Islamic Arabia Essay Example for Free

Islamic Arabia Essay Signs of Islam using the Koran as the foundations of its life and values being more accepting of women whether they are married or single are easier to see than in Christianity that made use of the Bible as the basis of its spiritual teachings. Accommodations in Islam which means accepting women as people of sacred, substantial, cultural, social and moral worth began its call even before pre-Islamic Arabia (Smith 52). Increasingly, however, Christians are turning women into little more than just sex objects. Many other societies have actually demoted women with two pieces of skimpy cloth walking down the ramp, viewed on tubes for global audience use, drowning the usual human values, robbed of natural human distinction. The core of a woman is being destroyed by the image of being just sex objects. Mankind should remember that the origin of all is just one pair. Eve’s progeny reminds mankind to be grateful for her willingness to be the mother of the first children earth ever had and the generations later should be proud of the founding of humankind. Femininity is a tribute to society. Childbearing honors women who bear a child in her womb for nine long months, who goes through the pains of giving birth, and the burden of breastfeeding. Being a woman and a capable mother have great societal significance to Muslims, recognizing and accepting women’s role. There are two top religions in the world today that is reaping much awareness and credit. The 1st is Islam, which is the cult of those who believe in Muhammad as a messenger of God, differing according to culture, and Christian religion, the cult of those who believe in Jesus Christ the son of Mary, modified according to culture,. Though Muhammad and Jesus Christ have both been influenced by some patriarchal views (Fiorenza 316), they have also in many ways differing concepts about women in their respective time and society. Like, in one occasion when it came to the knowledge of Muhammad that a couple committed adultery, he ordered them to be stoned to death right in front of his mosque (Mishkat 267), on the other hand when Jesus received the report from a witnessed a woman committing adultery, and so she must be penalized according to Jewish law, Jesus said sternly, â€Å"Let him who is without sin among you throw the first stone at her†, discarding double standard of morality (John 122). However, in his personal affairs Muhammad advised his men to treat their women with kindness (Al-Bukhari   80). Today, long time after Jesus and Muhammad, these values have so much evolved as intellectual education intensifies bringing about much understanding of human nature and modifications to a changing ecosystem. It can not be denied however that there still exist varying scales as to acceptability of women in Islam or in Christianity. Accepting of women in society is relative when looked upon the perspective of Islam after the time of Muhammad as against those of the Christians after the time of Jesus without neglecting cultural values. In Islam women were raised on a pedestal over 1, 400 years ago (Jumuah 62), when Muhammad directed his followers to regard women with compassion (Al-Bukhari 1, 55, 62, 80). They were acknowledge   to be the sisters of men, bestowing rights: to education up to the highest intensity, the right to decide on their marriage partner, the right to end an unhappy marriage, the right to inheritance, and the rights of a full citizen of a state (Jumuah 62), though, cultural differences still exist. While Christianity is more liberal, it leaves women to find its own level in the strata of society (Luke 81). Christian codes do not specify and provide rights for women. Christians adopts rights for women founded by men as cultural dictates (Fiorenza 1083) incorporated in individual state and governmental laws, which changes from time to time as revised to suit a presumed social need (Luke 89). Islam considers that men and women are at par when it comes to value as pieces and parts of humanity (Jumuah 63), but, these changes from customs to ethnicity. A man can not be victorious in his life without a woman. Their rights and tasks crossover and balance their totality because their roles are harmonizing and shared, although their duties might clash in certain areas of life in accordance with their basic physical and psychological disparity, where each is equally liable for their actual tasks (Jumuah 63), according to culture. Not one sex is either better or lesser than the other in any way, depending upon the Muslim culture where one belongs. There are however those who practice primarily according to their culture, which is not definitely a teaching of Islam according to its advocates, because culture does not crossover nor influence the Islamic code which is likewise the Qur’an, since the Qur’an is all embracing and above anyone’s culture. They oppress women which is simply a reflection of local customs that are definitely inconsistent and contrary to the teachings of Islam (Jumuah 62). Not only material and physical rights are given to women. They have also the right to be treated with kindness and consideration because