Ask Google

Results for what does the child wish to do with... translation from English to Hindi

Human contributions

From professional translators, enterprises, web pages and freely available translation repositories.

Add a translation

English

Hindi

Info

English

what does the child wish to do with the breeze

Hindi

बच्चा हवा के साथ क्या करना चाहता है

Last Update: 2019-12-11
Usage Frequency: 1
Quality:

Reference: Anonymous

English

what does the child do to baby

Hindi

sister ke baby ko kya kahte hai

Last Update: 2018-11-23
Usage Frequency: 1
Quality:

Reference: Anonymous

English

One dollar and eighty–seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one’s cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied. Three times Della counted it. One dollar and eighty–seven cents. And the next day would be Christmas.There was clearly nothing to do but flop down on the shabby little couch and howl. So Della did it. Which instigates the moral reflection that life is made up of sobs, sniffles, and smiles, with sniffles predominating.While the mistress of the home is gradually subsiding from the first stage to the second, take a look at the home. A furnished flat at $8 per week. It did not exactly beggar description, but it certainly had that word on the lookout for the mendicancy squad.In the vestibule below was a letter–box into which no letter would go, and an electric button from which no mortal finger could coax a ring. Also appertaining thereunto was a card bearing the name “Mr. James Dillingham Young.”The “Dillingham” had been flung to the breeze during a former period of prosperity when its possessor was being paid $30 per week. Now, when the income was shrunk to $20, though, they were thinking seriously of contracting to a modest and unassuming D. But whenever Mr. James Dillingham Young came home and reached his flat above he was called “Jim” and greatly hugged by Mrs. James Dillingham Young, already introduced to you as Della. Which is all very good.Della finished her cry and attended to her cheeks with the powder rag. She stood by the window and looked out dully at a gray cat walking a gray fence in a gray backyard. Tomorrow would be Christmas Day, and she had only $1.87 with which to buy Jim a present. She had been saving every penny she could for months, with this result. Twenty

Hindi

QUERY LENGTH LIMIT EXCEDEED. MAX ALLOWED QUERY : 500 CHARS

Last Update: 2017-12-04
Usage Frequency: 1
Quality:

