Example of a Critical essay on Law about:
critical theory / justice / law / civil disobedience / society
The develpment of the critical theory as related to the meaning of justice within the society.
Why is critical theory considered to be a very special knowledge? What is the difference between the law and the justice for the society? How does the “civil disobedience” influence the law?
As the relationships in the society are very dynamic and people learn how to defend their rights and interests, critical theory suggests a speculation from evidence that the law has grown old and does not completely keep the society interests to the level it should.
Critical Theory Discussion Essay
Introduction: Critical theory may be considered to be a special knowledge that is directed to the achievement of an “ideal”. The “ideal” of the critical theory is basically the ideal of the Enlightenment (XVIII century) - “that is, a rational, just, and humane society”[Bob Nowlan]. As nowadays law regulates the “justice” in the society, the correlation between law and the main goal of the critical theory is obvious. Its main point is related to the belief in the “complete imperfection” of the law and therefore it claims that this “imperfection” prevents society from having productive relationship with the government and within its own members. As the problem of “civil disobedience” is a matter of a mismatch of interests in a society and for this reason it is also an aspect to be subjected to the criticism of this theory. ”Civil disobedience” is always caused by the violation of moral principles by the government and defends these principles by the acts of disobedience. As the relationships in the society are very dynamic and people learn how to defend their rights and interests, critical theory suggests a speculation from evidence that the law has grown old and does not completely keep the society interests to the level it should.
The acts of “civil disobedience” can be prevented through making the laws support not only the interests of the “majority”(the ruling class is usually called “majority”), but also take into account the importance of other interests too. Therefore, from the point of view of the critical theory the main goal of the law should be the search of a compromise between the interests represented in the society and as a result the achievement the “ideal”. The elimination of the “society injustice” should be the priority of the government. Rawls claims that “civil disobedience” is the last “tool” to introduce in order to restore justice. So, from the point of view of the critical theory the aim is not to let these social “breakouts” to happen. “Civil disobedience” is always an act of protest against the oppression or some kind of injustice. The law should not accuse, but defend the society representatives. The only way to start a “just” society and not to face “civil disobedience” analyze the present law and political system. By this analysis some vital contradictions may be found. These contradictions a very important, especially the ones concerning “the breach of the principle of equal liberty and the principle of justice” as Rawls pointed out. ”The principles of justice” as the critical theory insists should be the basic principles and doctrines of the law. Dworkin makes a stress on the right not to obey, than the duty to obey the imposing beliefs. The main point of the critical theory is that the government should be responsible for the contents of the law and that justice, and not single-sided advantage should be its main principle. To be so it needs to take into account various aspects of the society life: physiological, ideological, psychological, emotional, historical, social, cultural, economic, linguistic, semiotic, aesthetic, religious, ethical and other aspects and to do it properly.
Conclusion: As we discuss the correlation between people’s perception of justice and law and how they influence each other, it is very important to analyze it from the point of view of the critical theory. As the critical theory considers “justice” within the society to be one of the primary goals of law it is very importance to make people believe in the existance of “justice”. In order to provide it to people, to the whole society in general the term “justice” is supposed to have a very objective base and not to support only one group or formation. The laws that eventually cause people to rebel, that damage their moral principles are not perspective, because they will be accepted by a very small amount of people only. This is what critical theory is against of. As the critical theory includes the economic, political, social, and cultural aspects of the modern society it is necessary to mention that it certainly sees the problem of “justice” and law from all these dimensions. Therefore it makes a “perfect” analysis and by this gets closer to its longing to make the social interactions “ideal”.
Essay about Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations
1644 Words7 Pages
Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations
The critical theory of communication developed by Stanley Deetz was designed to explore ways to insure the organizations’ health while increasing the representation of diverse human interests. He does this first by showing that corporations have become political as well as economic institutions. Deetz then employs advances in communication theory to point out how communication practices within a corporation can distort decision making. Finally, he outlines how workplaces can become more productive and democratic through communication reforms.
Humanists feel that meanings are in people not words. Deetz accepts this but goes another step and wants to know whose meanings are…show more content…
Managers in the corporate world are driven by one thing: money. But what else makes people work? They are driven to deal with conflict and not to “openly discuss” it. They are coerced to be able to run things smoothly. This makes things seem like managers only care about how the company is ran rather than ethics and personal feelings. The terms “company policy” and “just doing my job” are ways to explain this criteria.
For example, in the movie, Roger and Me, the deputy who is ordered to go around to people’s houses and inform them that they are being evicted from their home, describes his doings as “just doing my job”. He avoids conflict in that he gives a reason for what he has to do, whether it is unethical or if it hurts other peoples feelings. Deetz does say that most corporate success is not an effect of managerial control. Control is costly and creates resentment of workers.
This first criteria Deetz discusses is probably the way many organizations are dealt with. However, in the current world that we live in, topics such as sexual harassment and sexism can no longer be taken lightly, or should I say can they be included in “company policy”. Many more companies today are using human resource models of managerialism rather that the traditional model that has been the only form of controlling a company up until the last half of the