it is provided for in the Qur’an. Under Islamic law the following provisions are given to women: when a Muslim woman marries she does not lose her maiden name in place of her husband (Jumuah 63). She has the right to keep her identity. She is given a gift by her husband to be, prior to their marriage which is also called a dowry (Ali 759). It is a personal gift that is at her disposal or which she can spend to buy properties, invest on whatever she feels she must without the influence of anyone from her family (Ali 759). The man must provide for the needs of his wife and the family even if she has the money of her own (Ali 759). She is not in any way obligated to spend anything for the family, which relieves the woman from the burden of earning a living. She however has the option to work if she finds it necessary. As the family is similar to any systematic organization, leadership is bestowed upon men. The Qur’an Clearly states that the husband is to some degree higher than the wife being the leader and guardian of the family. This does not in any way presume a right nor a license to be the tyrant of the household. It is rather the complete responsibility of the husband to care for the family (Jumuah 63). Karen Armstrong in a biography said, the emancipation of women was dear to the Prophets heart, describing: women were treated inferiorly with no rights like slaves in pre-Islamic time, but Muhammad allowed them to stand as witnesses and gave them the right to inheritance (Armstrong 191). The concept of women’s dress is of Islamic moral, social and legal values. By their observance of proper dress code, men and women alike protect their honor and reputation in a society contributing to it largely along peace and order. It is also A Qur’anic revelation While Jesus did not marry, Muhammad had several wives after Khadija his first wife, for different reasons such as: widows who needs provisions (Ali 53), widows with orphans who needs a fatherly attention (Ali 129), literacy of a woman, wealth of a woman, the widow being the wife of the enemy (Ali 129), political alliances and as a virgin wife like Aisha (Mishkat 3:13). A woman has four reasons to marry: wealth, family status, beauty and religion (Al-Bukhari 16, 32). Divorces were allowed even before pre-Isalmic times (Smith 52), while it was only a male prerogative in the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 176). But, Jesus made it irrevocable (Mark 56). Jesus helped women, honored them like the hunchback, one he called daughter of Abraham after she was healed from illness (Luke 93), and praised another for anointing him with oil (Mark 62). Jesus parables showed his compassion for women (Matthew 34).

The Last Juror :: essays research papers

The Last Juror by John Grisham 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"From day one she was intimidated by me because I was from Memphis and had gone to school up North for five years. I was careful not to wear my Ivy Leagueness on my shoulder, but at the same time I wanted these rural Mississippians to know that I had been superbly educated. (page 10)† There are two literary elements that could be categorized in this excerpt. I think that John Grisham highlights his use of satire very vividly early on in the book. He is placing a reasonable amount of underestimation upon a southerner’s overall intelligence. Simply because he was educated â€Å"up North† he feels he is worthy of a higher ranking. Although the character says he does not want to â€Å"wear† his Ivy League education for all to adore, he most certainly wants it known that his education was among the best one could buy. The second literary element is setting. Although it does not give descriptive geographical characteristics, we can get a sense of the Mississippi vibe. Depending on whether a reader is from the North or the South, some type of connection to their homeland can be made. We have a northerner experiencing, and reminiscing rather keenly, the way in which he first experienced his own dose of southern comfort. The object that I chose to corr elate with this particular excerpt was an Ivy League diploma. Although our main character, William Traynor, is geographically located in the south, mentally he still feels connected to the North and the education he received from it. This diploma would be brought with him as a constant reminder of who he is as an individual and the prideful attitude he possesses. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"I marveled once again at the backwardness of Mississippi. ‘Still fightin’ the War,’ was a slogan I’d heard several times in Ford County (page 47).† Although there a numerous literary terms that could be applied to this excerpt, followed by extensive reflection on the true backwardness of the state of Mississippi at this time, I would like to focus mainly on the theme represented here. Looking deep into the story many themes regarding the will to succeed, morals, and racism all arise yet an overall theme that can be collected stems all the way back to the Civil War. The major theme that is constantly radiated from the pages of John Grisham’s story is the diversity between the North and the South.

