Definition of Positive Psychology in Psychology

Positive psychology is the systematic analysis of the strengths and qualities that permit individuals to thrive. This field is based on the principle that individuals desire to lead momentous and satisfying lives, to promote what is superlative, and to develop their knowledge of love, employment, and fun.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Definition of Positive Psychology in Psychology specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Positive psychology is mainly concerned with three aspects, which encourage individuals to adopt it in solving life problems. The three characteristics are encouraging institutions, individual features and helpful sentiments. Understanding individual Sentiments is important in studying gratification in the past, pleasure in the present and optimism for the future. The field is all-inclusive because it identifies the causes of problems and goes ahead to solve them using the most cost effecting techni ques. The field develops some theories that explain why some behaviors or actions occur. Positive psychology is strong because it is responsive to misery and aims at eradicating it. In this regard, it can bring about lasting pleasure, human brilliance and develop some methods for solving problems. Positive psychologists correctly observe that human suffering cannot be separated from well-being. Therefore, psychologists must consider the two possibilities in life, instead of focusing on only one of the two. Positive psychology is resourceful because it argues that happiness is not related to stupidity. Before the invention of positive psychology, most scholars believed that happiness was linked to stupidity. However, positive psychologists proved through research that happiness is indeed related to success at either school or home. As earlier noted, positive psychology is said to promote optimism, which in turn facilitates comprehension of risks. An important quality of positive psyc hology is that it encourages self-actualization and individualism (Rath, 2007). This imply that individuals have freedom to do as they desire, without being restricted by societal institutions such as the family and the state. Even at work, positive psychology suggests that people should be given freedom to decide on the best ways of achieving their goals and objectives.Advertising Looking for article on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Antagonists of positive psychology point out that the field is unrealistic and idealistic. The scholars opposing positive psychology argue that individuals tend to ignore negative thinking in their lives. People embrace only positive reasoning meaning that the idea of considering both situations as argued by positive psychology is misplaced. Individuals may consider the possibility of an event but end up focusing only on the positive outcomes. In real sense, human beings have a natur al bias towards negative events, meaning that they cannot deliberate on them. Thinking about negative or positive events is situational implying that it depends on the occasion. The media for instance will always focus on the negative events, even though some positive ones could be found in an event. Furthermore, doctors focus on curing diseases instead of coming up with measures aiming at preventing them. From the above analysis, it is advisable that scholars should engage in extensive research to establish the truth as regards to the applicability of positive psychology. Existing scholarly gaps in the field should be sealed by generating theories that are more appealing. Positive psychology scholars should engage other researchers in scholarly discussions in order to strengthen the validity of the subject matter. For instance, culture is identified as one of the impediments to the understanding and application of positive psychology. The Chinese culture for instance has its own un derstanding of positive psychology. Such differences should be eliminated through conducting extensive research. In conclusion, the above findings are important in understanding the existing gaps between scholars of positive psychology and other fields. Understanding the limitations or weaknesses of a field is important in conducting future research. Therefore, future studies will be shaped by the findings of this article.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Definition of Positive Psychology in Psychology specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Reference Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press. This article on Definition of Positive Psychology in Psychology was written and submitted by user Finley H. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

How far was the limited impact of British Fascism in the 1930s due to Sir Oswald Mosleys failings and errors as a political leader Essays

