Hamlet (Revenge) Essays (979 words) - Characters In Hamlet

Hamlet (Revenge) Hamlet (Revenge) Revenge. Revenge causes one to act blindly through anger, rather thanthrough reason. It is based on the principle of an eye for an eye, butthis principle is not always an intelligent theory to live by. YoungFortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet were all looking to avenge the deaths oftheir fathers. They all acted on emotion, and this led to the downfall oftwo, and the rise to power of one. Since the Heads of the three majorfamilies were each murdered, the eldest sons of these families sworevengeance, and two of the three sons died while exacting their acts ofvengeance, revenge is a major theme in the Tragedy of Hamlet. There were three major families in the Tragedy of Hamlet. These were thefamily of King Fortinbras, the family of Polonius, and the family of KingHamlet. The heads of each of these families are all slaughtered within theplay. Fortinbras, King of Norway, was killed by King Hamlet; slain bysword during a man to man battle. "...our valiant Hamlet-for so this side ofour known world esteem'd him-did slay this Fortinbras." This entitled KingHamlet to the land that was possessed by Fortinbras because it was writtenin a seal'd compact. Polonius was an advisor to the King, and father toLaertes and Ophelia. He was nosy and arrogant, and he did not trust hischildren. He was killed by Young Hamlet while he was eves dropping on aconversation between Hamlet and his mother. "How now! A rat? Dead, for aducat, dead!" King Hamlet was the King of Denmark, and Hamlet's father. He had killed King Fortinbras, only to be killed by his brother, Claudius. "...My offense is rank, it smells to heaven; A brother's murder..." Each ofthese events effected the sons of the deceased in the same way, it enragedthem. Every one of the three eldest sons had one thing in common, they allwanted revenge for a slaughtered father. In the time in which this play isset, avenging the murder of a father was part of one's honor, and had to bedone. All of the three sons swore vengeance, and then acted towardsgetting revenge for the deaths of their fathers. Young Fortinbras was deeply enraged by the death of his father, and hewanted revenge against Denmark because of this occurrence. Fortinbraswanted to, by force, regain the lands that had been lost by his father toDenmark. "...Now sir, young Fortinbras...as it doth well appear unto ourstate-but to recover of us, by strong hand and terms compulsative, thoseforesaid lands so by his father lost..." Claudius sends messengers to talkto Fortinbras' uncle, the new King of Norway. He forbid Fortinbras toattack Denmark, and instead convinced him to attack the Poles to vent hisanger. "...His nephew's levies, which to him appear'd to be a preparation'gainst the Polack; But better look'd into, he truly found it was againstyour highness...On Fortinbras; which he, in brief, obeys, receives rebukefrom Norway, and, in fine, makes vow before his uncle never more to givethe assay of arms against your majesty." Laertes found out about his father's death, and immediately returnedhome. He confronted the King and accused him of the murder of his father. Claudius told Laertes that Hamlet was responsible for his father's death. He then decides to kill Hamlet to avenge the death of his father. He andClaudius concoct a plot to kill Hamlet. Hamlet dies of wounds from thepoisoned tipped sword Laertes used. "...Hamlet, thou art slain...Thetreacherous instrument is in thy, unbated and envenom'd..." Hamlet was deeply sorrowed by his father's death. He spoke to a ghost, andthis ghost stated that his father's death was a murder, by the hand of hisuncle, Claudius. "The serpent that did sting thy father's life now wearshis crown." Hamlet was astonished, and then swore vengeance for hisfather's death. He then proceeded to try and prove his uncle's guilt, andthen finally kills him while he himself is dying of poisoned woundsinflicted by Laertes during their duel. "The point envenomed too! Thenvenom, to thy work...Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, drink offthis potion,-is thy union here? Follow my mother." This left the Kingdead, and his father's death avenged. The lack of thought used in exacting the revenge led to the deaths of bothLaertes and Hamlet. Laertes planned with Claudius to kill Hamlet with thepoisoned tipped sword, but they had not thought that the sword might beused against them. With Laertes believing the King's accusations thatHamlet had murdered his father, he was in a blind rage, and would notlisten to Hamlet's explanation and apology. "I am satisfied in nature...tomy revenge...I stand aloof...and will no reconcilement...But till that time, I doreceive your offer'd love like love, and will not wrong it.". He

