Aldous Huxleys Brave New World and James Joyces Dubliners :: essays research papers

Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, is a thought provoking novel set in a future of genetically engineered people, amazing technology and a misconstrued system of values. Dubliners, written by James Joyce, is a collection of short stories painting a picture of life in Dublin Ireland, near the turn of the 19th century. Though of two completely different settings and story lines, these two works can and will be compared and contrasted on the basis of the social concerns and issues raised within them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One of the first things stressed in Brave New World is the idea that there is no real discrimination. Though it is true that there is a class system, the classes are derived from the fact that people are genetically engineered to fit a certain role in their lives. For example, there are five classes as follows: Alpha, Beta, Delta, Epsilon and Gamma. Each of these classes is then subdivided into three sections: Plus, Normal and Minus. An Alpha Plus (highest in the class system) would look down on and think less of a Gamma Minus (lowest in the class system). This form of discrimination, however, is not really discrimination in that it has no moral basis as each person in each class is conditioned from birth to be completely happy at their station in life and especially glad that they aren’t of a different class. Aside from the fact that there is no moral basis behind this, for there to actually be discrimination, those being discriminated against would have to know that it was happening and in Brave New World such realizations do not occur. Due to this same fact, there is no gender or racial discrimination either, not even the mention of a nationality; all people in the civilization are simply people. That Huxley created this world of equality may have been an ironic stab at the time in which he lived. Within Dubliners, however, the attitudes toward nationality and gender of the time it was written are present, though not in any astonishing proportion. There is evidence of this in the following quotation from “The Dead';.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  -Well I’m ashamed of you, said Miss Ivors frankly. To say you write for a rag like that. I didn’t think you were a West Briton.(Joyce 188) Though not an extremely discriminant remark, its prejudicial tone is evident. The use of discrimination within Dubliners is not largely important to the story lines except in that it adds more realism to Joyce’s stories as the discrimination reflects the views of the time.

Arctic Mining Consultants Essay

This particular case looks into how Arctic Mining Consultants’ crew did not effectively do their job in Eagle Lake, Alaska. Tom Parker is a geological field technician and field coordinator for the company. He acted as the project manager on the job near Eagle Lake, Alaska. His crew of field assistants consisted of John Talbot, Greg Boyce, and Brian Millar. Tom had worked with all three field assistants before. Tom has specialized skills in claim staking, line cutting and grid installation, soil sampling, prospecting, and trenching. This particular job involved skating 15 claims, which consist of marking a line with flagging tape and blazes along the perimeter of the claim. A claim post is cut every 500 yards, meaning 60 miles in line total. Tom hoped to complete the job in a week, and offered the field assistants each a $300 bonus if it was completed in time. This would be added to their fairly low daily wages. As the job progressed, tension was thick because the deadline was approaching. The field assistants were working long days, and two of them were continually not meeting Tom’s expectations. Tom particularly took his frustrations out on Millar. Key Issues The field assistants are given little motivation to work hard. They are paid fairly low daily wages and are putting in long days. Tom Parker does not offer positive encouragement either, yelling and making the field assistants feel bad could make them care less about the job. The field assistants are provided meals and accommodations, but even Tom admitted that a lot was expected of them in a short amount of time. Tom Parker is not a good leader. He is the one who does the hiring, training and supervising for all of Arctic Mining Consultants programs. It could be possible he is not properly training field assistants to thoroughly meet his expectations. Tom Parker, on more then one occasion, exploded with anger. He did not coach his team, he just yelled at them. If he was supervising there work on Day 3, he should have communicated with the field assistants and told them how to improve their work then. On Day 6, when the field assistants did show improvement, Parker did not give them any positive reinforcements. Also, even after Paker picked on only Millar for bad performance, he asked him to work for him again. The field assistants seem to have very different capabilities and attitudes. Boyce did not get picked on by Parker, but admitted to Millar that he only worked as hard as he had to. Boyce had the worst results of everyone. Talbot met his quota and stayed to help Boyce meet his. He was a team player. Millar put in more time and effort, by being the first one dropped off Day 6 and 7, last one picked up Day 6 and 7, and not taking lunch Day 5. He worked himself so hard, that he collapsed at dinner, to tired to eat. Define the Problem The key problem in this case is that Tom Parker is not a good leader. He is in charge of hiring, training, and supervising field assistants. Couldn’t the field assistants’ work be reflected on Tom because he did not properly train them? Also, Tom selected the field assistants for this job. He should have known what they were capable of before selecting them. He had worked with al of them before, so he should have had reasonable expectations for each of them. Tom also made a hostile working environment with much stress and little positivity. Alternative Solutions Solution 1: Tom needs to be retained as a project manager. Being a project manager means being a leader. Tom is not a good leader. An effective leader is one who leads by encouraging the employees and making them want to succeed, thereby making the organization meet and exceed its goals over time. (Thakur, 2005). Tom did not handle conflict well; he took his frustrations out on one particular field assistant. Relational leadership is one form of effective leadership. Relational leadership centers around person-to-person relationships. One of the significant components of all relationships is how conflict is handled. (Ferch & Mitchell, 2011). The advantage of retaining Tom to gain leadership skills would be that Tom potentially could more effectively train field assistants and make a better team dynamic. The disadvantage is that Arctic Mining Consultants would have to spend time and money to re train the trainer, Tom. It would be beneficial for him to develop new leadership skills, but it might be difficult not having a project manager. Solution 2: Tom and Arctic Mining Consultants should offer more incentives to his field assistants. It doesn’t even have to be monetary. Offering positive reinforcement for work well done would be beneficial to Tom and his team. â€Å"While money is important to employees, what tends to motivate them to perform – and to perform at higher levels – is the thoughtful, personal kind of recognition that signifies true appreciation for a job well done. (Eastern, 2012). The advantage of this solution would be that employees would feel better about the work they are doing, and feel good hen they excel. Field assistants would be working in a positive environment. The disadvantage would be employees would start to expect positive reinforcements and bonuses, feeling they are entitled to it. Solution 2: Hire new field assistants. Tom could more carefully select his field assistants for a job. He should do more research on candidates’ capabilities and experience if he has high expectations. The advantage of having a different team of field assistants would be that he could filter out those who do not meet expectations before hand. The negative side of hiring new field assistants is the time it would take to evaluate new candidates as field assistants. Selected Solution I believe the first solution would bee best to solve this case. Tom needs to reevaluate his leadership tactics. He does not communicate effectively with his crew. He needs to think of the crew working together like a team, and he is coach. Tom is not being effective by focusing on the negatives; he needs to analyze what is being done wrong, and coach field assistants to correct their problem. Implementation/Recommendations First, Arctic Mining Consultant should have Tom trains another potential project manager that already works for the company. The candidate should undergo some type of leadership training. Then Tom will engage in a leadership-training program. The candidate will be the project manager while Tom is absent. Then, the two project managers, Tom and candidate, will work as a team to direct field assistants. Tom needs a new outlook on his management style. Implementing this plan will help achieve that. This will also help make more effective work teams.

