thought, and why it came about. She also discusses the role thestate played economically and its contribution both commercially andindustrially. She puts forward a convincing argument, which highlights theissues surrounding the debate over whether or not the term industrialrevolution is an exaggeration of the economic changes that occurred inBritain during this period. I agreewithherargumentandherinterpretation of the data she uses as evidence. The first step Hudson takes to support this argument is to look at newestimates of economic change produced in the last ten years such as GDPgrowth and industrial output. She puts forward the arguments used by Harleyin 1982 and of Wrigley and Schofield against Deane and Coles figures inthe sixties. These arguments state that dean and Cole had relied tooheavily on import and export figures to work out growth, and thatpopulation growth had begun earlier than they thought. This is crucial incalculating the rate of economic growth. We will write a custom essay on War and Society specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Hudson then discusses the revisions of occupational structure in theeighteenth century, which were carried out by Lindert and Williamson. Theyused data on wages and burial records to show that the previous estimatesby Gregory King had been influenced in favour to agriculture. Crafts thenbrought together many of these new estimates and incorporated them with hisown. He suggested that productivity growth was very slow up until 1830.Healso states that TFP grew very slowly and was influenced by agriculture,not industry. Hudson brings up the common argument against the idea of anindustrial revolution concerning the textile industry. Cotton was a smallsector of the industrial world, yet it is thought that it accounted foraround half of all productivity change in manufacturing. Next Hudson brings in a completely different argument to show the limits ofeconomic growth, one that disagrees with Craft. J.G. Williamson argues thatthe high growth and productivity levels thatCraftattributedtoagriculture would have caused de-industrialisation. Williamson insteadconsiders the slowing down of British industrialisation was due to thefailure of the labour and capital markets, as in the difference betweenurban and rural wages. He believes that the capital market failed due tothe investments made during the Napoleonic wars, which inhibited growth andcontributed to the poor living standards suffered by the working class. However unlike Craft he considers the period to be one of dramatic changeand innovation, even if labour shortages and debt slowed it down. Hudson also addresses the issue of the unreliability of data from thisperiod. The modern way of measuring economic activity is by analysingnational income, this can be unreliable today, however it is even more sowhen applied to economics during the nineteenth and early twentiethcentury, which were considerably underdeveloped. Its unreliability isincreased further due to the scarceness of reliable data. Hudson goes on togive examples of productivity calculations and show how they differ. Theburial records that are used by historians for occupational data are alsonot to be relied on, as they do not record the occupations of either womenor children even although their contributiontotheeconomywassubstantial. The records also neglect to define occupations such aslabourer or gentleman. Hudson emphasised how much ofthedatacompletely underestimates activity in numerous occupations. Some of it evenleaves out industries that were growing fast, and were vital in the newurban Britain such as gla ss, lead, metalwork and food processing. .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .postImageUrl , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:hover , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:visited , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:active { border:0!important; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:active , .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3 .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ua60790ef085b6e870c0ffb9f7230f7b3:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Anne Frank EssayThe author also addresses the subject of labour division; this is animportant factor in the argument. Some historians believe thattheindustrial revolution was down to changes in labour, such as shift work anddivision of labour and tasks, thus reducingcostsandincreasingproductivity, all with limited use of technology. There was also a massivechange in lifestyle as more people than ever before were city dwellers,this provided a large labour market including women and children. Hudson then goes on to discuss the role the state plays concerning economicchange. In the nineteenth century Britain was economically superior to therest of the world, she possessed a near monopoly of the overseas market aswell as being a major military power with a huge empire. However the loansacquired by the state during the wars were responsible for the majority ofthe financial problems later on in the century. The state dealt with thisby heavily taxing goods and imposing income tax. The state contributed tothe economic growth because of this tax, even although it became moredifficult to impose tax on trade goods due to smuggling and evasion. Waralso played an important part in the growth of many industries such astextiles and hardware, and more importantly the outcome of the warsincreased demand for British goods, so exports significantly increased. In this chapter Hudson puts forward different interpretations of theeffects the Napoleonic wars had on the economy. Craft is of the view thatwartime had very limited effects on key sectors of the economy whileWilliamson blames the wars for the slow growth of the economy during theindustrial revolution. Some economic historians feel that the economy wouldnot have slumped had it not been for the wars, i.e. if it had continued togrow at the rate it did before the war.Hudson states that wartimeincreases in customs duties did not have a harmful effect on most majorindustries, and it had a commercialising effect on agriculture. Pat Hudsons approach to economics during the period of the industrialrevolution is becoming more common as new theories are put forward and oldones questioned. She approaches the issues covered in this chapter frommany perspectives, and does not deny that despite the debates this was aperiod of change that would set the course for todaysinnovativetechnological world.