Psychology as a Science Essay

According to Russell & Jarvis(2003: 469) â€Å"the word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word ‘scire’, meaning ‘to know'†; thus it is the knowledge of specific study. Psychology was defined by Atkinson et al. (2000: 3, cited by Mestre. et al. 2002: 811) as the â€Å"scientific study of behaviour and mental processes†. Psychology has been universally recognised as a science since the late 1800’s when James (1890, cited by Gross 1999: 3) stated that ‘Psychology is the Science of Mental Life†. Though many praise the study of psychology for it’s findings and achievements there will always be those who are sceptical of these findings and whether or not they can be seen as ‘solid’. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) is widely seen as the ‘founding father’ of ‘new psychology’, in which we mean psychology as a separate scientific discipline, rather than it had been previously; a part of philosophy. Wundt created ‘structuralism’, this is the study of the mind by breaking all chains of thought down in to such things as images, feelings and sensations, for example, if one were to think of chocolate, one may picture the bar, have a feeling of desire for the bar which may produce the sensation of hunger. By studying the conscious mind using introspection he would record the results of his studies, these would be performed under controlled conditions, by which we mean no outside interferences or influences. However, his methods were heavily criticised as it only studied conscious processes, he was also very select in whom he selected for these tests, children and the mentally disturbed for example, were not considered for his studies as he believed they could not use introspection to a successful degree. Thus, introspection cannot be considered a scientific study as it does not aim to discover the mental processes for all humans; it does not allow for generalisation as not all possible subjects have been tested. There are many arguments for and against psychology as a science, let us focus on the arguments for psychology first. Classical and operant conditioning are still widely used on various different subjects, classical (or ‘Pavlovian’) conditioning is the method of teaching a response when a conditional stimulus is in place, for example the study of Pavlov’s dog – the dog was trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, this study was performed under lab conditions and therefore in a controlled environment in which and influences could be eradicated, this was fully testable and as proposed by Popper(1969, cited by Russell & Jarvis 2003: 469) â€Å"a theory or hypothesis needs to be fully testable to be scientific†. This method of conditioning is used in every day society, for example, though when young, one is never told that during ‘play time’ if a teacher or someone of authority blows a whistle one is meant immediately to stop what he or she is doing, it is a natural reaction to pay attention to the person whom commanded the attention and, in a case of a teacher/student situation, follow their instructions. Operant conditioning also follows the proposal that Popper suggested as it is used every day, when teaching an animal or human, whether they be an adult or a child. For example, operant conditioning is used when teaching a pet a new trick such as sitting down or shaking hands, the pet is initially guided in what it is supposed to do by it’s owner, then treated after the act as been performed, over time the pet will ‘learn’ that if it obeys the command of â€Å"sit† then it will be rewarded, though it is no longer necessary to reward the animal after every completion of the command, instead rewarding it every now and then. This was also found in Skinner’s box, in which the rat learnt to press a lever in order to receive a food pellet, psychologists would therefore argue that both of these methods of conditioning are considered objective studies which provide clear findings. Popper also argued that in order for a hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, in practise this means that for the study to be valid there must also be subjects which prove the study to be false. For example, to say that â€Å"all lions are mammals† would not be falsifiable, as it would be impossible to conduct the amount of study necessary to disprove this theory, however, to say â€Å"all lions have yellow fur†, it would only be necessary to find one lion with brown fur in order to prove this falsifiable, Popper(1959, cited by Hill 2009: 19) argued that â€Å"science advances through refutation rather than support†. Psychology, namely the biological approach, has been helped through the advancements in technology, for example, now it is possible to use medical equipments to see the functions of the brain via electrical pulses, though obviously this does not give us an image of what someone is thinking it does provide us with information as to which different triggers the varying reactions which until recently we have not been able to understand, obviously, this provides us with clear findings. Until the 1950s, Behaviourism dominated psychological experimentation as psychologists such as John Watson believed that only observable behaviour should be investigated if psychology wished to be considered an objective science. Thus, though psychology may not have directly effected the advances in technology the benefit it has