The Declaration from Birmingha essays

The Declaration from Birmingha essays Although the time periods and over all reasons were different, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. kept one common goal in mind, freedom from their oppressors. The Declaration of Independence and Letter from Birmingham Jail are great examples of how Americans were able to stand up against corrupt ways and break free from the chains of injustice. Even though these two documents seem nothing alike at a quick glance, one is able to note that they are almost exactly the same when you inspect the goals, style, and logic upheld in both documents. Both Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. had one common goal in mind when they put pen to the paper and inscribed their names into history forever; both men were leaders of an alliance of people who had been treated unjust for many years and demanded a resolution, both men were fighting against a long train of abuses with brutal injustice and shameful humiliation, and some people might even consider the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. committed treason. ( Martin Luther King Jr., in a sense, struck up an ethical war against the American people.) Basically, the only difference between them was the people they were fighting for. Thomas Jefferson was fighting for the American people in order to free us from the tyranny of Britain, and Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for African Americans in order to free them from a blanket of racism. Style was a major factor in setting up the documents and presenting a plethora of information to the people. Jefferson and King kept the same strategy at hand when they went about writing their documents. They made sure to cover the entire spectrum and holster emotional, ethical, and logical appeal in order to leave no space for forgiveness of the oppressor. Emotional appeal was able to dig its way into the hearts of people and cause them to feel sorry for the oppressed. Ethica...

How did the differences in Persian and Greek political and military Essay

How did the differences in Persian and Greek political and military organization determine the course of the Persian Wars - Essay Example It may be more than substantial to note that most of the facts on the Persian Wars were written by Greeks in what can be perceived as less than objective detail of account. The tyrants who were placed into office after their defeat at Ephesus in 498 B.C. created further conflict among the Hellinistic states. Sparta lend a hand to Alcmaeonidae to overthrow Hippias in 510 B.C. but it was still not enough to ensure a lasting alliance. The eventual coalition came to be in defense of Ionia wherein the leading factions were able to set aside their differences to be able to overcome Persian autocracy. ii The emergence of Greece as a strong compounded force made it difficult for the already dwindling Persian force to defeat it. As the war fizzled out, the huge Persian Army, which overshadows the Greeks in sheer number proved to be inadequate in comparison to the combined cunning and force of the Greeks. The internal conflicts among the different convictions within Athens in reference to other city-states were one of the main factors which contributed to the prolonged indifference to finally halt the

Traditional medicine vs alternative medicine Research Paper

Traditional medicine vs alternative medicine - Research Paper Example Health and well-being has been among the top priorities of humanity from ages with a common objective to meet people’s inevitable requirements for emotional and physical curing. The role of religious values and community structures cannot be ignored in the evolution of medicines. Today, there is an increasing awareness of CAM in industrialized nations. Though the western medicine is scientifically based, and its popularity, supremacy, and guarantees are comparatively high, a large number of populations cannot afford its benefits. For instance, studies suggests that majority of people (80%) or more in developing nations can barely have enough money for the most fundamental medical dealings, drugs, and vaccines (Debas et al., n.d). Traditional medicine (TM) as the word suggest â€Å"refers to health practices, approaches, information and values incorporating plant, animal and mineral based medicines, spiritual therapies, manual techniques and exercises, used individually or in addition to treat, diagnose and prevent illnesses or maintain well-being†. TM has gained popularity in countries such as Africa, Asia and Latin America for their basic health care requirements as it is more economical and is integrated with the societal values. There are data that suggests that 80% population in Africa is depending on traditional medicine for health care. When the indigenously developed TM moves out of its local boundaries and is practiced in other nations particularly the developed ones, it is known as â€Å"Complementary† or â€Å"Alternative medicine† (CAM) (Photius Coutsoukis, 2008). Hence it can be said that both TM and CAM have similarities in various aspects. Since the vocabulary complementary and alternative medicines exemplify practices and products that common people decides as additions to or as substitutes to Western allopathic therapeutic approaches, these terms are being used indiscriminately (Straus 2004). In the industrial or the so called developed nations such as the United States, an amazingly great percentage of people go for a combination of treatments suitable for them. They also take great care of safety and efficacy of these practices. The medical practices that are followed from ages and that advanced amid indigenous peoples has gained popularity in other countries. For instance, there are several tourists from different countries visiting India basically for the treatment using Ayurveda which is a traditional medicine developed over the years in India. Today, alternative medicine is popular in developing countries, and its recognition in developed nations is growing tremendously. In India, the most popular alternative medicines were recognized as Vedic medicines or Aired that has evolved through ages. The main aspire of Ayurveda medicine is harmonizing the mind, soul and body. Ayurveda takes the advantage of the rich biodiversity in India and mainly includes products from herbs, vegetables, fruits and natural minerals. There are chronological facts that even invasive procedures were practiced in ancient Ayurveda. Some of the practitioners of Ayurveda in modern society have integrated yoga and meditation processes and massaging techniques to overcome various health challenges. This makes it a part of alternative medicine. Traditional beliefs such as a strong mind and body could never fall sick have lead to the development of Chinese treatments. The Chinese treated the human mind and not the disease. Techniques such as Acupressure and Acupuncture were basically developed in China. This traditional medicine was accomplished for centuries and its idea is based on Taoist philosophy. These practices also extended to Japan and Korea and came to be known as the Oriental branch

