Why the Gender Wage Gap Persists in Australia Term Paper

Why the Gender Wage Gap Persists in Australia - Term Paper Example In other words, gender wage gap is a phenomenon in which females get lower salaries compared to their male counterparts in similar professions in the same organization. It is seen across the world and no country seems to be free from it. Even in advanced countries like Australia, America and Great Britain, gender wage gap is a fact rather than a myth. Gender wage gap is severe in Australia despite the fact that Australia succeeded recently in appointing its first woman prime minister. The gender pay gap is experienced at every level in the workplace in Australia, the land of the great Fair Go. In 2010, on average, women lag some 17 per cent behind in pay for equal work or work of same value and in some sectors, like finance and insurance this gender pay gap expands to a ripping 32 per cent. It is regularly reported that the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange pay their female Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officers on average 50 per cent less than their mal e equivalents (Dr. Stone, 2010). In Australia, any effort made to â€Å"decrease the gender wage gap would be significantly associated with an increase in women’s hours of work† (Vidyattama et al, 2009, p.13). In other words, organizations force the women employees to work more hours if they demand for more wages. Many of the Australian organizations are of the view that the productivity of men and women are different and therefore it is difficult for the women to deliver same results if they work same hours as that of men. There are many reasons cited for the widespread gender wage gap in Australia. However, gender factor and industry segregation are two of the major reasons for the gender wage gap in Australia. Gender factor as a reason for the persistence of gender wage gap in Australia An artifact of economic, industrial relations, social and cultural factors, combined with the biological and psychological attributes of all involved in decisions before and in the w orkplace. As much as action is taken in the legal and political arena to create equality, the players in the industrial relations system, consciously or not, both male and female, say that they have helped to (re)construct the gender wage gap (Christine, Ph.D, 2006). According to a report released by National Centre of Social Economic Modeling (NATSEM) in 2010, the gender factor accounted for 60 per cent of the wage gap between men and women (Australia's gender wage gap 'costs $93b', 2010). As in the case of other countries, one of the major reasons for gender wage gap in Australia is the wrong perceptions about the less productivity or fewer abilities of women employees compared to male employees. Biologically, it is believed or assumed that men are stronger both physically and mentally than women. There are many cases in which women succeeded in showing equal or more mental abilities than men. However, the general perception about women abilities in excelling in critical positions is very weak. That is why Australia forced to wait till recent times to have its first woman prime minister. It should be noted that countries like Israel, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had women prime ministers in the twentieth century. But Australia forced to wait till twenty first century to have its first woman prime minister because of the wrong perceptions of the Australian public about the capabilities of women. It should be noted that India has a woman president at present for the first time in its history. Moreover, Germany also has a woman chancellor at present. In short, other countries pushed Australia far behind in recognizing the abilities of women. It should be noted that even women CEO’s in Australia are not ready to pay equal salaries to men

The Issues Facing Mercedes Benz Cyprus Developing Conceptual Framework Business Essay

The Issues Facing Mercedes Benz Cyprus Developing Conceptual Framework Business Essay The project concentrates on the issues facing Mercedes Benz Cyprus developing and implementing an efficient and cost-effective conceptual framework for measuring and managing sales performance. As a concrete outcome of this research, a roadmap and a website for non technical business users will be developed, giving them the capability to apply the conceptual framework to measurable and manageable business activities. The project provides evidence that indicates successful application of measuring and managing sales performance techniques through the use of reports, trainings, communication capabilities and presentation skills. It creates a new political and organisational challenge for the staff of the organisation which in its turn must learn to interact fast and effectively in order to achieve their targets. The main topics that emerged from the research are defined in derived conceptual framework based on the comprehensive review and analysis of the different models and frameworks that can be found in performance measurement literature. Substance considers the external and internal influences impacting on a sales organisation and how management team and staff can offer an actively sought process to monitor business performance on an on-going basis and to generate recommendations for changes. The research indicates that there is no single model or process for developing performance objectives and measures, nor is there a process that will guarantee good results. It has been essential to synthesise and extend the existing models and frameworks with the aim to produce the most suitable conceptual framework based on the size, kind, and available resources. Additional it is difficult to become a successful implementation of a sales performance measurement management system without connecting with a blended training activities based on the culture of continuous improvement with apply of personal professional development of the stakeholders supporting them to identify their weakness for improvement. Preface Award My target award is Doctorate in Professional Studies Development and Implementation Issues for Managing Sales Performance. Sales Performance is the basic term under which this project focuses. I propose to outline a general focus on performance with particular reference to automotive industry. The project report will provide a dynamic, systematic and permanent conceptual framework on management and measurement of sales performance from the view of the business user for the Mercedes- Benz Cyprus. The final product will be a practical user-friendly document and a website, based on sound research, for non technical business users supporting them to measure and manage sales performance. It will provide practical and useful information with real business examples and arguments for measuring and managing sales performance. Furthermore, it will serve as a standard and quick reference for business users, monitoring and evaluating tools and methodologies that are critical in measuring and managing sales performance. The website will be an online learning support area for where you can find online material to support the subject of sales performance together with discussion areas. It is also anticipated to use this programme as an opportunity to my continuous learning and development in the area of sales performance. My favourite motto from the Greek, Athenian statesman, lawgiver and poet Solon is the motivation for my continuous learning and development, I grow in learning as I grow in years (Plutarch Langhorne, 1857). As Kolb (1984) has documented, we seek to grow and develop because we must do so to survive as individuals and as a world community. Coherence of the Programme The bellow topics provide a rationale for the combination of modules and Recognitions and Accreditation of Learning (RAL) claims on the programme and how are argue for the coherence and viability of this proposed programme. DPS 4520: Review of Learning The module of the Review of Learning provided me with a summary and evaluation of my experiences and education to date, and an analysis of their relevance to my future learning and development. My education and work experiences have impacted my personal development, as I have gained a mixture of both academic teaching and hands, on business experience. Most of my experience comes from progressive roles that I have held with Mercedes Benz. With Mercedes Benz, I have been fortunate to have a career that has spanned multiple disciplines including Information Technology, Quality, Sales and Marketing. I present my learning in a chronological and thematic approach, with the following diagram Figure 1:0 to reflect on my learning, which shows my lifelong learning stages. Starting from school and during my first university degree I have had special focus in Mathematics which helped me to develop my analytical and logical thinking for my doctorate project. My first-degree in Mechanical Engineering, as an Engineer, helped me understand how to bring together knowledge of previously solved problems and understand the current need to combine new solutions. Following my first degree as a Mechanical Engineer I chose, and successfully applied, for a Master degree covering a range of subjects related to Business and Operational Research. The subjects of this Master Degree provided an excellent learning opportunity, and greatly broadened my knowledge and understanding of Business issues. It has had an important impact on my professional and academic development. As Neely (2002) states researchers with functional backgrounds as diverse as accounting, operations management, marketing, finance, economics, psychology, and sociology are all actively working in the