seen from these advances are clear, it is now possible for psychologists to view the workings of the brain through the advances in other areas of science, therefore this can only inflate psychology’s status as a separate scientific discipline. Despite the arguments for psychology to be considered a science there are, of course, those that believe it should not. Those who are against the idea of psychology as a science believe there are many issues surrounding areas of psychology and the methods of investigation it carries out, one area of concern is that of sampling; random, stratified, opportunity, self-selecting/volunteer. The first in the above list, random sampling, is very rarely used, or at least it is very rare that it can be considered ‘true’; â€Å"true random sampling only occurs when every member of a target population has an equal chance of being selected† (Hill, 2009: 35), this is rarely the case as in a large target audience, in order for everyone to have an equal chance there would be a severe drain on the available resources so that the list could be compiled; many studies do not have the funding or resources available to them to waste on said list, so a truly random list of subjects is rarely achieved. Stratified sampling provides the same constraints on resources as random sampling; it is very time consuming and costly, this is due to the method that is used in order to perform stratified sampling – dividing the target population in to various subcategories then selecting members of these subcategories in to the proportion necessary to conduct the relevant research. Opportunity and self-selecting methods of sampling both provide problems in terms of bias, though from different perspectives. In terms of opportunity sampling not only does it give unrepresentative samples it is often biased on the part of the researcher, whom may pick people to take part in their study whom they believe will be more ‘helpful’ to his or her hypothesis.

The concept of hegemony - Politics Dissertations - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 13 Words: 4029 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Did you like this example? The concept of hegemony is notoriously difficult to quantify both in concrete political terms and in a less tangible philosophical manner. Moreover, in a world increasingly divided upon religious as opposed to ideological lines, the concept of hegemony has suffered from a certain crisis of relevance whereby it would seem that the preponderance of resources has indeed become the central precept for the paradigm per se; whereby, furthermore, economic and cultural imperialism have united to ensure the dominance of one geo political system within the international order in the vacuum created by the dissolution of ideology and the triumph of multi national capitalism. Yet all is not quite as it seems in the modern international sphere. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The concept of hegemony Politics Dissertations" essay for you Create order Current events have a distinctly repetitive feel but, at the same time, the international relations landscape is changing and re configuring its boundaries with such rapidity and vigour that definitions and sweeping statements are deemed, correctly, to be out of place concerning any particular sphere of international relations. Certainly, the broader subject of hegemony and inter state communication is of utmost importance in the comprehension of the new world order, though keeping track of new theories is an essentially difficult, contradictory experience, particularly at the dawn of the twenty first century. As Benno Teschke (2003:1) explains in the opening chapter of his book, The Myth of 1648, the entire subject of contemporary international relations theory is in a constant state of flux, inspired by the death of the nation state and the advent of post modernity. The classical Westphalian system, rooted in the primacy of the modern, territorially bounded sovereign state, is being replaced by a post territorial, post modern global order. The old logic of geopolitical security is being subordinated to geo economics, multi level global governance, or the demands of a multi actor international civil society. A fundamental transformation in the structure of the international system and its rules of conflict and co operation is unfolding before our eyes. For the purposes of the essay, it will be necessary to analyse the concept of hegemony from its origins to see how it has evolved over time and where its relevance might lie within todays post structuralist society, taking a chronological view so as to see how its conceptual meaning has altered along the way. It will likewise be necessary to examine international economic realities and histories as well as political instances of hegemony to highlight the essential duality between continuity and change in other words, how the past might help us to better understand the present and the future, yet also how the current world order presents unique problems that were of no relevance in the past, which necessarily makes an overall academic judgement more problematic. First a definition of hegemony must be attempted. Within the context of this essay, it is extremely important to comprehend the inherently different strands of hegemony: political, military, economic and cultural. Even more noteworthy is the general interchange that is