The Student Room Group

Edexcel A2 Government & Politics route B: Political ideologies

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
hmm
Reply 101
UKamericangirl
Mikey-g

No, I think they're probably asking for both sides of the argument here. I'd probably be inclined to start with the multiculturalist argument for it being the cure for conflict and then go on to outline the criticisms that other ideologies have for it. Particularly conservatism and nationalism.

I really hate multiculturalism though, and can't believe they put two new ideologies on one paper!!!


agreed!
okay thanka haha, i just want this damn exam to be over!
How would you lot structure this essay:

Feminism is characterised more by disagreement than agreement, discuss.

I don't know what the main points would be, would you use the same as differences between radical and liberal feminism so:
liberals wanted emancipation while radicals want liberation
liberals wanted to reform patriachy while radicals want to abolish it
liberals believe in individualism and politics only exists in the private sphere whereas radicals believe in collective consciousness raising and removing the public/private divide

any ideas would be really appreciated :smile:
also if you want to swap essays then pm me
i have essays with the following titles that have been marked at A/A* grades:
How does Ecologism differ from other political ideologies
Is nationalism reactionary or progressive?
To what extent is there tension between multiculturalism and liberalism
To what extent have feminists achieved their aims since the beginning of the 20th Century
hey, does anyone have ANY unit 4 notes they could send me?
just quote/pm me & i'll send you my email address.. cheers!
Reply 105
ecoooonomics
How would you lot structure this essay:

Feminism is characterised more by disagreement than agreement, discuss.

I don't know what the main points would be, would you use the same as differences between radical and liberal feminism so:
liberals wanted emancipation while radicals want liberation
liberals wanted to reform patriachy while radicals want to abolish it
liberals believe in individualism and politics only exists in the private sphere whereas radicals believe in collective consciousness raising and removing the public/private divide

any ideas would be really appreciated :smile:



Yeah more or less along those lines..

different aims - liberal wants access to public sphere + formal equality, believes in individualism so no emphasis on gender, wishes to maintain public private divide, patriarchy is used in limited sense. its a form of equality feminism.


socialist - patriarchy is viewed in context of economic system (capitalism) + private property, oppression has roots in 'bourgeois family' + thus private sphere. dispute on class war vs sex war importance, destroy private public divide via replacing family with communal living ( i think that involves its breakdown). again equal pay / waged unwaged labour + ownership of wealth makes it equality feminism.

radical - patriarchy all pervasive + gender divisions most fundamental. 'personal is political' - so reject private public divide - roots of patriarchy + gender opression in process of conditioning. requires sexual revolution in which patriarchal family is removed, either 'conciousness raising' or political separatism. separatism implies difference feminism however, rejecting androgyny.

they are all unified in the belief patriarchy's existance however, and that women's inferiority is not natural and should be overthrown. most strands subscribe to essentialism.

those are my ideas...
mikey_g
Yeah more or less along those lines..

different aims - liberal wants access to public sphere + formal equality, believes in individualism so no emphasis on gender, wishes to maintain public private divide, patriarchy is used in limited sense. its a form of equality feminism.


socialist - patriarchy is viewed in context of economic system (capitalism) + private property, oppression has roots in 'bourgeois family' + thus private sphere. dispute on class war vs sex war importance, destroy private public divide via replacing family with communal living ( i think that involves its breakdown). again equal pay / waged unwaged labour + ownership of wealth makes it equality feminism.

radical - patriarchy all pervasive + gender divisions most fundamental. 'personal is political' - so reject private public divide - roots of patriarchy + gender opression in process of conditioning. requires sexual revolution in which patriarchal family is removed, either 'conciousness raising' or political separatism. separatism implies difference feminism however, rejecting androgyny.

they are all unified in the belief patriarchy's existance however, and that women's inferiority is not natural and should be overthrown. most strands subscribe to essentialism.

those are my ideas...



ahh thank you for clearing that up, so basically just comparing different views by different forms of feminism :smile:
Reply 107
ecoooonomics
ahh thank you for clearing that up, so basically just comparing different views by different forms of feminism :smile:


if you think its that 'basic' aha :P
Reply 108
I was wandering if anyone could help me with these?

Why might eco-socialism be considered a contradiction in terms?

Why, and how, is ecologism associated with authoritarianism?
Hmm, for the first one, all I can think of is the Soviet Union, a socialist state, which produced some of the world's worst environmental problems (Aral sea in central Asia, once the fourth biggest lake in the world, which has shrunk to it's original size due to the re-routing of two rivers and a nuclear explosion in Ukraine).
Reply 110
-JJS-
I was wandering if anyone could help me with these?