field of performance measurement. The research project that I have undertaken for my Master dissertation studies was a Statistical Analysis of Labour Accident in Greece. Statistical Analysis can integrate with the business performance management. It helped me develop my Statistical Thinking. Statistical Thinking is the philosophy of learning and the action that builds the foundation for successful decision making in any process (Britz et.al, 2000). Additionally, my Master Dissertation gave me my first opportunity to develop an appropriate research strategy. It has provided me with the basic framework for my research approach to identify the research methods and data collection techniques which are required for my research project. I have worked in engineering as Plant Manager for a year with one of the most important construction companies in Saudi Arabia and Cyprus. Living in Saudi Arabia strengthened my motivation to work in a hard environment and made me challenge my perception of the importance of simple things in our everyday life and work. Furthermore, working in the desert alone with my team represented a new type of knowledge and a different way of learning for me. I learnt about personal influence and negotiation. Leading a team was an excellent learning opportunity for me, and one that was very different from my past ways of learning. I also gained specific skills including project management and managing contractors, as I was responsible for installing equipments at our sites. Having decided to change my direction, I successfully applied to Mercedes Benz Cyprus for the position of the After-sales Analyst. My education and training from DAIMLER A.G, a highly innovative company with a global presence, has enabled me to understand the practical application of theories, especially at the management level. With the need to improve the stock levels and control the transport cost of spare parts, I developed several information systems. Increasingly I became involved in data analysis and interpretation of data, which strengthened my skills in these areas and helped me to develop my thinking about how information is used. In particular, I began to think about how the end-users of information could influence the way in which that data is produced, interpreted and presented, and the way this can change the meaning of information. The Board of Director of Mercedes Benz Cyprus offered me the challenge of the combined position of Assistant Sales Marketing Director and Quality and Business Manager. My duties have three main directions. Firstly, the developing and managing of the passenger car Sales Marketing business at both the importer and retailer levels; secondly the designing, the developing and implementing of new Information System for supporting the Sales Marketing Business and thirdly the developing, carrying out and maintaining of the Quality systems of the organisation. My current role has provided me with valuable experience and opportunities for learning. This has allowed me to develop a deep understanding of various functions including Finance, Sales Marketing, Quality, Service and Human Resources. Finally, the module Review of Learning helped me realise my strengths and weaknesses and identify the areas in which I need to develop skills. Recognition and Accreditation of Learning (RAL 4): Professional Learning The Master Degree in Business Management and Operational Research has had an important impact on my professional and academic development. It equipped me with skills and experiences such as leading me to the research process starting from clarification of the problem until the presentation of the findings to stakeholders which are necessary for my project. An important subject undertaken was Total Quality Management (TQM) and Operational Research. It was my first experience with tools to control and develop business. Another important subject in my Master was Economics and Law which was directed at understanding the basic notions of modern economic science, with emphasis on microeconomic concepts and macroeconomic analysis. The style of teaching in my Master involved a large element of discussion of issues, and involved a major piece of group project work, which greatly contributed to my understanding of group dynamics. I had actively engaged the discipline in a way not possible simply by listening to lectures and reading textbooks, but through the reflection from the process of research. Writing and peer review helped me to understand my own behaviour within a group situation. Another main subject was Management Information System (MIS) . It helped me understand how to develop, analyse and design computer applications for organisation s and offered me the opportunity to see solutions with the help of technology to some of the most important company problems. Recognition and Accreditation of Learning (RAL 4): Research and Development Project Capability This claim is based on the dissertation topic submitted as part of my Master Degree. The study was broad and high-level, focusing on data mining and data statistical analysis with special information systems. Also it was important in the conclusion to forecast the trends of labour accidents in Greece. In planning and designing my research I found tools and methods which gave me the opportunity to forecast the future and helped me understand the past. My ability to analyse and combine information was developed, and my thinking was expanded in terms of working with very different types of information to those that I had been previously used. The experiences with high-level information systems as main tools in my method for my study represented a new type of knowledge. Moreover in the research project I had an extend focus in data preparation, as most real-life data sets contained missing data. This gave me the challenge of understanding data mining, which is one of the most important rules for efficient and effective strategy. RAL 5: Advanced developments in professional practice I have submitted a claim based upon two projects, the design and development of Information Technology and Business Management Systems. They have been supported by theoretical background, literature review in the area of business and management information systems, areas which constitute integral and essential parts of business performance. Project 1: Design, developing, performing and maintaining the Management Quality System ISO 9001:2000 for the Mercedes Benz Cyprus. Since 2003, with the decision of the Board of Directors of our company, I have been leading the project of designing, developing, implementing and maintaining the Management Quality System ISO 9001:2000 for Mercedes Benz Cyprus. I realised that for this significant project it was essential to improve my knowledge in the subject of the Quality Management. I did an extensive literature review on the subject of quality systems, which brought me up to date with what is current in the field. Based on this literature, I have established a system of monitoring, measuring, analyzing and improving business performance so that service conformity was demonstrated, conformity to the Quality Management. An important part of the implementation was the collection and analysis of appropriate data. I have established statistical methods to determine its overall performance and level of customer satisfaction. These analyses were useful in the conversion of market data into market studies, of quality data into quality reports and of customer satisfaction data into information on customer loyalty. As the company developed, there was a greater urgency to focus around the customers, thus allowing management to invest well and wisely to meet their needs. The only way to achieve such a goal was to analyse the data for business and process monitoring. This information was reviewed at management meetings. Data on service problems were collected throughout the process. This data was analysed and prioritised for investigation. Management identified root causes and proposed long-term solutions and preventive actions with mandates for improvement teams. The data analysed included the following: Customer surveys and complaints Audit findings and nonconformity reports Outputs from data analysis Staff suggestions, complaints, training and competence. The procedure for preventive action included the methodology adopted for instituting such action on processes and work operations, which affect process quality. The flowchart presented in Figure 0:2 below outlines the approach taken by the Company to resolve potential nonconformities. Project 2: Design and developing of the live information system for the Sales Department in Mercedes-Benz Cyprus Main targets to achieve for this project were to design an intelligent information system that can quickly give access to the auto customer details, easily keep contact notes, track and manage car sales opportunities, create summaries and reports, and be intuitive and simple for managing new car sales. An important aim to achieve was the time spent by the Salesman in front of the computer screen would be no more of 15% of the total time. In this way, more time remains available for the salesman to establish contact in an active and purposeful manner. For the design and development of the information system project, it was necessary to have a deep knowledge of literature reviews on the theories and approach on how to build an enterprise data warehouse. The interface of the information system, as shown Figure 0:3, came about from the observation of the way in which waiters take orders through a touch screen monitor. Only one screen in front of the users, without menus, only big clickab le icons which are different from user to user and from level to level.