apparent between the above factors politics merges with economics and military helps to define any given national culture, which, in turn, means that hegemony is very difficult to quantify in the essentially narrow conceptual terms of simply a preponderance of resources. It will be shown that, throughout recorded history, nations and states have used a combination of factors to control other states, all designed to increase the security of the region and underwrite the strength of the dominant geo political power. Each nation and state that has enjoyed a period of relative dominance has chosen, either through external circumstances that have been thrust upon the rulers or via a conscious, calculated ideological choice , to use one of the above themes of hegemony to perpetuate its power base. When a group of people takes control over the fate of another it is never via only one of the above strands political, military, economic or cultural. Rather, there always exists a concoction of more than one of the dominant conceptual themes to achieve the sum of hegemony and though much has changed throughout the course of history, this central precept remains difficult to ignore. The key player in any discussion pertaining to hegemony and the preponderance of resources has to be the state. Certainly, as far as G. John Ikenberry (1986:53) is concerned, the interaction between any given domestic and international political economy has always been at the epicentre of international relations theory and the comprehension of the rule of empire and state elites lies in understanding the ultimate power that the state has always possessed. As administrative and coercive organisations, states are embedded in complex political and economic environments and have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Although they vary considerably, they have several elements in common. All states make exclusive claims to the coercive and juridical control of particular territories, and they also make special claims to the definition and representation of broad national interests. In conceptual terms, hegemony is best understood as the expression of societys ruling classes over the majority of the nation or state over whom they propose to rule. Gramsci (1971:328), the interwar international relations academic and political prisoner who spent his final years behind bars in Mussolinis Italy, describes hegemony as, a conception of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individual and collective life. Gramsci here describes cultural hegemony, which was of particular relevance when he was writing in the 1930s, in a world that was dominated by ideological concerns. This type of hegemony and cultural control is a constant political reality that has been a feature of culture and society since the first recorded migrations of man. Never has hegemony as an ideal simply been confined to the realms of natural resources and economic might; it has always been an intangible equation of political power expressed through the elite of any particular nation, state or empire. The much celebrated Athenians, for example, made hegemony an everyday feature of the ancient world, whereby people were defined via their status within the broader Greek political and cultural hierarchy. The Greeks underscored their cultural ideal of hegemony with language and politics, especially the concept of citizenship, which remains a key feature in the study of political and cultural hegemony today. The United States today uses its visa system, for example, to differentiate between alien visitors from within the wider plates of the hegemony that it has created. In the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle grouped the various bands of hegemony together to form what they saw as civilisation. Therefore, to be an Athenian Greek was to be a civilised member of the hegemony of the nascent nation state; to be a barbarian was to be an uncivilised member of the outposts of society, the parts where hegemony had hitherto failed to penetrate as a paradigm and as a cultural and economic force. This phenomenon has since been mirrored in the twenty first century with President Bushs with us or against us stance to global terrorism, where hegemony is once again used as the primary force in the perpetuation of the dominant military, political and economic power of the epoch. Ancient cultures used the acquisition of foreign resources to underline their superior military and cultural power, although it should be noted that the technology and logistics did not then exist to ensure the movement of goods and services across inter state borders so that the preponderance of resources could not become the only outlet of hegemony as a concept. The Middle East trade route, for instance, remained a largely autonomous cultural, political and economic region in spite of the combined power of the Greek and Roman Empires, curtailing efforts at building an Empire from the sole premise of a sound economic base. Therefore, in the ancient world, hegemony meant much more than a preponderance of resources. It implied tangible political and citizenry rights and access to a pre defined status quo that was welded by the elite members of the state and continually updated and re defined by the men and women who had access to power within the machinations of the state. Indeed, the central role of the human actors within the state system remain