Reference: Anonymous
Warning: Contains invisible HTML formatting

English

hindi essay about visit to old age home I was on my way to visit a home for the aged during a school trip, wondering how I would feel when I saw them and how they live away from their families. I have heard and read a lot about the good care of old people on TV and magazines but this painted a much nicer picture than the reality I found. We spoke to the patients and heard about the food they are given and the place they live in and I found their plight tragic. One old man cried as he told us how he used to sacrifice everything for his children and his children's gift to him in return was to throw him in the old-age home, never to visit him. They all long to return to their homes and live with their family. They feel cheated after all the years of love and care they had given to their children, but their children seems to have left them to their fate. Allah has instructed man on the treatment of his parents in the Holy Qur'an many times, and respect for parents is one of the good deeds to enter paradise. Our parents sacrificed everything for our happiness and future. So it is improper to act as if they deserve no respect and love. Every person who puts a parent in a home for the aged should ask: How will I feel if my children did the same to me when I am old? Shocking From Ms H.A. Al Ktheery, Abu Dhabi. Old age is a time when we need the love and care of our loved ones most. However, in our country some old people are put in homes for the aged and are conveniently forgotten by their children. While the government has built special homes for the elderly and provide them the care they need, it is no substitute for one's own home. These homes are for those who are childless and do not have anyone to look after them. Surprisingly, in the homes for the aged, there are many inmates who are put there as their children find them a burden. I remember a photograph published in a newspaper about some of these old people and reading about an old woman who said she was thrown out of the house by her son just to please his wife! While an old handicapped man was put in one of the homes by his son to get rid of the burden of looking after him. I am shocked at these happenings. ************************************************ Rights due to the Parents in Old Age None can deny the parents favor upon their children. The parents are the underlying reason for the existence of the child. They have reared him in his babyhood and experienced painstaking efforts to provide full comfort and sound well-being. Your mother had you in her womb while you were a parasite there sharing her food and whole being for nine months. In this context, Allah says: "And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship..." (31:14) It is a preliminary stage followed by incubation and breast feeding for two years marked by peculiar fatigue and hardships. The father, on his part, is meanwhile also fully engaged catering for his child and bringing him up, not sparing any sort of instructions or guidance he could provide his child with; the child, meanwhile, a helpless creature neither harmful nor useful to himself. Allah has always enjoined that children should be good and thankful to their parents and He says: "And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years ; give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination."(31:14) "... And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honor. And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: "My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was small."(17:23,24) The right of parents upon you is to do good with them. You should be good to them physically as well as monetarily, and also with your words and your actions. You should be obedient to them unless in it there is disobedience to Allah or there is some harm to you. Be kindhearted to them and serve them as they need your help. In their old age, in case of any ailment or weakness, never consider them a burden on you neither speak to them harshly, because one day you will also become as old as they are. You will be a father as they are your parents and, if life permits, soon you will be an old man before your children just like your parents became old before you. So you will be needing the help of your children as your parents need you today. If you are doing good to your parents then you must have the good news of a great reward and a better showing from your children, because whoever remained good to his parents, his children will also be good to him; and whoever annoyed his parents, will also be annoyed by his children. It is the process of recompense that deeds provide the results accordingly " as you sow, so will you reap. Allah has ranked the rights due to the parents high next only to His and the Prophet"s, Allah says: "Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents..." (4:36) And Allah also says: "...give thanks to Me and to your parents... (31:14) Being dutiful to one"s parents assumes priority even over Jihad (fight in the cause of Allah) as is narrated in the tradition of Ibn Mas"ud(R.A.) when he asked the Prophet (peace be upon Him) : "Which deed is most beloved by Allah" "He said, "Observing prayer in time." And next to that" He said: "Being dutiful to one's parents." And next to that" He answered: "Jihad (fight in the cause of Allah)." This Hadith (Prophetic saying) reported by Bukhari and Muslim points directly to the significance of the rights due to one's parents. Unfortunately, most people have forgotten these rights, instead disobedience and severance of ties have risen to harden the hearts, and even they contempt and detest their parents;especially in old age. Some people have even deemed themselves superior to those two old good creatures. A recompense is sure in store for those disobedient children, sooner or later. Definitely, our aged parents, now that they cannot look after themselves, need all our attention at home, the home they reared us in; and definitely NOT AN OLD AGE HOME !

Hindi

वृद्धाश्रम के लिए यात्रा के बारे में हिंदी निबंध

Last Update: 2017-02-11
Usage Frequency: 4
Quality:

Reference: Bhupals
Warning: Contains invisible HTML formatting

English

Fukuyama Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

Hindi

