Dan Pink video you was based on his book Drive. When the book came out The Economist ran an article critiquing some of what Dan Pink had to say. Watch the Video and Article, Complete a write up addressing the following points.
1.What specific criticisms does the author make of Dan Pink’s claims about motivation and how does the author support these criticisms (i.e. what specific evidence/examples does the author cite to support his criticisms).
- Do you find the authors criticisms compelling? If so why? Are there any criticisms you think Dan Pink might challenge and if so how?
Video 1 Link: https://wm.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFpc&t=1s
What exactly EXTENT IS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM THAT IS DISABILITY A MATTER OF PRIVATE CONCERN FOR THE FAMILY? Inability energizes intrigue since incapacity is viewed as a social issue i.e. it is seen either as far as close to home disaster or of fault. Social issues create open concern and private wretchedness and call for aggregate activity to cure this (Worsley, 1972). Handicap has been speculated in various distinctive routes, the vast majority of which find the issue in the individual as opposed to the more extensive social, political, and financial impacts. This has suggestions for the area of the fault for social issues, with the end goal that they progress toward becoming depoliticised. The ascent in the possibility of the legislative issues of minority bunches is all around recorded and suggests that on account of individuals with handicaps who can't work the Government ought to give an entire scope of administrations. Since most Governments are reluctant to submit themselves this far, incapacity is again characterized as a social issue, and regularly the weight of consideration lies with the family (Moore, 2002). This paper will give a record of meanings of inability and the manners by which they affect on impaired individuals. There will be an investigation of the idea and history of the family and its contemporary various structures, and an examination of the manners by which the belief system of the family has problematised the idea of consideration. The paper will then evaluate how the family has been embroiled in both taking care of and characterizing the issue of inability and to what degree the social issue that is handicap involves private worry for families. Models of Disability The medicinal model of wellbeing is the most intense in western culture, specialists presented a 'remedial' model of wellbeing that focused on the body where the healing facility turned into the space for such models were tried (Walsh et al, 2000). This model arranges sick wellbeing in the individual and disregards the social conditions that may offer ascent to sick wellbeing, besides it has affected on government medicinal services approach all through the twentieth century. The circumstance is exacerbated by the medicalisation of numerous conditions making them into an issue that must be tended to by specialists, as Brisenden(1986) remarks: The issue … is that therapeutic individuals will in general observe all troubles exclusively from the point of view of proposed medicines for a 'quiet', without perceiving that the individual needs to weigh up whether this treatment fits into the general economy of their life. In the past particularly, specialists have been excessively ready, making it impossible to propose therapeutic treatment and hospitalization, notwithstanding when this would not really enhance the personal satisfaction for the individual concerned. To be sure, inquiries regarding the personal satisfaction have now and then been depicted as something of an interruption upon the simply medicinal condition. (Brisenden, 1986:176). The medicinal model prompts the treatment of individuals with inabilities as inactive objects of therapeutic consideration. This is onerous of incapacitated individuals and spreads to other social connections, it considers handicap to be neurotic i.e. established in a man's science, and in this manner perpetual. Contained inside this model is the view of individuals with inabilities as hazardous. Incapacity has additionally been hypothesized as an individual disaster, bringing about people with a handicap being viewed as exploited people. This outcomes in approach making whereby individuals with handicaps require adjusting for their incapacity. This model likewise influences social connections. The perspective of incapacity as close to home disaster individualizes handicap with the goal that it progresses toward becoming depoliticised and the incapacitated individual must influence his or her changes in accordance with that inability decently well (Dalley, 1990). In finding incapacity inside the individual society denies any duty to cook for the assorted variety of their needs (Oliver, 1990). The third manner by which inability has been guessed is in the social model of handicap. This model is ending up progressively predominant in research on inability. Vassey (1992) has portrayed it in this way: rethinking inability regarding an incapacitating situation, repositioning debilitated individuals as natives with rights, and reconfiguring the duties regarding making, supporting and conquering disablism (Vassey, 1992:44).. Here the individual is handicapped in view of the refusal of society to accommodate model appropriate access for the wheelchair client. This model burdens that a crippling society prompts the rejection of individuals with handicaps. Oliver (1996) battles that this idea has been politically enabling for incapacitated individuals, and has enabled a recently challenged