'Ecologism begins where anthropocentrism ends.' Discuss.
What is this question even asking? The wording of this question really confuses me.
Hmm. I'd interpret it as a question evaluating deep ecology v shallow ecology, on the basis that deep ecologists believe that anthropocentricism and ecologism aren't compatible? I'm not entirely sure though - hence I'm avoiding ecologism.
You did anarchism aswell?! If you have time can u look at my post on the last page or two where I said the points I made? Because I'm not sure if I answered the Q correctly it's bugging me, thanks
I think unit 3 long question on anarchism was amazing I was so happy with it, sad to hear that you weren't. But I definitely agree that unit 1 long questions were awful, unit 2 long questions were equally as bad in my opinion :'( Lets hope edexcel are nice with us tomorrow. Everyone is saying that nationalism is easier to grasp which is making me wish I studied that topic. My teacher kind of dismissed nationalism and only briefly taught us it as he said it was the most difficult of the 4 topics.
I think unit 3 long question on anarchism was amazing I was so happy with it, sad to hear that you weren't. But I definitely agree that unit 1 long questions were awful, unit 2 long questions were equally as bad in my opinion :'( Lets hope edexcel are nice with us tomorrow. Everyone is saying that nationalism is easier to grasp which is making me wish I studied that topic. My teacher kind of dismissed nationalism and only briefly taught us it as he said it was the most difficult of the 4 topics.
Yeah I think its either Is nationalism aggressive and expansionist Liberal - No Conservative - abit Anti Colonial - abit Chauvinistic - Yes Is it a single ideologyYes - All united in the belief that the nation is a meaningful community and all nations have the right to self determination No - I would divide it into Cultural - Conservative and Chauvinistic, Political - Liberal and Anti Colonial
Is it Progressive or regressive Progressive - Liberal & Anti Colonial Regressive - Conservative & Chauvinistic Rational or Irrational Rational - Liberal & Anti colonialIrrational - Conservative & Chauvinistic
Yeah I think its either Is nationalism aggressive and expansionist Liberal - No Conservative - abit Anti Colonial - abit Chauvinistic - Yes Is it a single ideologyYes - All united in the belief that the nation is a meaningful community and all nations have the right to self determination No - I would divide it into Cultural - Conservative and Chauvinistic, Political - Liberal and Anti Colonial
Is it Progressive or regressive Progressive - Liberal & Anti Colonial Regressive - Conservative & Chauvinistic Rational or Irrational Rational - Liberal & Anti colonialIrrational - Conservative & Chauvinistic
Hmm. I'd interpret it as a question evaluating deep ecology v shallow ecology, on the basis that deep ecologists believe that anthropocentricism and ecologism aren't compatible? I'm not entirely sure though - hence I'm avoiding ecologism.
That seems wise, I really regret doing ecologism over nationalism, some of the questions are really difficult to write more than a couple of pages on. Thanks though, seems like it's a pretty standard ecologism question, just put in a more confusing way. Still hoping for a solid multiculturalism 45 marker though
45 marker I think is most likely to be a question on whether multiculturalism breeds tension and conflict, although tough to say, bc why would they make it easy for us.
45 marker I think is most likely to be a question on whether multiculturalism breeds tension and conflict, although tough to say, bc why would they make it easy for us.
How would you structure that Qu? I just want to make sure I'm on the right lines
How would you structure that Qu? I just want to make sure I'm on the right lines
1st paragraph: Liberal multiculturalism - claim they are neutral and provide realm of tolerance for people to make their own decisions on how to live. However, by virtue of liberalism being an ideology, it cannot by definition be truly neutral. The paradox of authoritarian liberalism also shows it cannot be neutral since they impose liberal values on those who do not wish to subscribe to them, so it creates conflict with such cultures.
2nd paragraph: Liberal multiculturalism also advocate tolerance of different beliefs, traditions and practices, although the question on what should and should not be tolerated still remains largely unresolved. Even liberals concede that moral values are subjective. Modus vivendi liberals criticise other liberals since they have an incoherent concept of tolerance, only tolerating liberal cultures.
3rd paragraph: Pluralist multiculturalism - all cultures worthy of respect and protection, regardless of ideological grounding. Bring in Isaiah Berlin - impossible to demonstrate that one culture is morally superior to another, since this would require subjective judgement. However, Berlin did not indicate how vastly different cultures could peacefully co-exist. Conservative critique - morally imperfect - since humans are prone to irrational impulses, bound to end up in social conflict. Socialist critique - example of divide and rule strategy by ruling class.
4th paragraph: Pluralist multiculturalism can be taken to extreme of particularist multiculturalism (describe what this is). They conclude that cultures can only co-exist through positions of assertion from each culture - diversity is given greater emphasis than social cohesion or unity, doesn't necessarily breed tension and conflict but doesn't inhibit it either, allows it to happen.
1st paragraph: Liberal multiculturalism - claim they are neutral and provide realm of tolerance for people to make their own decisions on how to live. However, by virtue of liberalism being an ideology, it cannot by definition be truly neutral. The paradox of authoritarian liberalism also shows it cannot be neutral since they impose liberal values on those who do not wish to subscribe to them, so it creates conflict with such cultures.
2nd paragraph: Liberal multiculturalism also advocate tolerance of different beliefs, traditions and practices, although the question on what should and should not be tolerated still remains largely unresolved. Even liberals concede that moral values are subjective. Modus vivendi liberals criticise other liberals since they have an incoherent concept of tolerance, only tolerating liberal cultures.
3rd paragraph: Pluralist multiculturalism - all cultures worthy of respect and protection, regardless of ideological grounding. Bring in Isaiah Berlin - impossible to demonstrate that one culture is morally superior to another, since this would require subjective judgement. However, Berlin did not indicate how vastly different cultures could peacefully co-exist. Conservative critique - morally imperfect - since humans are prone to irrational impulses, bound to end up in social conflict. Socialist critique - example of divide and rule strategy by ruling class.
4th paragraph: Pluralist multiculturalism can be taken to extreme of particularist multiculturalism (describe what this is). They conclude that cultures can only co-exist through positions of assertion from each culture - diversity is given greater emphasis than social cohesion or unity, doesn't necessarily breed tension and conflict but doesn't inhibit it either, allows it to happen.
Sorry I went on a bit there, got carried away.
Thanks a lot!!!!!! I would hate a Qu on multicultural vs conservatism or liberalism Do you have to mention other ideolgoies
Thanks a lot!!!!!! I would hate a Qu on multicultural vs conservatism or liberalism Do you have to mention other ideolgoies
No problem
I've never seen a question asking about the relationship between multiculturalism and conservatism, liberalism could still happen but there was one last year. There was another one about multiculturalism and liberalism in Jan 2010 which has never been repeated however, and it's a little different from the one last year, so I suppose that could be asked, I hope not too though.
I don't think you need to mention the other ideologies (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but if you've got time, I'd give it a try. Liberalism is usually quite easy to fit into a multiculturalism question. Also, if you have time, you could also mention cosmopolitan multiculturalism in the question on tension/conflict, and just say how a pre-existing dominant culture is likely to subsume minority cultures, but that might be pushing it for time, idk