Dr Jekylls experiments concerning Mr Hyde Essay Example for Free

Dr Jekylls experiments concerning Mr Hyde Essay How do you think that Stevenson wishes us to judge Dr Jekylls experiments concerning Mr Hyde? I think that Stevenson wants the reader to feel that Jekyll gets what he deserves for releasing Hyde. Although I think that this is his overall intention, he gives Jekylls own justification for it, which dampens the blame from him slightly. However, the justification, when looked at more deeply, conveys another message from Stevenson, that Jekyll knows what he is doing and therefore commits a crime in releasing Hyde. Stevenson shows his feelings about Hyde and about Jekylls guilt by lavishing Hyde with horrible descriptions. These fall into four main categories, the darkness, the evil, the animal, and peoples reaction to Hyde. Firstly, whenever Hyde appears, it is always night or twilight showing that there is something dark and mysterious about him. Hydes eyes have a blackness in them which terrifies people. There are several references to fire and hell, suggesting that Hyde is a daemon, that has been released from hell. He is actually called, the child of hell meaning he is pure evil. Also, the fires can be interpreted as trying to ward off evil spirits, such as Hyde. Hydes soul is described as foul, and his character callous and violent. He is described as having Satans signature upon him, as if he has been made by the devil and sent up from hell. Hyde is also frequently compared to an animal. When people talk to Hyde he is savage like a wild animal and has a habit of hissing like a serpent. He is often replaced with it, suggesting that Hyde is an animal. Several times Hyde is actually referred to as the creature and his fury being ape-like. There is something primitive about him, something troglodytic. In even greater amounts, perhaps, are the reactions that people have when they come face to face with Hyde, and even from a distance. Every single person that has met him feels loathing and fear, and in some cases, a desire to kill, most people feel a simple hatred of him, yet none of them know why. The extent of this feeling is described as hitherto unknown disgust- absolutely appalling revulsion to him. There is something about Hyde that is not visible, that makes people react like this, described as the radiance of a foul soul. Many people search for a deformity in Hyde that is making them feel this way but fail to find it. Hyde has this aura of repulsion around him that makes any decent person draw back from him. When he touches Lanyons arm. Lanyon feels an icy pang that goes up his spine. Obviously, this is the height of Hydes effect, that when you touch him you shiver with discomfort. Perhaps the most startling aspect of Hyde is that when Jekyll showed Lanyon that he is, in fact, Hyde, Lanyon is so sickened by the thought of it that he becomes ill and dies in a few weeks. This shows absolutely that Jekyll does a terrible thing in unleashing Hyde, and actually telling somebody caused them to die, and Lanyon is one of Jekylls closest friends. These images are put into the story frequently, and the effect of this is to make the reader feel that Jekyll has released a being so foul that he deserves whatever punishment he got. And still Stevenson piles it on. He goes into horrific detail about Hyde brutally murdering Sir Danvers Carew, this is clear evidence that he wishes us to feel that Jekyll is to blame for his own experiments. Stevensons description of the murder is really over the top, it starts off with Hyde having an ill-contained impatience. Sir Danvers Carew is merely inquiring his way to Hyde when he broke out with a great flame of anger. Sir Danvers Carew is surprised by Hydes reaction and took a step back. At that moment though, Hyde snapped, he broke all bounds and starts trampling on him. With his stick he is hailing down a storm of blows, and Sir Danvers Carews bones are audibly shattered. Hyde then runs away, leaving the body incredibly mangled in the middle of the road. Hyde makes no attempt to conceal it, and the horrific details of the murder can only mean the Stevenson wishes us to judge Jekyll as responsible for such a crime. Even there Stevenson does not stop putting on more and more emphasis on the utterly diabolical nature of Hyde. In Dr Jekylls full statement of the case, he states that Hyde gets delight from every blow and runs away, gloating over his crime. Jekyll uses the word I, which is another of Stevensons ways of showing that he wishes us to think that Jekyll is directly responsible. In Jekylls justification of his actions, he mentions that he enjoyed the freedom that Hyde gave him. He fulfilled his pleasures (which are unspecified), and soon the pleasures turned from undignified to monstrous. When Jekyll remembered what he had done whilst in Hydes body he is aghast at himself. He refers to Hyde as me therefore showing that he is responsible because he did it. Jekyll became careless, and thought that nobody would trace him under his impenetrable mantle. Jekyll also tries to cover up Hydes activities by giving to charities and balancing it out. These two statements suggest that Jekyll knew that he is responsible because he is thinking about the possibility of him being caught. Jekyll also felt pity for Hyde, suggesting that he is not at all innocent. Jekyll pays for his crimes heavily though, and this is one of the very few times in the story when Stevenson releases Jekyll from the blame. Jekyll is put to considerable expense to pay for Hydes actions. When he tramples over the girl, he is forced to pay à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½100 to her parents. Not to mention the fact that he loses one of his closest friends by telling him and ends up committing suicide to pay for it. But I think that Stevenson wishes us to view even these with severity; firstly, Jekyll taunts Lanyon by bribing him with, power and knowledge, in such a way that Lanyon cannot have refused to know what Hydes secret is. On telling Lanyon, Lanyon dies. Jekyll wants to tell him about his experiments, he wanted to show off, and he insults Lanyon by referring to himself as his superior. Jekyll obviously enjoys being Hyde, because he suffers a horrible pain when he transforms into him, and would not bother to do it if he wanted to. Sometimes, Jekyll has to triple the dosage in order to transform, something that he wouldnt do unless he is willing to risk his life to transform. In conclusion, I think that judging from the amount of description that has been put into the Hyde, and the number of references to his joy at being evil, that it is fair to say that Stevenson wishes us to feel that Jekyll is to blame for his experiments and that he pays the price for it with his death.