Traditional Culture no longer is prevalent in Japanese Society

Traditional Culture no longer is prevalent in Japanese Society Introduction Traditional Japanese cultural paradigm is no doubt under a serious threat with the arising of Japanese independent mind westerners, who do not claim any inherent trait in being Japanese. If this is not the case, Japanese art history must not have suffered at the hands of cultural politics of Euro-Americans who are most likely prefer to compare Japanese traditional iconography with other cultural groups.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Traditional Culture no longer is prevalent in Japanese Society specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Many scholarly writers and neo-traditional artists support this notion by providing insufficient reasoning of being Japanese or foreigner, they believe it does make no difference to characterize Japanese traditions akin to comparing with Americans or Westerners in general. I don’t chime in with them and opine that comparing Japanese culture with that of any other is not wo rth to concern the contemporary modernization in Japan. Unlike others I don’t believe the onus shoulders onto the significance of ‘change’, but it is the technologically driven society that has taken place rapidly and has intervened with intrepid lifestyle of the Japanese, marking the culture towards a panorama, asunder apart from the traditional Japanese shift. It would not be right to claim that Japan has lost its cultural significance at all, and that all it is left with is the debris of the electronic revolution. Instead, what I have realized is that Japanese post modern societal trends have failed to realize the altruistic striking feature behind Japanese studies on pre-modern art, especially when it comes to Japanese lacquerware products. Yiengpruksawan suggests the difference between traditional and modern day imagery of Japan, (Yiengpruksawan 2001, 105) as traditional picture presents a grotesque view telling epics of Japanese warfare whereas the modern d ay Japan contradicts it. I don’t believe in this stance either, for the reason that traditional urushi art and craft in Japan is itself a memento of pre-war era, which has left its vestiges of the nineteenth-century European template in the segmented art form of painting and sculpture that now is renowned as an amalgamation with the American decorative art, particularly lacquerware. The process of commercialization in the nineteenth century Japan has made the Japaneseness less viable in the art and crafts, which to this day, have phased out gradually by the modern day masterworks of Japanese art. Withering away traditional Japanese art to contemporary culture governed by the refinement of electronic era is a plight, particularly to those who are engaged in the profession of reuniting traditional art with modern one, and even to those who want to conserve what antique craft history has bestowed on us.Advertising Looking for essay on cultural studies? Let's see if we ca n help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The fact not much has been written on the Japanese lacquerware, is itself an answer to the dubious question whether or not the urushi has been retained in the contemporary Japanese society? From the beginning of the naturalization of lacquer implant, as a monument of Japanese art history, the government was supposed to make intricate measures so as to avoid its unnecessary availability to the European countries as well as the United States, which it had not derailed. However with the phasing of the government policies in to the adoption of the 1870s epoch (Yiengpruksawan 2001, 105), it was aimed to enhance the exports of lacquerware to Western countries. Such a welcoming note and exposure of Japanese handicrafts and monuments kept up with the pace of the economic competition until it was marketed by certain change of ‘modernization’ by the Western countries. By modernization, it is meant to be enha nced, economically available to Westerners as a result of vying with one another, and ultimately lost its value in the Occidental world. The buyers manifested a line of what today can be called as distinction between the old art and the new one. And so the Japanese lacquerware lost its traditional heritage that once it had over the world. Another reason of phasing out lacquer products goes with the chronicles of Hayashi who in 1980s used his apartments as galleries and shops to display and sell his bronze and lacquer ware products to Paris (Merritt 1990, 13), but as soon as it dawned upon him that his clients had more interest in prints than in lacquerware, he started merging and derailed a coalition of prints with other lacquerware products. In all the process, Japanese authorities helped to sell out the best of prints to foreign collectors, and never showed up any enthusiasm in marketing the oriental lacquerware. The manufacturers and the retailers of such traditional art are now use to what we see as a new attitude of pluralism. This attitude has its own significance in the sense it markets whatever it feels can be blended with the recent globalization trend. Diverse cultures, inheriting art and crafts, and countless heritages, all are blended well with the global cultures of mix and match traits. All this inherited from the West has brought along with it unique repercussions that add up to the loss of original Japanese lacquerware and handicrafts. McCausland mentions â€Å"There are now museum collections and university departments of world art that are better redefined as ‘the universal museums’† (McCausland 2005, 688). By universal museums, what I perceive McCausland wants to point out is the contemporary plight of our generations at the hands of our heritage destruction.