Colonel General Heinz Guderian in World War II

Colonel General Heinz Guderian was German military officer who helped pioneer blitzkrieg warfare using armor and motorized infantry. A veteran of World War I, he elected to remain in the service during the interwar years and published his ideas on mobile warfare as the book Achtung - Panzer!. With the beginning of World War II, Guderian commanded armored formations in the invasions of Poland, France, and the Soviet Union. Briefly falling out of favor, he later served as Inspector-General of the Armored Troops and Acting Chief of the General Staff. Guderian ultimately surrendered to American forces on May 10, 1945. Early Life Career The son of a German soldier, Heinz Guderian was born at Kulm, Germany (now Chelmno, Poland) on June 17, 1888. Entering military school in 1901, he continued for six years until joining his fathers unit, Jà ¤ger Bataillon No. 10, as a cadet. After brief service with this unit, he was dispatched to a military academy at Metz. Graduating in 1908, he was commissioned as a lieutenant and returned to the jà ¤gers. In 1911, he met Margarete Goerne and quickly fell in love. Believing his son too young to marry, his father forbade the union and sent him for instruction with the 3rd Telegraph Battalion of the Signal Corps. World War I Returning in 1913, he was permitted to marry Margarete. In the year before World War I, Guderian underwent staff training in Berlin. With the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914, he found himself working in signals and staff assignments. Though not at the front lines, these postings allowed him to develop his skills in strategic planning and the direction of large-scale battles. Despite his rear area assignments, Guderian sometimes found himself in action and earned the Iron Cross first and second class during the conflict. Though he often clashed with his superiors, Guderian was seen as an officer with great promise. With the war winding down in 1918, he was angered by the German decision to surrender as he believed that the nation should have fought until the end. A captain at the end of the war, Guderian elected to remain in the postwar German Army (Reichswehr) and was given command of a company in the 10th Jà ¤ger Battalion. Following this assignment, he was shifted to the Truppenamt which served as the armys de facto general staff. Promoted to major in 1927, Guderian was posted to the Truppenamt section for transport. Colonel General Heinz Guderian Rank: Colonel GeneralService: German ArmyNickname(s): Hammering HeinzBorn: June 17 1888 in Kulm, German EmpireDied: May 14, 1954 in Schwangau, West GermanyParents: Friedrich and Clara GuderianSpouse: Margarete GoerneChildren: Heinz (1914-2004), Kurt (1918-1984)Conflicts: World War I, World War IIKnown For: Invasion of Poland, Battle of France, Operation Barbarossa Developing Mobile Warfare In this role, Guderian was able to play a key role in developing and teaching motorized and armored tactics. Extensively studying the works of mobile warfare theorists, such as J.F.C. Fuller, he began to conceive of what would ultimately become the blitzkrieg approach to warfare. Believing that armor should play the key role in any attack, he argued that formations should be mixed and contain motorized infantry to aid and support the tanks. By including support units with the armor, breakthroughs could be quickly exploited and rapid advances sustained. Espousing these theories, Guderian was promoted to lieutenant colonel in 1931 and made chief of staff to the Inspectorate of Motorized Troops. A promotion to colonel quickly followed two years later. With German rearmament in 1935, Guderian was given command of the 2nd Panzer Division and received a promotion to major general in 1936. Over the next year, Guderian recorded his ideas on mobile warfare, and those of his compatriots, into the book Achtung - Panzer!. Making a persuasive case for his approach to war, Guderian also introduced a combined arms element as he incorporated air power into his theories. Promoted to lieutenant general on February 4, 1938, Guderian received command of the XVI Army Corps. With the conclusion of the Munich Agreement later that year, his troops led the German occupation of the Sudetenland. Advanced to general in 1939, Guderian