as relevant today as they were in the ancient world and to dismiss their relevance as secondary to the preponderance of resources would be to misinterpret the dynamics of inter state governance. Individual diplomats, ministers, parties and politics will always have a bearing on the future of both international relations as well as the concept of hegemony where economic resources are only one factor in a much larger pyramid of political and economic concerns. It thus becomes apparent that hegemony must co exist with the broader notion of empire, which is itself constructed upon the solid foundations of economic dynamism garnered through the procurement of resources. The notion of empire altered irrevocably during the dawn of modern history where industrialisation proved to be the catalyst for the significant, seismic shift in the view of hegemony as cultural, economic and political benchmark. The nineteenth century was indeed a watershed in terms of the re drawing of the conceptual parameters of hegemony. The Victorian era saw the traditional European empires of France, Belgium, Britain and Germany use their vast military and economic superiority to carve up the undeveloped world amongst each other with the procurement of raw materials and economic resources utilised as the main motivation for extra territorial action. Without doubt, it is at this juncture in world history that the preponderance of resources becomes the pre eminent factor in the power of hegemony and cultural imperialism. The Scramble for Africa, for instance, constituted a devouring of the worlds finest natural resources and raw materials; resources that were unavailable in Europe were discovered in seemingly endless abundance in Africa and the poor political and social infrastructure of the indigenous tribes meant that, militarily, it was a case of simply buying off the key local decision makers and men of influence to ensure European preponderance of locally based economic wealth. Furthermore, unlike the false promise of El Dorado that hampered the conquistadores in Latin America, the lure of previously unimaginable wealth in Africa was the determining factor behind the unprecedented and swift carving up of the African continent. The impulse for hegemony, in this instance, was therefore the possibility of individual accumulation of economic empire as well as the broader national acquisition of another nations indigenous wealth. Charles Tilly (1985:172) explains how the extraction of resources from local producers and traders in Africa was the most important development for the edification of European hegemony in the undeveloped world and for the structure of the contemporary world order today. The quest inevitably involved them in establishing regular access to capitalists who could supply and arrange credit, and to imposing one form of regular taxation or another on the people and activities within their sphere of control. Industrialisation was therefore the central difference between nineteenth century views of imperial hegemony and that which was witnessed in the ancient and medieval worlds. Resources became, for the first time, the main concern of empire builders. This period in world history is also important for what it implies about the motives of the European leaders and rulers who embarked upon their scramble for Africas resources. What is immediately noticeable when reading the primary sources of these explorers was the way in which they attempted to hide their true (economic) motive from view. The first British travellers to the dark continent promulgated the view that the Europeans were on a civilising mission to save the Africans from a life of pagan sin. Moreover, they said, their religious and missionary zeal would inevitably rub off on the political and economic mood of the continent so that, in effect, the Africans would wish to copy their European partners in order to better help thems elves in the long term; politically, economically and socially. To achieve this end, the Europeans thus tied the notion of political territorial acquisition to the preponderance of resources by controlling the mechanisms of the fledgling states as well as the production of raw materials and natural resources. The nineteenth century partition of the undeveloped world by the most powerful industrial states of the age thus left a legacy that is of the utmost relevance for the topic of hegemony in todays twenty first century society. As economic resources become increasingly scarce in the contemporary world, the major Western powers must find ways of securing the holding of resources while covering up the raw economic reasons for doing so. One can see, as Chomsky and Vidal attest, a certain similarity between the contemporary US symptom of national security and the war on terror and the Victorian ideal of a missionary zeal. Significantly, both propaganda spins fail to recognise that the preponderance of resources is the real reason why these states have found themselves fighting foreign wars and stationing troops so very far from their own national borders in the recent past. Of added significance was the fact that the Victorian experimentation with imperialism showed, for the first time, how a state might achieve supreme power with resources and capital based outside of the national territorial borders. Susan Strange (1988:2) sees this as the most important step in the development of true imperial