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Traditional Culture no longer is prevalent in Japanese Society specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/p age Learn More Of course, the word ‘blending’ that I have used above best goes by ‘destruction’ because any change, addition, or subtraction to a heritage memento, that even fulfils the criteria against which contemporary society is lured to the market is indirect destruction caused by the people of the society. Further it is marked by dignity by the government, when such heritage is placed in museums in collaboration and coalition with the globalized trends. The metaphor with which original heritage of oriental lacquerware was once considered no longer attracts the countrymen, and why would they do so? When no attempts have been made by the Japanese government to restore their ancestral heritage, often which the nations wonder as priceless have really gone so ‘priceless’, that no Japanese either inspires or admires it. So for the foreigners, why would they like the classical Japanese monuments, though depicting true stance of e legance when at the same time Japan is producing the finest quality electronic goods and equipment? This is not to say that globalization is the culprit here, but to some extent it must be held responsible for petering out the traditional Japanese culture that once was admired throughout the globe. Fehrenbach Poiger mentions the transformation of Japanese metaphor that is a mundane cultural experience which undergoes when, far from their original heritage, â€Å"they turn into new, recombinant formations, that take place among groups of diverse geographical and cultural origins† (Fehrenbach Poiger 2000, 149). This is what exactly happens when theoretical persuasion exceeds pragmatic notions that our youth needs to ask where such valuable monuments come from, and why have we preferred to use periodic names instead of centuries? When our generation asks as to who has the power to make these nomenclatures available as valueless misbegotten instances and why they have been labe lled as vestiges in the museums of the nineteenth-century Europe as demonstration of elitism? What would then justify our youth when they see Japanese decorative arts and craft, ceramics, and lacquerware in context with the ‘Europeanization’ tag. The Japanese style is no more in the globalized arena except that which is prevailed in the museums. Many claim that the Japaneseness has been taken over by the American cultureless diplomats with an aim to distract Japanese youth away from their cultural heritage, which is already enriched in electronics and weaponry. This might be true as according to (Lancaster 1963, 18) â€Å"when in 1852, America was assigned with an objective, commencement of a treaty with Japan to provide deliberate protection for American seamen and property in Japan and Japanese waters, and the opening of one or more ports for supplies and trade†, America at that time took this opportunity to deprive Japan of its own heritage, but behind closed doors.Advertising Looking for essay on cultural studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Conclusion The influence of the European and American hierarchy of fine arts has ‘enhanced’ Japanese lacquerware to the extent that today it has no longer remained and reckoned as the original ancient arts that once used to specify Japan (Tamaki 1999, 127). The bronze-lacquer which used to exist as the emblem of friendship and was given as a gift to international aides is no more part of that traditional norm, because contemporary Japanese history shines out through the influenced ‘globalized’ arena, and not what it used to be (Jones 2003, 41). Be it Japanese history and culture or Japanese warriors, the fascination of lacquerware and other handmade ceramics must not lose its significance (Busch 2000, 1), even if every other culture loses impact under the shadow of globalization. References Busch Richard. September 23, 2000. â€Å"Japanese Potters Continue a Tradition of Kiln- Fired Beauty.† The Washington Times: 1. Fehrenbach Heide and Poiger G. Uta . 2000. Transactions, Transgressions,  Transformations: American Culture in Western Europe and Japan. New York: Berghahn Books. Jones Susanna. February 24, 2003. â€Å"Bright Lanterns: Susanna Jones Enjoys an Illuminating Insight into Japanese History.† New Statesman 132(4626): 41. Lancaster Clay. 1963. The Japanese Influence in America. New York: Walton H. Rawls. McCausland Shane. 2005. â€Å"Nihonga Meets GU Kaizhi: a Japanese Copy of a Chinese Painting in the British Museum† The Art Bulletin 87(4): 688 Merritt Helen. 1990. Modern Japanese Woodblock Prints: The Early Years. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Tamaki, Bert Winther. 1999. â€Å"Yagi Kazuo: The Admission of the Nonfunctional Object into the Japanese Pottery World† Journal of Design History 12(2): 127. Yiengpruksawan, Mimi Hall. 2001. â€Å"Japanese Art History 2001: the State and Stakes of Research† The Art Bulletin 83(1): 105.