Willy Russell’s Intention by the End of the Play :: Educating Rita Plays Willy Russell Essays

Willy Russell’s Intention by the End of the Play ‘Blood Brothers’ The stage production of ‘Blood Brothers’ helps to emphasise the social difference between Mickey and Edward. There are two main sets used, one for Mrs. Johnstone’s house and street and one which is the inside of Mrs. Lyons house. Mrs. Johnstone’s house is a poorer set; there are smashed windows and graffiti written on the walls. The houses are small close together terrace houses built out of red brick. There is lack of colour in this set Willy Russell is trying to show the gloominess, coldness and poverty of their area with this set. Whereas, Mrs. Lyons house is colourful and bright. There is a bookshelf which shows that they are privileged enough to have books and that this family is refined and educated. There is a carpet that is rolled out every time that the Lyons house is on stage. This shows comfort, softness and warmth as does the fireplace in the Lyons house. This is a contrast between the Johnstons house where they have broken windows which shows coolness and discomfort. This shows the difference between two classes in a Thatcherite Britain at the time to the audience. At the Johnstone’s house the lighting is always dim, not well lit, to show the gloominess and poverty in their lives. However the lighting in the Lyon’s house is always very bright. This is to show to the audience that the life of the Lyons is brighter than the Johnstones. In parts of the play (especially I found when the narrator was speaking) the lighting was red and black I think Willy Russell’s intention here is to show that there is death in the play and symbolises the bloodshed. Sometimes one person would have the spotlight on just them so the background is black. This picks out this one person so all our attention is focused on this person and the darkness in the background is very gloomy like a dark hole to symbolise the emptiness that will be in some of their lives because of the deaths at the end. There is a musical theme to suggest the same idea or place theme. Like the music that is played at the Johnstones house. When this song comes on it is to show the poverty of the Johnstons. The song that I remember the most is the game when Mickey, Sammy and their friends are all children and they are shooting each other. The words of the song are very childish and it’s just a game. However when they become older this game becomes reality and a lot more serious and it’s not so