was made Chief of Fast Troops with responsibility for recruiting, organizing and training the armys motorized and armored troops. In this position, he was able to shape panzer units to effectively implement his ideas of mobile warfare. As the year passed, Guderian was given command of the XIX Army Corps in preparation for the invasion of Poland. World War II German forces opened World War II on September 1, 1939, when they invaded Poland. Putting his ideas into use, Guderians corps slashed through Poland and he personally oversaw German forces at the Battles of Wizna and Kobryn. With the conclusion of the campaign, Guderian received a large country estate in what became Reichsgau Wartheland. Shifted west, XIX Corps played a key role in the Battle of France in May and June 1940. Driving through the Ardennes, Guderian led a lightning campaign that split the Allied forces. Heinz Guderian during the Battle of France. Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-769-0229-12A / Borchert, Erich (Eric) / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Breaking through the Allied lines, his rapid advances constantly kept the Allies off balance as his troops disrupted rear areas and overran headquarters. Though his superiors wished to slow his advance, threats of resignation and requests for reconnaissances in force kept his offensive moving. Driving west, his corps led the race to the sea and reached the English Channel on May 20. Turning south, Guderian aided in the final defeat of France. Promoted to colonel general (generaloberst), Guderian took his command, now dubbed Panzergruppe 2, east in 1941 to participate in Operation Barbarossa. In Russia Attacking the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, German forces made quick gains. Driving east, Guderians troops overwhelmed the Red Army and aided in the capture of Smolensk in early August. Through his troops were preparing for a rapid advance on Moscow, Guderian was angered when Adolf Hitler ordered his troops to turn south toward Kiev. Protesting this order, he quickly lost Hitlers confidence. Ultimately obeying, he aided in the capture of the Ukrainian capital. Returning to his advance on Moscow, Guderian and German forces were halted in front of the city in December. Hienz Guderian during Operation Barbarossa, 1941. Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-139-1112-17 / Knobloch, Ludwig / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Later Assignments On December 25, Guderian and several senior German commanders on the Eastern Front were relieved for conducting a strategic retreat against the wishes of Hitler. His relief was facilitated by Army Group Center commander Field Marshal Gunther von Kluge with whom Guderian had frequently clashed. Departing Russia, Guderian was placed on the reserve list and retired to his estate with his career effectively over. In September 1942, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel requested that Guderian serve as his relief in Africa while he returned to Germany for medical treatment. This request was refused by the German high command with the statement, Guderian is not accepted. With the German defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad, Guderian was given new life when Hitler recalled him to serve as Inspector-General of the Armored Troops. In this role, he advocated for the production of more Panzer IVs which were more reliable than the newer Panther and Tiger tanks. Reporting directly to Hitler, he was tasked with overseeing armor strategy, production, and training. On July 21, 1944, a day after the failed attempt on Hitlers life, he was elevated to Army Chief of Staff. After several months of arguments with Hitler over how to defend Germany and fight a two-front war, Guderian was relieved for medical reasons on March 28, 1945. Later Life As the war wound down, Guderian and his staff moved west and surrendered to American forces on May 10. Kept as a prisoner of war until 1948, he was not charged with war crimes at the Nuremburg Trials despite requests from the Soviet and Polish governments. In the years after the war, he aided in the reconstruction of the German Army (Bundeswehr). Heinz Guderian died at Schwangau on May 14, 1954. He was buried at Friedhof Hildesheimer Strasse in Goslar, Germany.