The Importance of Budgeting and Long Range Financial Goals :: essays papers

The Importance of Budgeting and Long Range Financial Goals Me, being a financial independent have experienced first hand how important it is to keep a financial plan. Using a financial plan I have elevated my savings abilities a long way. Knowing where each dollar is being spent helps the spender to manage each dollar in an uplifting way. In a ten-year plan my goal would have to be to save at least twelve hundred dollars a year which would one hundred dollars each month of that financial plan. Using the persona financial profile assigned by you at the beginning of the year this long-term goal would be possible. Being in college, managing money is very important. Keeping a portfolio and an account of all money spent is a very important step in my keeping my financial situation in good terms. Becoming in debt is another concern of mine. Debt includes, credit cards loans, store credits accounts, or any other form of borrowing money. A large amount of students make the mistake of purchasing things that they have no money for. This is why credit is so bad for students. A personal financial plan is only possible if the independent is focused on what he or she is doing. You have to account for each dollar and not cheat yourself. The importance of budgeting all depends on the independent. If the independent is focused on saving and accounting for their money then it will work! It is needed in each college student’s life. Being in college makes it extra difficult to decipher what you are doing with your money. A greater percentage of students that have used this type of financial program have been successful rather than those, which don’t account for the money that they spend. Having a long-range financial goal can help you all throughout life.

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective Compare and Contrast critically evaluate in light of relevant research and theoretical reasoning A major focus of psychology is in understanding why group conflict, inequality and ethnocentrism occur. Many researchers have developed theories and presented evidence to try and explain these issues and two predominant approaches have emerged. The first approach focuses on the relatively stable personality differences that people show in their general orientation towards ethnocentrism and inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Dominance Theory (SDT) proposes that people exhibit different levels of social dominance orientation, a desire to dominate members of other groups and a desire for continued hierarchical relations between groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The alternative approach focuses on social and situational factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The dominant theory here is Social Identity Perspective (SIP), which is comprised of Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Social Identity Perspective proposes that ethnocentrism occurs when people are depersonalized: they see themselves as members of a salient group rather than unique individuals. This process leads them to adopt a social identity where their ideas, attitudes, values and behaviours tend to reflect norms of their group and their main goal is to see their group as positive and distinct (Turner, 1987). This essay will consider how these approaches define ethnocentrism and will provide an outline of how they explain ethnocentrism. It will then compare and contrast the theories, and consider the strengths and limitations of each with reference to the large body of research in this field. In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, the essay concludes that SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers need to consider whether ethnocentrism is due to an interaction of situationally dependent personality factors and social identity factors for a more comprehensive explanation of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism Sumner (1911) originally defined ethnocentrism as â€Å"†¦the sediment of cohesion, internal comradeship and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group† (p. 11). Recent research has defined ethnocentrism as ethnic group self-centeredness and identified six specific aspects that are divided between inter and intragroup expressions (Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, Dru & Krauss, 2008). Intergroup expressions of ethnocentrism include a preference for and favoritism given to the ingroup, a tendency to see the ingroup as superior and to only associate with the ingroup (purity) and the belief that exploitation of outgroups is acceptable to promote ingroup interests (Bizumic et al, 2008). Intragroup aspects include that ingroups are cohesive: integrated and cooperative, and that there is strong devotion and commitment to the ingroup (Bizumic et al, 2008). The two theories define and measure ethnocentrism in different ways. SDT emphasizes ingroup favoritism and bias in high status groups, and the allocation of negative social value to outgroups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Ethnocentrism is measured through levels of prejudice, racism, conservatism and other associated concepts, which, although distinct from ethnocentrism, are closely correlated (Bizumic et al, 2008). SIP measures ethnocentrism primarily through ingroup favoritism: the tendency to favor the ingroup in evaluations and allocation of resources (Oaks et al, 1994). Social Dominance Theory SDT was developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and focuses on personality and structural factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The theory argues that individuals differ in their level of social dominance orientation (SDO), which is the desire to oppress outgroups, have the ingroup be seen as superior and dominant, or the extent that an individual endorses group inequalities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Specifically, SDO is â€Å"a desire for and value given to ingroup dominance over outgroups and the desire for non-egalitarian, hierarchical relationships between groups within the social system† (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994 p. 9). Differences in SDO are argued to make some people more likely to show ethnocentrism and prejudice, and people who have SDO show more negative behaviours towards the outgroup. This is known as differential ingroup social allocations. Illustrating this point, Sidanius (1994) states that people’s ethnocentric orientations and attitudes are due to persona lity and consistent behavioral predispositions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT also proposes that legitimizing myths maintain ethnocentrism and inequality. These are beliefs, attitudes, values or ideologies that are circulated and justify inequality, as well as continuing the dominance of some groups over others (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For example, the myth that men have better jobs and higher incomes because they are more assertive and have better leadership skills than women. The second part of SDT is based on the assumption that intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism is due to the way society is made up of group-based hierarchies, which have a hegemonic group at the top which controls money, resources and power, and a negative reference group at the bottom (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These hierarchies are based on three stratification systems: an age system, gender system, and an arbitrary-set system, where people from high status groups have more power than people in lower status groups. Hierarchies are formed and maintained by institutional discrimination, individual discrimination and behavioural asymmetry (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Institutional discrimination is the rules and regulations of social institutions, such as schools, religions, corporations, businesses or governments, which result in lower status groups having less power, money or other resources. Institutions maintain unequal