How far was the limited impact of British Fascism in the 1930s due to Sir Oswald Mosleys failings and errors as a political leader Essays How far was the limited impact of British Fascism in the 1930s due to Sir Oswald Mosleys failings and errors as a political leader Essay How far was the limited impact of British Fascism in the 1930s due to Sir Oswald Mosleys failings and errors as a political leader Essay Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, undoubtedly had his flaws and failings which were, of course, a key feature in the failure of fascism in Britain. However, more important were the political and economic circumstances in Britain at the time. Unlike Germany and Italy, in which the circumstances were highly conducive to the rise of fascism, Britains political, and more importantly economic position, was such that fascism was simply unable to flourish and the BUF was unable to succeed.Sir Oswald Mosley was in many respects a brilliant man. He was, in reality, far from untalented. The historians John Stevenson and Chris Cook state that it is difficult to conceive of a fascist movement of any significance at all in Britain without Mosleys leadership, and this may well be the case. He had risen to the top of the Labour Party at a young age in a meteoric rise and by the age of 33 he was effectively in the cabinet. This was an achievement simply too great to be acco mplished by someone completely incompetent. Furthermore, he was charismatic and a fine orator (although more so prior to the creation of the BUF, when he adopted the mannerisms of Hitler), as well as being a prolific writer, writing extensively on fascist ideology. His three most notable titles were The Greater Britain, Fascism: One Hundred Questions Asked and Answered, and Tomorrow we Live- British Union Policy. In addition, he was an imaginative man, with a genuine interest in ideas. He was, in fact, no less talented than one of the leaders of a successful fascist movement. Mosley was not as talented as Hitler, who was an exceptional orator, judger of public mood and propagandist. But equally, he was no less talented than the Italian fascist leader, Mussolini.However, Mosley had his flaws which, among other factors, proved crucial in the BUFs lack of success. His character was undeniably flawed, he had a desire to be taken seriously as political leader whilst at the same time soci alising in Mayfair. A.J. P. Taylor once described him as a highly gifted playboy. As a result, he was never fully able to devote himself to a cause without becoming distracted by women or his rich friends in Venice.His second major flaw was that he was prone to making poor political judgements. Firstly, he had an appetite for violence; this was demonstrated most clearly with the Olympia meeting. On the 7th June 1934, the BUF held a large rally at Olympia. About 500 anti-fascists managed to get inside the hall. When they began heckling Oswald Mosley they were attacked by 1,000 black-shirted stewards. Several of the protesters were badly beaten by the fascists. This tasteless violence resulted in a public outcry. Lord Rothermere, proprietor of the Daily Mail (the BUFs principal backers), and author of the article Hurrah for the Blackshirts! withdrew his support of the BUF. Over the next few months membership went into decline, indicating that people were not willing to support a party as tastelessly violent as the BUF. His second poor political judgement was his imitation of continental fascism. Mosley copied several features directly from his European counterparts. For example, the name and uniform of the BUF paramilitary organisation (the Blackshirts) was copied directly from Italian fascism. From Nazi Germany, Mosley borrowed the Nazi salute.This earned him the nickname Moslini from his critics and opponents. He also had strong links with the continental fascist governments, with large amounts of funding coming from Italy and Germany. Mosley, however, failed to understand that these links and imitations made fascism appear un-British, thus damaging the prospects of the party. Another of Mosleys political misjudgements was his misunderstanding of the nature of the economic crisis. During his time in the Labour Party, Mosley emerged as the foremost advocate of economic radicalism to tackle the unemployment crisis. He presented his ideas to Ramsay Macdonald in t he form of the Mosley Memorandum but this was rejected and subsequently leaked, causing much embarrassment to Mosley. He resigned from the labour party and created the New Party, expecting to achieve spectacular support for his policies of ridding Britain of the old gang holding her back, but this support was simply not present. Mosleys also made the mistake of expecting widespread support. He expected the party to sweep to power on the basis of this support, but again, the backing was not there.Mosleys third major flaw was that his political strategy was inconsistent and not at all well thought out. This inconsistency was demonstrated by Mosleys complete change of direction from the early 1930s to the later 1930s. In the early 1930s, Mosleys strategy involved public meetings, paramilitary activity and propaganda with the intention of increasing the momentum of British fascism and creating a violent crisis from which the BUF could arise as Britains saviour. However, following the di sastrous Olympia meeting of 1934 the BUF strategy changed, placing much less emphasis on paramilitary activity and instead concentrating on electoral strategy. This complete change of direction could have been confusing to potential supporters of the BUF.More important than Mosleys flaws, however, was the economic and political context. The impact of war had a great effect on the way in which fascism rose in Europe. In Germany and Italy there was an intensely nationalistic mood. In Italy this was the case because at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles she was sideline, when initially she had been promised huge territorial gains. Italy had lost a larger proportion of the population than Britain and had been engaged in a mountain war just as horrible as the Western front. This became known as the mutilated peace. Germany had an intensely nationalistic mood due to the loss of the war and the huge losses made at Versailles. In Britain, there was no heightened sense of