thought to build up a plan that has impacted strategy making. A few people consider inability to be completely an aftereffect of social structures and procedures while others feel that society intensifies the troubles that impaired individuals experience. Handicap is anything but an all inclusive classification, individuals have diverse sorts and degrees of weakness, some can work well with specialized guides while still others are, to a more prominent or lesser degree, subject to the consideration of other individuals (Dalley, 1988). The Concept and History of the Family Parsons (1955) contended that the family is the essential place of socialization and serves to present and impart the standards and estimations of society. Parsons show was what is normally known as the family unit, i.e. guardians and youngsters living respectively to give the common love and bolster that people should be gainful individuals from society (Giddens, 2001). Murdock (1949 refered to in Giddens, 2001) keeps up that customary ideas of the family are an all inclusive marvel. Others scrutinize the atomic model for being excessively tight and for ignoring the way that not all relatives encounter life similarly (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Regardless of whether the family unit is viewed as general depends to a great extent on how the family is characterized, positively it is not any more the standard in contemporary society. Gittins (1993) keeps up that there are a wide assortment of residential connections. In this manner connections might be all inclusive yet the structures they take can be interminably factor. There are many single parent families, regardless of whether through death, separation or decision, there are additionally second relational unions that regularly result in reconstituted families. The atomic model relates particularly to nineteenth and mid twentieth century ideological perspectives of the family (Giddens, 2001). The Family and Ideology Until the late seventeenth century there was practically no refinement between people in general and the private circle, families by and large worked the land and they did this together. The ascent of industrialization and the development of the towns brought monstrous changes to what had established family life up until that time. Women's activists contend that for a considerable length of time ladies have been the subordinate sex in the public eye and this subordination is to a great extent a consequence of the way that they have been conceived ladies instead of men. This subordination expanded with industrialisation and the detachment among open and private circles (Oakley 1982). The happening to the plant implied that the family was supplanted as the unit of creation. The developing reliance of kids, Oakley (1982) states, prompted ladies' expanded reliance on men and their limitation to the private circle. All through the nineteenth century there was a developing glorification of the female. Ladies were viewed as both physically and candidly weaker than men and unfit for similar jobs. Victorian belief system said that ladies were made to encourage men and should subsequently stay at home. This principally influenced the white collar classes yet as the century advanced the common laborers were additionally impacted by this belief system, locking ladies into the housewife job (Oakley, 1982). Murdock (1949 in Giddens, 2001) contended that sexual orientation jobs are the common consequence of the natural contrasts among people. Men's unrivaled quality and ladies' childbearing abilities make the sexual division of work the most sensible method for sorting out society. Delphy (1977) keeps up that this outcomes in sexual disparity. Sex contrasts are not natural but rather socially built to serve the interests of the socially prevailing gathering. Delphy battles that ladies are a different class in light of the fact that the classifications of man and lady are political and monetary, instead of interminable natural classifications. Inside the family especially, ladies shape a class who are misused by men, as Delphy states: While the wage-worker offers his work control, the marrie lady gives hers away; restrictiveness and non-installment are personally associated. To supply unpaid work inside the system of a widespread and individual relationship (marriage) builds basically a relationship of subjection (Delpy, 1977:15). This relationship has been abused by progressive Governments and is understood in numerous social strategy activities. The Family and the Welfare State The post-war welfare state which guaranteed widespread welfare arrangement, was set up on the supposition of full business and the idea that men would go out to work while ladies remained home (Abbott and Wallace, 1997).. Moore (2002) keeps up this is an ideological perspective of the family and how it may work. In the late 1970s the Tories effectively disheartened options in contrast to the customary family e.g. living together and gay organizations (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Since the Thatcher Government open and approach banters on family life, child rearing and wellbeing have revolved around the possibility of obligation (Such and Walker 2004) Moore (2002) keeps up that in the reasoning of the seventies and furthermore in Labor's Third Way, relatives have an obligation to help each other as it isn't the activity of the state to take care of them. The state assumes control when nobody else is around to share the weight. The way that the State has needed to mediate, it is contended, is one reason why the customary family is on the decay.>GET ANSWER