hegemony in the West; the point where a modern nation has the ability to dictate key economic policy far beyond its own national, geo political borders. The location of productive capacity is far less important than the location of the people who maker the decisions on what is to be produced, where and how, and who design, direct and manage to sell successfully on a world market. At this point it makes sense to shift the focus of our investigation from a broader viewpoint of historical instances of hegemony to a dissection of the most important contemporary topic within the confines of the essay title. The key contemporary actor within the study, without a doubt, must be the United States, the source of the preponderance of twenty first century economic resources and the still the most potent post modern military force on the planet. As the eminent British historian, E.H. Carr (1992:292), writing on the eve of the Second World War, testified, hegemony is a by product of realism; an essentially Darwinist view of politics that suggests a discernibly detectable survival of the fittest in international affairs. The unassailable American hegemony of the post modern age is best understood within this wholly realist context. To attempt to ignore power as a decisive factor in every political situation is purely utopian. It is scarcely less utopian to imagine an international order built on a coalition of states, each striving to defend and assert its own interests. Since 1945 the USA has built its empire upon the twin pillars of the military and its insatiable consumer economy, even going so far as to re model the state to the tune of the desires of the political economy. The National Security Act (1947), for example, which oversaw the formation of the CIA, was the first in a long history of decrees and acts designed to ensure the longevity of the republican model and the destruction of all of its ideological enemies in the process. Gore Vidal (2004:95 96) explains the dynamic nature of American national security policy, post 1945, a policy that deemed aggression as the best form of political and economic defence. When Japan surrendered, the United States was faced with a choice: either disarm, as we had done in the past and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy into the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a fully military basis, which would mean a tight control over our allies and such conquered provinces as West Germany, Italy and Japan. It is important to understand that Washington wishes its control of the globe not to be limited to its dominance of world economic resources; rather, hegemony, as it is understood in 2005, is a varied political, economic and cultural phenomenon that wishes to export the very ethos of the United States as well as importing the wealth generated by the nations pre eminent economic position. To date, the United States has used language, technology and the military to acquire its vast array of economic resources and likewise uses its dynamic corporate ethic to underpin the strategies of the imperial national government. Therefore, to see the preponderance of resources as the only specific aim of American hegemony in the twenty first century is to miss the point entirely. As previously outlined, the American government understands the essential interplay between the various features of hegemony. Certainly, the USA has used economics as its basis for the extension of power witnessed since 1 945 but the ideology of the most awesome capitalist country on the planet has been held in place via the spread of its symbolic features to every corner of the globe (except, of course, for large swathes of the Middle East, which is a source of much of the antagonism between the two diametrically opposed sections of the new global economy). Various international relations commentators have noted the way in which imperial America uses brand names such as MacDonalds and Nike to increase the economic and cultural hegemony of the US Empire, leaving fast food restaurants and designer clothes chains as castles by proxy. As Chomsky (2003:13) succinctly puts it: The goal of the imperial grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the power, position and prestige of the United States. Theories have abounded concerning the so called decline of American hegemony, largely circulating since the oil crisis in the 1970s, which first highlighted the fragility of the preponderance of key natural resources in the post modern world. Susan Strange disagrees fundamentally with international relations commentators such as Nye, who see Americas decline as an inevitable by product of the notion of both hegemony and Empire, essentially dictating that from Rome to Byzantium to Britain any attempt to secure global pre eminence must end in the destruction of that political and economic model. She argues that the USA is a unique case that shows no signs of the fragmentation that beset its historical precedents. Essentially, this means that US notions of hegemony are not solely tied to economic factors pertaining to the preponderance of resources; its survival and indeed growth rests upon the fact that the USA ideal of hegemony is far more flexible than many critics give it credit f or. As Cox (2005:21) underscores, the issue of American hegemony entails far more than a swelling of the national treasury at the expense of extra territorial economic