hierarchies through the use of systematic terror, which is threat or violence directed towards low status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individual discrimination is the small, daily discriminations which occur in every setting, and the way desired goods, such as health care, money or power, are allocated to members of dominant groups. These small acts add up and lead to the continued dominance of one group over another (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Behavioural asymmetry is the way people in low status groups behave differently compared to those in high status groups. Examples of this include that ethnocentrism is higher in high status groups compared to low status groups, and there is more ingroup favoritism in high status groups – what SDT calls the asymmetrical ingroup bias. Also, low status groups can show self-handicapping, which is where they perform below their abilities due to self-fulfilling stereotypes or expectations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Identity Perspective SIP is a broad theory of ethnocentrism which includes social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). Social Identity Theory SIT proposes that in different situations, people either define themselves as individuals, or as group members: they move along the interpersonal – intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). SIT argues that people have a collection of category memberships and each membership is represented in the persons mind as a social identity that describes how the person should think, feel and act as a member of that group (Turner, 1987). If a group is important people will internalize the group membership so that it becomes an important part of their self-concept, and they are then driven to achieve positive self-esteem and establish a social identity (they are motivated to establish positive distinctiveness) (Turner, 1987). This self-enhancement is achieved by comparing their group with salient outgroups along dimensions which lead to the most positive representation of their group. SIT proposes that a cognitive processing bias occurs during this process, which results in people minimizing the differences within their group, and exaggerating the differences between their group and a salient outgroup (Turner, 1987). This produces intragroup homogeneity, where behaviour becomes more group focused, attitudes in the group are consensual and people define themselves and outgroup members as â€Å"undifferentiated† members of their social category (Turner and Reynolds, 2001). SIT explains these cognitive processes of categorization and self-enhancement as due to subjective belief structures, which are people’s beliefs about the nature of relations between groups (Turner, 1987). These include the stability and legitimacy of group relations, and the possibility of social mobility psychologically passing from one group to another, or social change, changing how they feel about their group membership (Turner, 1987). Self-Categorization Theory SCT follows on from and elaborates on SIT. SCT focuses on the shift from personal to social identity which occurs when people change from defining themselves as individuals compared to other individuals (when their personal identity is salient), and start to see themselves as group members who are different from members of other groups (when their social identity is salient) (Turner et al, 1987). This social identity is thought to emerge when group categorizations are made prominent. The emergence of this social identity leads to a process called depersonalization, which is where people see increased similarity between themselves and ingroup members and differences from outgroup members, interchangeability with other ingroup members, and see themselves as representative of the group (Turner et al, 1987). The theory argues that whether depersonalization occurs depends on the accessibility and fit of social categories. Accessibility is how accessible the category is, in terms of past experiences, expectations, goals, motives and if the categorization is important for a person’s self-concept (Turner et al, 1987). Fit refers to the way people activate a category which best explains or fits the individual information and stored category information (Turner et al, 1987). Fit is determined based on whether the information fits in a normal or stereotypical direction (normative fit), and whether there is a high meta-contrast ratio: which is when the differences within a group are less than the differences between that group and others (comparative fit) (Turner et al, 1987). Overall, all group processes, including ethnocentrism, are argued to be the outcome of psychological group formation and depersonalization of self. Similarities between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Both theories agree that that group identification is needed for ethnocentrism and influences levels of ethnocentrism (Sidanius, Pratto, van Larr & Levin, 2004). SDT argues that although people with particular personalities are more likely to engage in ethnocentrism, social identification is also needed (Sidanius et al, 1994). The theories also agree that ingroup bias and favouritism can be modified under specific conditions (Sidanius, Pratto, Mitchell, 1994). Similarly, both theories recognize the importance of the salience of ingroups and outgroups (Sidanius et al, 2004). Significantly, minimal group experiments show that if intergroup distinctions are made salient, peoples SDO levels are more likely to influence whether they discriminate against outgroups, and many SIP experiments have show the importance of salience in changing group relations Sidanius et al, 2004). Both theories emphasize the â€Å"dynamic† ways people construct their social identities (Sidanius et al, 2004), based on a salient ingroup, or group distinctions based on race, nationality, class, ethnicity, or arbitrarily-set categories. Sidanius et al. , (2000) also argue that SIP finding of ingroup favoritism in minimal groups is similar to SDT assertion that people have a predisposition to form ingroup – outgroup distinct ions and to discriminate against outgroups based on these categorizations. Also, although the theories differ on the importance assigned to social and contextual factors, both agree that they can influence ethnocentrism. SIP clearly emphasizes social factors such as self-categorizations and contextual factors including the salience of groups, and the stability and legitimizing of group relations (Turner, 1987). SDT also considers social identification, contextual factors such as status differences, connections with social institutions and social roles, cultural factors and structural relations (Sidanius, 2000). Although SDT argues that SDO is a relatively stale personality variable, they do agree that levels of SDO can correspond with shifts in the intergroup context (Sidanius et al, 2004). SIP also argues that ethnocentrism can vary based on the context and structural position of groups (Turner et al, 1994). Levin (1996) found that when differences between groups of Jewish Israelis were made salient, high-status Jewish Israelis were more positively orientated toward inequality than lower status Jewish Israelis. However, when thinking about Israeli-Palestine relations, the groups did not differ in attitudes towards inequality. Further, Schmitt, Branscomb and Kappen (2003, study 3) found that the participants who believed inequality favored their university (ingroup) were much more positive towards the inequality than the other participants, showing that the social-structural position of groups influences attitudes. Differences between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Although there are some general similarities between these theories, they contrast on many specific points. Focus on Personality or Social Factors as Causing Ethnocentrism The major difference between these two theories is their focus on either personality or social factors as causing ethnocentrism. SDT argues that the personality variable SDO is the main factor predicting ethnocentric behaviour (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that identification with the ingroup and self-categorization as a group member through a process of depersonalization leads to ethnocentrism (Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, and Ryan, 2001). There is evidence for each argument. Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by levels of SDO. There is evidence that SDO scores are correlated with attitudes and beliefs related to ethnocentrism. SDO was positively correlated with racism, sexism, conservatism, ethnic prejudice, nationalism, patriotism and cultural elitism in a diverse sample of 19,000 participants from 13 samples (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994). People with higher levels of SDO also reported that they intended to work in more hierarchy-enhancing professions as opposed to hierarchy-attenuating professions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is also evidence that support for discriminatory policies, strict laws, military programs, war; the death penalty and belief in legal retribution are positively correlated with SDO (Sidaius, Lui, Pratto and Shaw, 1994). High SDO scores and dominance-oriented prejudice have also been found to be related to personality characteristics such as being disagreeable, vindictive, hostile or seeing social inequality as â€Å"they way it should be† (Lippa & Arad, 1999). However, there is no evidence that SDO causes ethnocentrism, only that some aspects of ethnocentrism are closely related to a dominance orientated personality measure. There is also evidence that SDO predicts outgroup discrimination and negativity in minimal group studies. Sidanius and Pratto (2004) found that people who scored higher on SDO had a greater desire for social distance from the outgroup, were less willing to cooperate, showed a tendency to accept group boundaries and a desire to dominate other groups. They concluded that although ingroup favoritism is important, SDO is needed to fully explain ethnocentrism. Evidence against the assertion that SDO causes ethnocentrism. Recent evidence suggests a different explanation for these results. Schmitt et al (2003) argue that the results of experiments showing SDO is related to ethnocentrism are actually due to the way specific forms of inequality are salient for participants as they fill in SDO measures. Schmitt et al (2003) tested this in study 1, and found that SDO was only correlated with racism if race was a salient social categorization at the time. Study 2 provided further support, showing that sexism scores only predicted SDO when gender was salient, and racism scores only predicted SDO when race was salient. Therefore, when people are completing a measure of SDO, they are actually expressing their attitudes towards inequality specific to salient social groups rather than pre-existing, stable individual dispositions towards inequality (Schmitt et al, 2003). Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by self-categorization. Tajfe, Billing, Bundy and Flament (1971) conducted the first minimal group studies which led to SIP. In these experiments participants were divided into one of two groups of the basis of some meaningless dimension, and then allocated resources to members of the two groups. Despite the minimal conditions, participants still acted in an ethnocentric way, showing ingroup favouritism. Additionally, when given the choice of maximising joint benefits (for the ingroup and outgroup) or maximising comparative benefits, participants tended to chose the option that gave the ingroup comparatively more than the outgroup. This discrimination in minimal groups has been found over a range of cultures and dimensions, and shows that categorization of people into groups can produce discrimination (Turner, 1986). General evidence for SIP over personality theories of ethnocentrism comes from Haslam and Wilson (2000), who found that personal beliefs were more predictive of prejudice when they reflected stereotypic beliefs shared within an in-group. Perreault and Bourhis (1999) found that ingroup identification was the only factor which predicted discrimination in minimal groups, and that a range of personality variables had no impact Role of SDO. Another key difference between the theories is that while SDT describes SDO as a relatively stable personality variable, SIP argues that it varies in different situations, in different groups, and based on identification. Reynolds, Turner, Ryan, Mavor and McKone (2006) looked at the degree that personality variables (SDO and authoritarianism) can be modified using identification with either a pro or anti-feminist source. They found significant changes in levels of feminism and SDO in the different conditions, which shows that SDO can be influenced. SDO scores of individuals did not correlate well between the two phases of the experiment if participants had seen the pro-feminist message, and measures also showed that implicit prejudice and stereotyping varied in the same way as SDO. SIP provides a clear explanation for these and other results which find SDO to be stable, by arguing that attitudes can be stable in contexts where similar self-categorizations are made salient, but can change when shifts in categorization occur (Reynolds et al, 2006). Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) made either a personal or national identity salient and looked at ingroup stereotypes of the Dutch’s treatment of minorities. They found that personality variables were correlated with prejudice in the personal identity condition, and ingroup stereotypes were correlated in the national identity condition. Also, when ingroup norms were of tolerance and equality, participants showed far lower levels of prejudice. This supports the SIP discontinuity hypothesis, showing that people’s attitudes change depending on what identity is salient, and ethnocentrism is determined by people’s salient self-categorizations. Reynolds, Turner, Haslam and Ryan (2001) conducted similar studies, testing prejudice when participants personal, gender, age, or national identity was salient. They found correlations between personality and prejudice in the age and gender conditions, but not in the personal or national conditions. They also found that the relationship was strongest when the gender identity was salient and weakest when a national identity was salient. So, the power of personality to predict ethnocentrism changed in the different conditions. Reynolds et al (2001) argue that SDO cannot be the psychological mechanism underlying ethnocentrism and inequality if it varies with group identity. In contrast to these results, Sidanius et al (1994) measured ethnocentrism with indexes of differential ingroup social allocation (DISA) in minimal groups, and found a direct relationship between SDO and three of the DISA indexes. Even after the effects of gender, self-esteem and ingroup identification were controlled for, subjects with higher levels of SDO displayed a greater desire for social distance from, and were less willing to cooperate with the outgroup. This demonstrates that, independent of the effects of group identification, people who have higher levels of SDO are more likely to show ethnocentric behaviour and attitudes. Explanations for varying levels of SDO across situations and in groups. A related difference between the two theories is their different explanations for the variability found in SDO scores. SDT has suggested that changes in SDO may be due to the fact that people with high SDO are more likely to identify with their group and be affected by group factors (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP has argued that SDO is a group attitude which varies in different situations (Reynolds & Turner, 2006). SIP argues that personality differences may be correlated with ethnocentrism when personal identity is salient, but group attitudes and beliefs will predict ethnocentrism when a social identity becomes salient (Reynolds and Turner, 2006). A number of studies have tested whether shifts in self categorization from personal to social