nationalistic feeling as Britain has won the war. There were psychological effects, but this did not take the form of nationalism because Britain was not defeated, her empire remained fully intact and in fact, her imperial position was actually strengthened, making territorial gains in the Middle East and South Africa. Externally, this made Britain look stronger than ever (although internally the empire was beginning to fall apart); Britains world influence was at a zenith.The economic factor in the failure of the BUF, rather than its leaders flaws or other external factors, was the most crucial factor. There are three main economic factors. The first was that the economic conditions in Britain were simply not severe enough to be conducive to a rise in fascist support. Undoubtedly, there was an economic crisis in Britain, however this crisis was nowhere near as severe as the European crises that occurred in which fascism was able to succeed. In Italy there was suffering during the transition from war to peace. During the bennio rosso (the two red years) there were large scale military socialist acts and chaos in the industrial cities. Germany from 1929-1933 faced massive economic collapse like never before, the crisis was out of control making the country appear ungovernable. In both cases there was genuine fear among the middle classes that their respective country was about to fall to communism. This fear was simply not present in Britain. Clearly there was a UK economic crisis, but the most severe conditions were localised. Furthermore, from 1932, the British economy began to recover. Areas such as Romford and Ilford had a huge house building boom bringing with it a sense of prosperity. There was new industry too, for example, a new car plant at Dagenham.Also, there is the fact that the BUF was founded too late. The BUF was founded in 1932, by which time the depression had already bottomed out and things were beginning to get better. In early 1932, unemployment peaked at just under three million according to official figures (although this may well be inaccurate). Therefore, the party could not take full advantage of any desperation that was present.The economic factor in the failure of fascism was the most important factor, although this has been disputed. The historian Alan Sykes argues that the political factor is the most important. He states that there was a point in the first half of the 1930s at which the British economy appeared to be in sufficient trouble to threaten social and political instability. Although in reality the situation was never as serious as Sykes suggests with safety features, such as the dole, preventing great unrest within the working class. Furthermore, he states that it was during this time that fascism achieved its peak membership, but this is wrong. By this time, the BUF had barely been created; it was in fact formed after the depression had bottomed out. The economic factor was the more important for two main reason s. Firstly, because the political factors were to some degree dependant on the economic position.Had there been a complete economic meltdown it is highly possible that the Communist Party would have gained more support. Another reason was the political culture. There was a political culture in Britain. Belief in British values of tolerance, non-violence and respect for the constitution was also dependant on the economic situation. Had the circumstances been as severe as in Germany, it is possible that the opposition to violence would have disappeared. In Germany there had also been a strong political culture, but the loathing of violence disappeared in the depths of the depression.Despite this, the political factors were nonetheless important. There were two political reasons why the BUF was unable to succeed. Firstly, in Italy and Germany there was always a fear that the country was about to fall to communism, but again, this fear was not present in Britain. The Communist Party in Britain was a negligible and inconsequential force which at its peak had less than 18000 members. In Germany there was an acute economic crisis and Nazi propaganda led to panic in the Mittelstand. Support for communism in Britain only grew during the Spanish Civil War; the economic crisis had no effect on Communist support. The Communist Party was useless at targeting the discontented whereas Labour Trade Unions were effective at doing so.Therefore, it was not plausible for Mosley to generate a Red Menace alarm. There were several features of Britain which prevented the Communist Party of Great Britain from gaining support. Firstly, if people were badly hit by the depression, public welfare was available. In 1911 the National Insurance Act had been introduced, which involved the employer, the employee and the state each putting a certain amount of money into the National Insurance fund which would grant benefits for a fixed period of time in the event of unemployment. The dole was n ot generous but it allowed people to retain a sense of self respect. It was sufficient for little more than basis subsistence but it prevented complete desperation. Public welfare in Germany and the USA was nowhere near as generous.As the unemployed did not face destitution, they were much less likely to turn to communism. Secondly, young people (often the most active supporters of extremism), moved to look for work, particularly to the South East of England to the areas in which prosperity was returning, moving from their home patches and avoiding becoming embroiled in extremist politics. Therefore, the middle classes were not worried that the country