resources. One of the more obvious objections to the idea of a specific American empire is that, unlike the real empires in the past, the United States has not acquired, and does not seek to acquire the territory of others. This in turn has been allied to another obvious objection: that the United States has often championed the cause of political freedom in the world. How then can one talk of empire when one of the United States obvious impulses abroad has been to advance the cause of national democracy and self determination? The issue of hegemony in contemporary times is further hampered by the ambiguity and uncertainty that surrounds the ultra contentious geo political and economic topic of globalisation. Not only have scholars found globalisation extremely difficult to define but it also poses unique problems of conceptual bracketing. It is supposedly an economic question (intrinsically tied to the preponderance of resources) yet in practice, globalisation appears to be little more than an extension of American political hegemony, namely the spread of democracy to every reach of the globe as the initial platform on which to launch a visionary global hegemony. Whereas the nineteenth century European empires formulated the concept of the preponderance of natural resources as the most vital step on the way to the establishment of their brand of hegemony, the Americans in the twenty first century have used technology, particularly their corporate dominance of new media and the Internet to strengthen their dominant position in the world economy. Globalisation therefore is tantamount to Westernisation, which is itself a direct descendent of Americanisation. According to Sinclair et al (2004:297), world patterns of communication flow, both in density and direction, mirror the system of domination in the economic and political order, and in this way it can be shown how US hegemony is built upon sterner raw materials than the mere preponderance of economic resources. Indeed, logic dictates that if the USAs global hegemony was only standing upon the prevalence of resources, then its position would be nothing like as contentious as it is in the broa der world order, constituting the front line of the new global disorder, as Robert Harvey describes it. Indeed, Harvey (2003:455) already views the concept of global hegemony as outdated, requiring five separate but interconnecting strands of economic and politic pro action to keep the status quo alive in the future. These then are the five great areas of change necessary to avoid a state of global political economic anarchy: the establishment of superpower policing to combat terrorism and to prevent conflicts breaking out all over the world, through an efficient system of regional alliances and deterrents, backed up by the threat of major superpower intervention; the widening and deepening of global democracy; the regulation of the global economy through co operation between the three economic super states of the next few decades America, Europe and Japan in co operation with regional groupings of the rest of the world; a gigantic government primed stimulus for demand and development in the three quarters of the developing world untouched by globalisation; and reform from within of the capitalist corporation. Conclusion The analysis of hegemony and power bases throughout history shows that the prevalence of resources is but one factor in a multi faceted chain of command that requires a strong military and political infrastructure as well as a flourishing economic base to prevail. The upsurge in interest that the topic of hegemony has generated in recent years has been due to the power of the worlds one remaining superpower alone. Hegemony has become synonymous with Americas quest for global dominance and various commentators have cited the contemporary war on terror as nothing but a smokescreen for the increasing garnering of resources, particularly oil in the Middle East. Indeed, Vidal (2004:7) compares the war on terror to a war on dandruff; such is his confusion over what the notion actually means. There is no doubt that it is this perceived neo imperialism that is at the heart of the current negativity surrounding the concept of hegemony and its continued association with solely (Western) economic motives. However, it should be noted that a significant change in the global order is currently under way, one in which the Americans will have to broker what Strange (1988:17) refers to as a series of New Deals with autonomous international states in order to remain a leading economic force. The advent of China, in particular, as the twenty first centurys most potent consumer and industrial society will undoubtedly challenge the very ideal of American and Western hegemony and will necessarily require a re drafting of the USAs preponderance of resources. Hegemony must, in effect, adapt to a discernible duality and spirit of inter state co operation that the concept has not known in the past. The concept of hegemony therefore has value far beyond the preponderance of resources as the evolving concept of globalisation is in the process of emphasising. As globalisation begins to take hold as an economic, cultural and political reality, the effects of hegemony will be felt in all areas of the world that wish to be part of the dissolution of the concept of the nation state and the embracement of a new political and economic world order.