identities affect the relationship between ethnocentrism and personality variables, and a few key experiments are outlined below. Sidanius, Pratto and Mitchell (1994) looked at minimal group members who evaluated each other on positive and negative domains and found that, in line with both theories, ingroup identification significantly predicted discrimination. However, people who identified highly with their group and had high levels of SDO showed more ingroup favouritism, suggesting that SDO is a key predictor of ethnocentrism. Buzimic et al (2007) tested whether personality factors affect discrimination directly or indirectly through influencing people who have higher levels of these personality variables to identify more strongly with their ingroup. They found that ingroup identification was a significant predictor of discrimination, and that it got stronger when the ingroup-outgroup categorization was more salient. Individual differences in levels of SDO did not predict discriminatory behaviour, and there was little evidence that some people have a preference for hierarchal relations between groups. In one condition, where discrimination would lead to an unequal hierarchy, participants actually showed fairness and cooperation. Although people with high SDO did not move as far towards equality as the other participants here, if there was a basic drive for inequality and dominance participants should have discriminated strongly in that condition. This study provides clear evidence that SDO does not influence ethnocentric behaviours. Explanations for gender differences in ethnocentrism Another important difference between SIP and SDT is their explanations for the gender differences in ethnocentrism. SDT takes an evolutionary stance, arguing that these differences are due to biological differences in the reproductive strategies of men and women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). That is, men need to have lots of economic resources to attract young, attractive women, while women are focused on attracting men with resources to support their offspring (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT sees this difference as stable, and not affected by structural or contextual factors, and predicts that men will almost always be more favorable towards inequality. A limitation of this explanation is that it does not explain the major changes in women’s roles that have occurred in developed countries over time (Reynolds et al, 2000). SIP argues that the lower levels of ethnocentrism in women are not due to gender differences in SDO, they are due to the same processes which result in all lower-status groups having lower levels of SDO – the different implications that the inequality has for each group (Schmitt et al, 2003). That is, women have lower levels of ethnocentrism because gender inequality results in disadvantage for them, and men have higher levels because this inequality is beneficial for them (Schmitt et al, 2003). As such, these differences should vary depending on the specific inequality which exists between the groups. Schmitt et al (2003) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and women did not differ in levels of SDO after they considered gender inequality in both directions, and did not differ in their overall comfort with specific forms of inequality – which contradicts SDT. Gender differences in SDO were mediated by sexism, suggesting that the difference is due to women and men’s different positions in the social structure. They also found that men felt more positively about inequality that favored men, while women felt more positively about inequality which favored women. There was no correlation between gender and other types of inequality, showing that gender differences are specific to the inequality that exists between the men and women. Causes of high SDO and ethnocentrism. In contrast to SIP, SDT argues that SDO and ethnocentrism develop from three major influences: socialization factors, situational contingencies and temperament (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994). The main socialization factor is group status. SDT argues that because group superiority seems compatible with hierarchy-legitimizing myths, it seems appropriate for people in high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is substantial evidence that group status is related to SDO. Pratto and Choudhury (Pratto, 1999) found that people in higher status groups had higher levels of SDO, whether group status was based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. SDO has also been found to increase with the status of the major racial groups in America (Sidanius et al, 1999). Other factors which lead to SDO and ethnocentrism include gender, and temperament or personality factors. Evidence for this shows SDO declines with empathy and increases with aggression. Education is also thought to be involved, with higher levels of education correlating with lower SDO and prejudice generally. However, this seems to contradict other SDT predictions, as you would expect that people with higher levels of education would be in higher status groups. Finally, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religiosity and employment status are also thought to be involved. Sidanius and Pratto (1994) found that these demographic variables accounted for 21% of the variance in SDO scores. However, across samples and nations, only gender and group status were reliably related to SDO. Explanations for differences in ethnocentrism in different status groups Although both SDT and SIP agree that group status effects ethnocentrism, they differ in their explanations of why this is so. SDT argues that group status directly effects people’s SDO, and group differences in acceptance of legitimizing myths account for group differences in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that SDO scores reflect attitudes towards the specific types of inequality that are salient (Schmitt et al, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 4) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and Whites were more pro-inequality than women and ethnic minorities. However, they found that gender differences in SDO were totally mediated by sexism, but not by racism, and racial differences in SDO were mediated by racism, but not by sexism. So, group differences in SDO are not indicative of group differences in a general orientation towards inequality, but are reflective of group differences in attitudes relevant to the specific inequality existing between groups. Explanations for outgroup favoritism Another important difference between the two theories is their explanations for outgroup favoritism, and their predictions of when outgroup favoritism will occur. Many studies illustrate that low-status group’s show outgroup favoritism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT developed the asymmetrical ingroup bias hypothesis, which states that high-status groups will show more ingroup favoritism because it is easier and more valuable for them, and that low-status groups should show outgroup favoritism to support the social hierarchy (especially people with high SDO) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that the legitimacy and stability of intergroup relations determines when people will show outgroup favoritism (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). If group boundaries are permeable and inequalities secure (stable or legitimate), people will identify with, favor and seek to move into the high status group (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and secure, low status group members will accept their status and try to seek positive distinctiveness along other dimensions (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and insecure (that is, unstable or illegitimate), the low status group will seek to change the inequality and will show ingroup bias (Turner, 1986). There is a lot of evidence supporting these three predictions, including a meta-analysis of ingroup bias conducted by Mullen, Brown and Smith (1992) which found that while high status groups evaluated their group on dimensions relevant to the inequality, low-status groups tended to show greater ingroup favoritism on less relevant attitudes – finding alternative means of achieving positive distinctiveness. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) tested group asymmetry in ingroup favoritism and found that Blacks had higher levels of ingroup bias than Whites, consistent with SIP. Also, the SDT prediction that low-status group members will act against their own interests and show outgroup favoritism to support the unequal social system has been disconfirmed by much SIP research which shows that low-status groups will only favor high-status groups if they either identify with the group or see the inequality as stable and legitimate (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Finally, the SDT prediction that all high-status group members will show ethnocentrism and support for inequality is problematic: ethnocentrism has been found in many different groups, of both high and low status (Reynolds & Turner, 2000). Comfort with inequality in the direction it exists in society. SDT argues that people are more comfortable with inequality as it exists in society than in the opposite direction because it is justified by hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths; and that people high in SDO are even more likely to accept inequality it its general direction (Sidanius and Pratto, 1994). In contrast, SIP argues that people’s social identities affect comfort with inequality – people are more likely to be comfortable with inequality which favors their ingroup rather than the outgroup (Schmitt, Branscomb & Kappen, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 3) tested these contrasting predictions by asking participants to report on how comfortable they would be with four different types of inequality in both possible directions. They found that SDO did not influence participants comfort with inequality, and could not account for comfort with inequality as it exists compared to the opposite direction. These findings support SIP, showing that attitudes toward inequality depend on the type and direction of inequality being considered. The importance of ingroup favoritism or outgroup degradation in ethnocentrism. The theories also differ in the importance they assign to different aspects of ethnocentrism; SIP focuses on ingroup favoritism in producing cohesion, devotion and discrimination (Turner, 1986). In contrast, SDT focuses on personality variables which lead to outgroup negativity (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT argues that SIP is limited in the scope of behaviours it can explain: ingroup favoritism and a desire for positive distinctiveness cannot explain the way some people or groups strive to dominate and oppress outgroups, and cannot explain the occurrence of oppression, ethnic wars, slavery and other such events (Sidanius, Pratto & Mitchell, 1994). A number of studies support SDT in their criticism of SIP. Brewer (1979) found that most intergroup discrimination in minimal groups was bias in favor of the ingroup rather than denigration of the outgroup. Hewstone, Fincham and Jaspars (1981) investigated when people will take money away from ingroup and outgroup members in minimal groups, and found less ingroup favoritism and that the predominant strategy used was fairness. Mummendey et al (1992) investigated allocation of negative outcomes to the ingroup and outgroup and did not find any evidence of ingroup favoritism and that fairness was the main strategy used. However, when group size and status were manipulated in this experiment more negative allocations were made to the outgroup when the ingroup was a minority or of low status, and ingroup favoritism was the most used strategy in low status groups (Mummendey et al, 1992). These results support SIP, showing that ingroup favoritism occurs in negative domains when the ingroup is particularly motivated to achieve a positive social identity. Reynolds, Turner and Haslam (2000) also found that ingroup favoritism is not restricted to the positive domain; that participants allocated negative resources to outgroups when traits fit the ingroup-outgroup categorizations. Conclusion After considering similarities and differences in two major theories of ethnocentrism, and highlighting strengths and weakness of each, a clear conclusion emerges. SDT proposes an explanation of ethnocentrism at the individual, group and societal level, and is very good at highlighting individual differences in the desire to dominance others (Huddy, 2004). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) also provide clear evidence for how minority members are discriminated against and the way individual, institutional and other structural factors maintain inequality in numerous studies. Although it cannot explain ethnocentrism, SDT predicts and demonstrates that people high in SDO show more prejudice and endorse measures which maintain inequality. In contrast, SIP argues that ethnocentrism emerges from social attitudes which are group specific, as shifts in self-categorization from an individual to a group member which produce shifts in attitudes and behaviour (Reynolds & Turner). In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers do need to consider the value of a situationally dependent personality factor as well as social identity processes as producing ethnocentrism. References Reynolds, K. , Turner, J. , Haslam, R. , Bizumic, B. , and Subasic, E. (2007). Does personality explain ingroup identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 517-539 Perreault, S and Bourhis, R. Y. (1998). Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1,49-66 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , van Larr, C. , and Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 6 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , and Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 2, 151-162 Wilson Haslam and Wilson (2000). In what sense are prejudiced beliefs personal? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1 Rubin, M. and Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: commentary on Reicher, Jost et al. , and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 823-844 Schmitt, M. T. , Branscomb, N. R. , and Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes towards group based inequality: social dominance or social identity. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186 Hogg, M. A. , Terry , D. J. , and White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-270 Negy, C. , Shreve, T. L. , Jensen, B. J. , and Uddin, N. Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Ethnocentrism: A Study of Social Identity Versus Multicultural Theory of Development. Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , and Haslam, S. A. (2000) When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64-80. Pratto, J. , Sidanius, F. , Stallworth and Malle. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67, 4 Lippa and Arad. (1999). Gender, personality and prejudice: the display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463-493 Turner, J. C. and Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199-206 Sidanius, J. , and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press: New York Oaks, P. J. , Haslam, S. A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality: Blackwell Publishers: Oxford Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 947-967 Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Haslam, A. , and Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427-434 Pratto, F. , Sidanius, J. , Stallworth, L. M. , and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67 4, 741-763 Bizumic, B. , Duckitt, J. , Popadic, D. , Dru, V. , and Drauss, S. (2008). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology Verkuyten, M. , and Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: the variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99-110 Bizumic, B. , Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Subasic, E. , and Johnson, S. C. How stable are prejudice and ideology? Evidence of variability as a function of motivational orientation. Presentation given Bizumic, B et al serials article. Mummendy, A. Simon, B. , Dietze, C. , Grunert, M. Haeger, G. , Kessler, S. , Lettgen, S. & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 28 (2): 125-144 Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology, 31, 191-263. NY: Academic Press When Are We Better Than Them and They Worse Than Us? A Closer Look at Social Discrimination in Positive and Negative Domains Katherine J. Reynolds, John C. Turner, and S. Alexander Haslam 2000, journal of personality and social psychology, 78, p. 64 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds. ), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Tajfel, H. , Billing, M. , Bundy, R. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-43 Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell: Oxford