Public Sphere

â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere. Public Sphere â€Å"The idea that a public sphere to which everyone can contribute on equal terms is simply a fantasy. † To believe that there exists a public sphere where every single member contributes on an equal level is highly unrealistic. Correspondingly, many academics have critically supported as well as argued against this view. There will be discussion of the public sphere and various writer’s views and concepts regarding it, with specific references to Howley (2007) and Turnbull (2006), as well as Hackett (2010), Holub (1994), Apppadurai (2000), Meikle (2008), and Fraser (1990). The different academics will introduce and discuss; an ideal and flawed public sphere, a democratic public sphere, and the important roles of audiences and participants. Furthermore, there will be a particular focus on Habermas, his theories and findings consequently deconstructing his ideas on his bourgeois public sphere theory. Overall, the key argument in this discussion is that the public sphere is ideally seen as an arena for equal opinions, however pragmatically this is not the case and it is difficult to achieve it because of the different factors that exist between individuals and participants. Holub (1994) explains the public sphere as; â€Å"a realm in which opinions are exchanged between private persons unconstrained (ideally) by external pressures. Theoretically open to all citizens and founded in the family, it is the place where something approaching public opinion is formed. It should be distinguished both from the state, which represents official power, and from the economic structures of civil society as a whole. Its function is actually to mediate between society and state; it is the arena in which the public organizes itself, formulates public opinion, and expresses its desires vis-a-vis [face to face with] the government†. Similarly, a majority of modern conceptualisations of the public sphere relate back to Jurgen Habermas and his bourgeois public sphere. Habermas defines it as a space of reflective discussion about issues and subjects of a common interest, following an informed democratic procedure (Meikle 2008). Thus, a relevant example would be; supplying different resources of media to developing countries in preparation for an election or some sort political decision. By doing this, individuals are being provided an informed democratic process, allowing them access to sources of independent media to make a more informed decision before they elect. This is often present in events such as elections as it is an arena where private people come together as a public; as one. By looking back, the characteristics of the public sphere have not changed when comparing the old and contemporary. Meikle (2008) discusses how Habermas emphasized the role of periodical press in the development of his public sphere (p. 129), describing it as the ‘coffee-house culture’ and how at the time people would sit and discuss topics and events which would in turn lead to influencing the political culture of the 17th and 18th century. However, it must also be noted that Habermas’ accepted criticism to his notion, as well as making it clear that the public sphere is not given to every type of society, and it does not own a fixed status. Furthermore, Meikle (2008) also likens the public sphere to a place where participants can discuss their ideas freely. However, it is important to regard these definitions as the ‘idyllic’ public sphere, Holub (1994) mentions ‘ideally’ in brackets, because realistically it is unachievable to have this sort of ‘perfect’ public sphere where everyone contributes equally. Many academics have criticized Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere, questioning if it ever really existed, and if it did, would it really be able to ever exist again? On that note, Hackett (2010) brings forth the notions that this concept of Habermas’ public sphere that presumes rationality, equality is false, and consequently, he critiques it, alongside Fraser (1990), saying that; â€Å"it embeds a masculinist notion of rationality, and a taken-for granted gendered distinction between private and public spheres. It ignores the ‘counter’ and minority public spheres of subordinate groups, the intrusion of social and economic inequalities into the processes of the public sphere, and the conversion of public opinion into effective state policy through representative political mechanisms. (2010, p. 4). Additionally, Fraser (1990) looks at how Habermas’ theory of the bourgeois public sphere constitutes a number of exclusions, in particular excluding women and individuals of lower social class, as it was not accessible to all. Lower class people did not have the resources and women did not have the same rights, privileges and power as men, in society, to have their equal say. Moreover some of these factors are still relevant, such as the social classes and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, Fraser (1990) mentions the exclusion of subordinate groups, where she states â€Å"subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard [and] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no. ’† (1990, p. 64). It is evident, that this access, whether it is technological, power or status related, to contributing to the public sphere still does not equate to equality. Rather, the factors that need to be considered are not access alone, but also what kind of ‘voice’ the speaker possesses in society. All of which are dependent on a number of factors, such as the speaker’s status in society, gender, age, class, education, culture and country. Moreover, public spheres are relevant in today’s new social media’s like Twitter, Facebook and various