Why might eco-socialism be considered a contradiction in terms?

Why, and how, is ecologism associated with authoritarianism?



class war vs ecological problems
its a pro-production creed
USSR environmental problems


is that last question a 15 marker? sounds like it just wants an expalantion of fascist ecologism + conservative ecologosim
Reply 111
cheers man, thats helped my understanding a little :smile:

Also it was a question that was in the list of SAQ's which someone posted earlier...i think around page 4. I posted again becuase i havnt seen that question before either, i doubt it to be a 15 marker in all honesty
-JJS-
I was wandering if anyone could help me with these?

Why might eco-socialism be considered a contradiction in terms?

Why, and how, is ecologism associated with authoritarianism?

the criticise capitalism as exploiting natural resources etc and say its evil, yet they favour another economic system - communism which merely uses factors of production for the whole of humanity rather than just capitalists, its just another pro-production economic system. Also if you hold factors of production as a common resource there is no incentive to protect it - you need property rights otherwise everyone will just exploit the land etc.
any ideas as to why nationalism is NOT compatible with liberalism? struggling with the other side of the argument
Reply 114
Has anyone got any Ecologism essays?

ive got one on 'Is ecologism an ideology in its own right'
(single doctrine)

Ive gt nationalism essays typed - and pretty much all short answer for nationalism and ecologism planned

Any one willing to exchange?
pm me :smile:
For the question "Is nationalism inherently expansionist and destructive?" Could you use conservative nationalism an example of it NOT being expansionist and destructive? If so, how would you go about doing it? Like what elements of conservative nationalism can be used to support a non-destructive/expansionist character?
shewasdeleted
For the question "Is nationalism inherently expansionist and destructive?" Could you use conservative nationalism an example of it NOT being expansionist and destructive? If so, how would you go about doing it? Like what elements of conservative nationalism can be used to support a non-destructive/expansionist character?


conservative nationalism - is not intirely destructive as it aims to retain culture and traditions. it therefore only destroys internally and not other nations. it aims to preserve the nation not really to expand it eg BNP values. could be constructive building a stronger nation on core traditional values

I'd structure the essay:
conservative - mainly destructive - internal destruction of social balance by opposing alternative cultures then use the evaluation i wrote above

expansionist nationalism - destructive due to chauvinism thinking its acceptable to take over other countries due to national superiority eg germany taking over poland. it destroys the nation and other cultures. But this is based more on fascist ideas than nationalist ones so it doesn't prove nationalism to be truly destructive, it is based on the fascist principle of natural inferiority.

liberal nationalism - not destructive - first form of nationalism through enlightenment
eg Italian unification aimed to create a united Italy - constructive. Promotes self-determination and equality of nations as this will lead to perpetual peace and a new order. Respects other nations rights to different values and self-gov therefore they do not destroy them as they have mutual respect. its a dominant form of nationalism - early and late - formation of czech republic after collapse of soviet union

then a para on post colonial - which isnt destructive you could say.

hope that helps? :smile:
That was really helpful, thank you! :smile: Although, I put post-colonial under destructive, this is what I have:

Post-colonial nationalism has been shaped by the rejection of western ideas and culture. The West is regarded as the source of oppression and exploitation and thus post-colonial nationalism seeks an anti-western voice.
The principle vehicle for expressing such a view has been through religious fundamentalism, which has taken aggressive and destructive methods in the form of militarism, terrorism and ethnic wars, in order to further it’s anti-western agenda.
Whilst post-colonial nationalism was initially concerned with the preservation of their own culture from western threat, it developed a deeply destructive and intolerant character.
Distinguish between the nation and the state, and explain why the two are often confused. (15 marks)

How would you go about this?
really not sure, if anyone has this essay or ideas please let me know, I'll trade it for another essay if you like all of which are A/A* standard :smile:
shewasdeleted
That was really helpful, thank you! :smile: Although, I put post-colonial under destructive, this is what I have:

Post-colonial nationalism has been shaped by the rejection of western ideas and culture. The West is regarded as the source of oppression and exploitation and thus post-colonial nationalism seeks an anti-western voice.
The principle vehicle for expressing such a view has been through religious fundamentalism, which has taken aggressive and destructive methods in the form of militarism, terrorism and ethnic wars, in order to further it’s anti-western agenda.
Whilst post-colonial nationalism was initially concerned with the preservation of their own culture from western threat, it developed a deeply destructive and intolerant character.


no problem :smile: oh yeh that is very true ok I'd put it as destructive then, I was just thinking it constructs a new nation kind of but yeh I think mine could be the evaluation and destructive being the main point, seems better.

Quick Reply