Francis Fukuyama From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama image from BloggingHeads.tv podcast Fukuyama in 2005 Born October 27, 1952 (age 63) Chicago, Illinois, U.S Website fukuyama.stanford.edu Institutions George Mason University[1] Johns Hopkins University Stanford University Main interests Developing nations Governance International political economy Nation-building and democratization Strategic and security issues Notable ideas End of history Influences [show] Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3] Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University since July 2010.[4] Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.[4] He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation.[5] Contents 1 Early life 2 Education 3 Writings 3.1 Neoconservatism 3.2 Fukuyama's current views 4 Affiliations 5 Personal life 6 See also 7 Selected bibliography 7.1 Scholarly works (partial list) 7.2 Books 7.3 Essays 8 See also 9 References 10 External links Early life Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War.[6] His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies.[7][8][9] His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University.[10] Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese.[7][8] His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania in 1967.[10] Education Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom.[8][11] He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University.[8] There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East.[8][11] In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.[8] Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan. Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.[11] Writings Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism: What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such.... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[12][13] He continued to remain a relevant and cited public intellectual leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted."[14] One of the main reasons for the massive criticism against The End of History was the aggressive stance that it took towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position.[15] The fact that Marxism and fascism had been proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.[16] Being a work that both praised the ideals of a group that had fallen out of favor and challenged the premises of the group that had replaced them, it was bound to create some controversy. Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk.[17] One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal. In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules. In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong. In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.[18] Neoconservatism As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.[19] Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.[20] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[21] In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[22] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[22] Fukuyama's current views Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[23] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[24] At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly,"[25] Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality."[25] He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.[25] Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush,[26] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed] Overstating the threat of radical Islam to the US Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general. Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending,[27] but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads. In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:[28] believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:[28] [W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:[29] I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale. Affiliations Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.[30] In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a quarterly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He is currently chairman of the editorial board.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the Board of Trustees.[11] Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.[11] Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS). Fukuyama is on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.[31] Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s. Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.[32] Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity. Fukuyama is on the executive board of the Inter-American Dialogue. Personal life Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has a keen interest in early-American furniture, which he reproduces by hand.[33] He is keenly interested in sound recording and reproduction, saying, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job."[25] Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a UCLA graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation.[8][11] He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John away in school. See also Daniel Bell Selected bibliography Scholarly works (partial list) The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968, Rand research report, 1980 Books The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0 The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3 America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6 The Origins of Political Order. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8 Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7 Essays The End of History?, The National Interest, Summer 1989 Women and the Evolution of World Politics, Foreign Affairs October 1998 Immigrants and Family Values, The Immigration Reader 1998. ISBN 1-55786-916-2 Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999 Social capital and civil society, paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999 The neoconservative moment, The National Interest, Summer 2004 After neoconservatism, The New York Times Magazine, February 19, 2006 Supporter's voice now turns on Bush, The New York Times Magazine, March 14, 2006 Why shouldn't I change my mind?, Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2006 The Fall of America, Inc. Newsweek, October 13, 2008 The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia Asia Policy January 2007 Left Out, The American Interest, January 2011 Is China Next?, The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011 The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012 What is Governance? Governance (journal), March 2013