Song of Roland Notes

Roland essay notes Citation: Prompt: In what ways did Ganelon’s character as a feudal warrior conflict with his role in Christian feudal society? What can those conflicts tell us about the writer’s ideal view of society? Thesis: Ganelon’s traitorous actions against Roland, Charlemagne, and ultimately God reveal the writer’s ideas of the perfect Christian feudal society. While Roland and Charlemagne serve as archetypes of perfect servants of God, Ganelon plays the part of the bad, which accentuates the good. Misc notes:Rear guard sacrifice necessary to bring Charles back into picture Roland sacrificed himself to edify Charles Ganelon was after his own selfish interests, while his loyalty should have lied with Charles, who represented the will of god. Ganelon = Judas, Roland = Jesus Quotations: //â€Å"No crusading intent can be detected in this enterprise, though there were attempts†¦ to give it such a //coloring, as though Charles had entered Spain t o protect the Christians from the cruel yoke of Saracen //oppression – an oppression that in face did not exist. † (SOR, 4) The poem†¦ has retained little of the historic event†¦ This non-event has been enlarged into a great epic of treachery and loyalty, and this humiliating defeat at the hands of unknown brigands transformed into a holy crusade, a glorious martyrdom, a great apocalyptic victory ordained by God. † (SOR, 4) â€Å"It was looked upon as the time when the great dream of Christendom had come true, when a worldwide Christian community was established under a pious and crusading Emperor, and all men were bound in ascending loyalty to each other and to the Lord of all.The Carolingian Empire was seen as the fulfillment of a divine intention. † (SOR, 5). â€Å"We see in the Charlemagne of the epic, not the historical king and emperor, but the true and accurate representation of an ideal ardently praised at the time the poem was cast into its present form†¦ all men were in their right places†¦ when all Christian powers oriented themselves in homage to this great man, wise with the wisdom of 200 years of God’s grace. † (SOR, 6) â€Å"The past [The Song of Roland] revealed to its earliest audiences was really a vision of the future.Those who shared that past were to give their support to the King’s great struggle, as struggle that aimed not to progress from that auspicious time when angles came down from heaven and the sun stood still to help the Emperor defend all Christendom, but to return to it, to regain what had been lost: a perfect state pleasing to God. † (SOR, 7) â€Å"The lord that Roland serves is depicted as the Emperor of Christendom; Charlemagne, in turn, is in the service of the supreme Lord of heaven†¦ the life of the feudal vassal can have no value unless it is sanctified by service to God. (SOR, 9) â€Å"The pagan vassals are exact doubles of Christian vassal s†¦ the one radical difference between the two sides in this poem is exactly what Roland says it is, the fact that Christians are right and pagans are wrong†¦ Roland’s famous utterance†¦ means exactly the opposite of what it is often taken to mean. It is the warrior’s expression of humility, his understanding that†¦ without the grace of God his great qualities would lead him to perdition. † (SOR, 9) Every formal conflict in the poem is defined as a judicial battle whose outcome is God’s verdict†¦ In each case the miraculous victory of the smaller side reveals the will of God, for only He could have caused the astonishing outcome. † (SOR, 10) â€Å"We know – and our knowledge precedes every event, every cause, every motive – that Roland will refuse to sound the Oliphant: therefore, his refusal is necessary, for it is accomplished†¦ We must regard his great spirit, his proud motives, and his famous act as pr aiseworthy, exemplary, pleasing to God, because they are necessary, foreseen, exactly as they occurred. † (SOR, 14) In the world that this poem celebrates, [Roland] cannot be right by accident: not only his decisions but his entire attitude is right – his militant response to the pagans, his whole sense of what a Christian knight must do is nearest to what pleases God, for it comes from God. † (SOR, 19) â€Å"The concerns that led [Roland] to refuse to summon help – honor, lineage, sweet France – are named and praised by Charles†¦ Only if there is a victory of the few against the many can the outcome of the battle reveal the will of God†¦ he is the agent of God’s will, the supreme vassal, and God has sanctified his calling, endowed it with a mission. (SOR, 21) â€Å"Each man in this feudal community finds his place in a hierarchical structure of loyalties that ends in Charlemagne, to whom all are bound, as he is bound to them in th e obligation to protect them. † (SOR, 22) â€Å"When Ganelon, at the height of his rage, shouts at Roland†¦ ‘I do not love you,’†¦ It means: the bonds of loyalty are cut, we are enemies. † (SOR, 22) â€Å"Here we see as well the true Ganelon, the essential Ganelon – the man who, in his whole-hearted obedience to the law, subverts its intention and works the destruction of his community.For the effect of his brave departure is to sow the seeds of discord and to endanger the life of Charles’s greatest vassal. † (SOR, 22) City of man vs city of god â€Å"A new state is brought into being by the treason of Ganelon, which appears as a shadow-act of the great treason that inaugurated the salvation of the human race, and by the trial in which he is condemned. † (SOR, 25) Appearance of the state within the frame of the poem’s action comes about for this reason: when something can be betrayed, that is proof that it exists †¦ it can be betrayed because it is real and has the right to demand loyalty. † (SOR, 25) â€Å"France takes on a native character and reveals exactly what it is that pleases God: it is a state in which all men are bound in loyalty through their ultimate obligation to the King, a state whose unity and well-being drive from the subordination of all privileges, rights, and interests to the King chosen by God. (SOR, 27) â€Å"Since God foresaw all things and, hence, that man would sin, our conception of the supernatural City of God must be based what God foreknew and forewilled, and not o human fancies that could never come true, because it was not in God’s plan that they should. Not even by his sin could man change the counsels of God, in the sense of compelling Him to alter what He had once decided.The truth is that, by His omniscience, God could foresee two future realities: how bad man whom God had created good was to become, and how much good God was to make ou t of this very evil. (CD, 14. 11)† â€Å"Whoever seeks to be more than he is becomes less, and while he aspires to be self-sufficing he retires from Him who is truly sufficient for him†¦ there is a wickedness by which a man who is self-satisfied as if he were the light turns himself away from that true Light which, had man loved it, would have made him a sharer in the light. CD, 14. 11 p. 311)† â€Å"Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, the heavenly by love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, ‘Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. ’ (CD, 14. 20)†