blogs. They create an arena in which social sites, like these, generate meanings which are then distributed and discussed amongst a large audience, consequently becoming a public sphere and letting interaction occur with all its participants. This emergence of social media has called for a new public sphere to be formed. Meikle (2008) discusses how media is an integral aspect of the public sphere and that in present society, it is inescapable. Media plays an obligatory part; today’s â€Å"newspapers and magazines, [internet,] radio and television are the media of the public sphere† (Habermas in Meikle, 2008, p. 128). However, for Habermas this role that media plays is an issue, stating that the world shaped by the mass media is only a public sphere on the exterior; only in ‘appearance’ and nothing else. Though the public sphere cannot be regarded as equal, Meikle does suggest that it can be look at in a positive sense; regarding it as a useful standard against which we can measure how the media actually do operate (Meikle, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, Habermas’ ideal public sphere has often been said that it is being compromised by contemporary tabloid media and culture. It produces a blur between the private and public spheres in regards to celebrity culture and making their private lives a public concern and discussion. As well as regarding media as just pure entertainment, the tabloid media are constructing participants who only consume what they are being fed by the media instead of making their own informed decisions (Meikle 2008). Furthermore, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) believes that our contemporary political mediascapes, which refers to the â€Å"distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information [such as] newspapers, magazines and†¦ Television stations† (Apppadurai, 2000, p. 326), are in fact are a long way away from being an ‘ideal public sphere’. He looks at how â€Å"public opinion is no longer produced by the public, instead, public opinion is now something produced for the public† (2008, p. 129) we are being influenced and there is no opportunity to discuss ideas freely, or for there to be complete equality in the contribution to the public sphere because of the different factors that come into play. Similarly, Habermas (in Meikle 2008) uses the term ‘equals’ in regards to participants in the public sphere. Yet, Meikle (2008), in accordance to Fraser’s (1990) view, discusses how the public sphere cannot guarantee each person’s contribution to be of equal amount. This is because of the reasons and factors that exist in society such as; power and status; celebrity power over ordinary individuals, access to resources; developed and developing countries, and gender; the imbalance of power between men and women. Turnbull (2006) looks at the roles of audiences, and why their role is so vital in instances like these. Turnbull discusses the media’s audience and argues how media is looked at as a centrality in our lives and world, some have less or no access and the social and cultural context of the individual is â€Å"embedded in their access to and use of various media technologies†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ The â€Å"participation [of audiences] in an increasingly mediated public sphere may be largely conditional† (p. 80), as it alters the stance on every participant having an ‘equal’ contribution to the public sphere. Howley (2007) states that people need to promote a more democratic media culture, for a place that individuals can share their mutual interests and concerns, discuss topics. He supports that there is not one sole public sphere because there is not a single medium that is ‘perfect’ (pp. 357-358). Furthermore, Howley (2007) brings forth the idea that the public sphere is the centrality for media institutions but is also significant for media students, providing a theoretical perspective; it helps to emphasize the essential and crucial relationships between democracy and modern communication systems. As the role of a democracy, a citizen who is informed and wishes to engage, needs to be accommodated by the media; providing them resources of news, information and opinion, for that individual to then be able to use this to identify themselves towards this common interest. However, this notion of a democratically public sphere has issues that arise, the main one being the nature and conduct of public discourse in a highly mobile and heterogeneous society. By regarding societies that have things like ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, partisan politics, and economic stratification present, the sole idea of achieving agreement on matters of public policy seem inaccessible and unachievable. Also, another issue is the â€Å"contemporary media systems – characterised by unprecedented consolidation of ownership and control on the one hand, and the fragmentation of mass audiences into even smaller ‘niche markets’ on the other – makes issues of access to and participation in public discourse equally problematic† (pp. 343-344). Thus, this idea of an equal and democratic public sphere is difficult to have and carry out. In conclusion, the ideal public sphere tries to offer a place where people are able to discuss their ideas freely between one another. However, to believe that individuals can discuss in a completely free manner, with no influence and be complete equals, contributing on equal terms, is a far-fetched hope. There can only ever be a place of equality and rationality in an ideal society, as factors of social, linguistic and cultural inequalities, rights and even freedom of speech of an individual, all affect any possibility of equal communication and contribution between people in a public sphere.