Last Update: 2016-07-05
Usage Frequency: 1
Quality:

Reference: Anonymous
Warning: Contains invisible HTML formatting

English

विद्वान सेटिंग 1 Students’ Research Global Media Journal – Indian Edition/ISSN 2249 - 5835 Sponsored by the University of Calcutta/ www.caluniv.ac.in Summer Issue / June 2012 Vol. 3/No.1 GENDER REFLECTIONS IN MAINSTREAM HINDI CINEMA Nidhi Shendurnikar Tere Junior Resea rch Scholar Department of Political Science, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Gujarat , India Website: http://www.msubaroda.ac.in Email: mailtonidhi@sify.com , Blog: www.68pagesofmylife.blospot.com Abstract : Cinema is meant and believed to entertain, to take the viewer to a world that is starkly different from the real one, a world which provides escape from the daily grind of life. Cinema is a popular media of mass consumption which plays a key role in moulding opinions, constructing images and reinforcing dominant cultural values. The paper deals with representations of women characters in mainstream Bollywood movies. It is deemed appropriate to exami ne this issue because women are a major chunk of the country‟s population and hence their portrayal on screen is crucial in determining the furtherance of already existing stereotypes in the society. The paper begins with a discussion on the field of femin ist film criticism and how mainstream Hindi Cinema has restricted itself to defined sketches of womanhood. It also undertakes some glimpses from popular films to analyse this process of stereotyping the „other‟ – considering that reality in mainstream cine ma is constructed from the male view point. A section is devoted to discussion on contemporary realistic brand of cinema and its understanding of women . In conclusion , a debate ensues on whether mainstream Hindi cinema has been successful in portraying Ind ian women of different shades in a society dominated by patriarchal values. Key Words : Cinema, popular, media, women, Bollywood, movies, stereotypes, feminist, mainstream, patriarchal Feminist Film Criticism The issues of media, identity and gender are being discussed all over today. They have become integral to the discipline of media studies. The reason is the popularity and diversity of media as a source of mass consumption and its influence on constructing ideas and generating debate. The media scene in India has expanded in the recent times as there is a plethora of media choices available to the audiences. Media structures and systems have also undergone a sea change with privatization and globalization. Huge corporations with their own profit motiv es own media houses. Media has been able to transcend borders and look at issues more holistically rather than in the context of nationalism. Hence, these developments are bound to affect the manner in which media scrutinizes and covers any issue – gender being an important one. Women are also major consumers of mass media and thus the way they are represented in media coverage is a major concern for the discipline. Several international forums have recognized the ramifications of such a transformed media e nvironment on women‟s access to media, their role in the media structure and the presentation of their perspective in media coverage. i In this paper, there has been an attempt to examine the relationship between women and popular Hindi cinema. While cinema in India is in itself a diverse strand of expression incorporating mainstream cinema which holds popular appeal, art/parallel cinema that engages with social issues, middle cinema and regional language cinema. The explorations in this paper are limited to mainstream/popular Hindi cinema better known as 2 „Bollywood‟ 1 because such cinema is seen to exercise widespread influence over people and enjoys mass appeal. Popular cinema and culture derive from each other. Films are believed to be the opium of the Indi an masses as people rely on this medium to help them escape to a world of fantasy. ii In a very explicit way, cinema 2 has shaped the cultural, social and political values of people of this country. While, the other forms of cinema are also important when it comes to the representation of women, restricting to popular cinema is the core concern of the paper. The interest in films taken by feminists stems from concern about the under - representation and misrepresentation of women in cinema. It adopts a critical approach towards gender bias on celluloid. The feminist approach to cinema asks a few pertinent questions like how women are represented on screen, how women‟s issues are treated in cinema, what does feminism mean to film - makers, how does the feminist age nda manifest on screen, how is the women character positioned vis a vis the male character and what is the role of women film - makers and women writers in depicting women‟s issues through cinema. iii Feminist critique of cinema has helped to view the reality p resented by cinema in a different way and thus has contributed significantly to the discipline of media studies as well as film studies. Certain underlying aspects of a popular medium can only be brought to surface by criticism, scrutiny and introspection and feminists have attempted to do it with cinema as well as with other fields of study and practice. The links between Women‟s Studies and Cinema are evident. After the women‟s movement, the field of women‟s studies has allied with almost every disciplin e to provide an alternative perspective of knowledge and reality as viewed by the practitioners and academia of the discipline. Feminist theory took up a distinct stance in relation to the objectification, exclusion and silence of women in cinematic narrat ives. It also evaluated the stereotyping of female characters in cinema. For eg: In „Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema‟ (Laura Mulvey, 1975) , the male character was identified as the driver of the film‟s narrative, the character followed by the camera. The female character served as a spectacle to provide pleasure to the male spectator, for which Mulvey used the term „gaze‟ . iv The theory of „Absences and Presences‟ was concerned with the absence of a certain type of female characters in films and the pres ence of the other type, which was seen to be influenced by patriarchal values. Thus feminist theory in its critique of films incorporated the valorisation of women‟s experiences thereby posing a challenge to gender hierarchy as well as opening up new realm s for a post - gendered future. The paper in its ensuing sections will build an argument about the portrayal of women in Hindi cinema based on various strands of f eminist film criticism which have certainly enriched our understanding of women on screen. The Leading Lady’s Sketch Though there exists a body of feminist film making in Hindi cinema, the leading lady of Hindi films has more or less played defined roles which conform to the values upheld by Indian society. Women in Bollywood have been uni - dimensi onal characters, who are good or bad, white or black. There are no shades of grey. This dichotomy was reinforced in popular films which distinguished between the heroine and the vamp, the wife and the other woman. Films have also been inspired to a large e xtent from religion and mythology whereby women characters were seen as the epitome of virtue and values, those who could do no wrong. The image of women as „Sita‟ has been repeatedly evoked in many films after independence. Through the ideas of loyalty an d obedience to the husband, Hindi cinema successfully institutionalized patriarchal values. Films like „Dahej‟ (1950), „Gauri‟ (1968), „Devi‟ (1970), „Biwi ho to Aisi‟ (1988), „Pati Parmeshwar‟ (1988) depicted women as passive, submissive wives as perfect figure s and martyrs for their own families. In these films, though the practices of 1 According to Wikipedia, Bollywood is the informal term popularly used for the Hindi - language film industry based in Mumbai , Maharashtra . The term is often incorr ectly used to refer to the whole of Indian cinema ; it is only a part of the total Indian film industry, which includes other production centers producing films in regional langua ges . It is one of the largest centers of film production in the world. 2 The term ‘Cinema’ henceforth in this paper will signify mainstream/popular Hindi films

Hindi

विद्वान सेटिंग

Last Update: 2015-08-16
Usage Frequency: 1
Quality:

Reference: Anonymous

Get a better translation with
4,401,923,520 human contributions

Users are now asking for help:



We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this site you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more. OK