was about to fall. Also, in the worst affected areas, unemployment was no new problem. For several years, Britain had been facing structural unemployment. This is when one industrial process supersedes another due to technological changes or a permanent fall in the demand for a product causing long term unemployment. Structural unempl oyment had hit coal, iron and ship building industries particularly badly since the 1920s. The areas in which these industries had been most prominent were also the areas worst hit by the depression, the result being general apathy as they had been facing unemployment since the 1920s.Secondly, Mosley could not play the Red Peril card with the Labour Party claiming that labour where the main threat from the left. This would have been completely implausible as Labour was a moderate political party with no revolutionary feelings. It even banned Communists from the party and shunned any affiliation with militant socialists. Labour had not supported the General Strike of 1926 and during its periods in government in 1924 and 1931 it had not done anything radical at all. Also, Labour was too weak to be dangerous. The party had only advanced at the expense of the Liberals and even so, it had not advanced spectacularly. Even when there was a Labour government (1924, 1929-31) it was still a m inority. In 1931 Labour became weaker because of a split. This was catastrophic for the party as it brought their advance to a halt and they fell from office.Thirdly, there is the argument of the distinctiveness of the British national character. However, it is debatable as to how important this is as a factor. D.S Lewis suggests that it is as well to dispense at the outset with the popular myth that fascism was eliminated by the moderation and toleration of the British character, or culture. This argument can be supported by the fact that there were acts of violence in twentieth-century Britain, for example, the Tonypandy incident where there was fighting between miners and police. Although this may well be true to a certain extent, states do have a political culture and indeed Britain has its distinctive features. It is true that Britains political arrangements were the product of several hundred years of evolutionary change and the assumption at the time was that Britains politic al system worked effectively thus making people willing to stick with the system with the expectation that it would pull through.Also, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party had very deep roots in British society and therefore could claim to be national as opposed to sectional. The Conservative Party, although having started off for the Conservative sections of the landowning class, had under Peel and Disraeli opened its doors to new social groups and from 1885 the Party was the dominant force in British politics. Also, when Baldwin was the leader of the party, he reinforced the image of moderation. Likewise, Labour was also a moderate party who even after the 1931 split was able to retain the majority of working class support ensuring that Mosley was unable to attract it.A less important point, but nonetheless a factor in the failure of fascism, was the response of the British government to the BUF. Following the Battle of Cable Street, the government passed the Public Or der Act of 1936, giving police the power to ban marches and all marches had to take place with the permission of the police. It also outlawed the wearing of paramilitary uniform in public. This knocked back Mosleys plan of marches. It showed the government was capable of robust and decisive action. This not a key cause as it came late in Fascisms life.In conclusion, although Mosleys failings and errors were a key reason for the failure of fascism in Britain, there were more important factors. Namely, the resilience of the British political system, more importantly, the economic conditions in Britain and less importantly, but a factor nonetheless, the response of the British government.

The development of Art Deco Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The development of Art Deco - Essay Example According to a website, Oaktown Art, â€Å"Art Deco was an international design movement popular in the 1920†²s and 30†²s, focused on themes of luxury, technology, modernization, and craftsmanship† . Art deco can be termed as an art movement that originated from Paris and within a span of very short time, it spread to both European and American regions. Art deco was basically an outcome of the earlier Art Nouveau movement . That movement was facing popularity decline by the end of the nineteenth century and some new modifications appeared necessary to keep art growing and flourishing. That was the reason why artists felt the need of adding some new themes to existing art. The modifications gained a level of acceptance and fame and within no time, art deco became one of the main trends related to the world of art. Art deco is similar to its previous form, Art Nouveau, in a sense that it also focuses on the significance of artisan craftsmanship. Art deco kept the same theme of Art Nouveau featuring curves, arcs, and natural motifs of flora and fauna . Although Art Deco has many features similar to Art Nouveau, but it is known as a modern form of art blended with the use of attractive colors schemes and sharps lines and edges. French artists are considered as the founders of Art Deco because they were the ones who started giving a new shape and look to exiting objects. The aim was to renovate the existing objects and make them, more attractive and appealing as compared to before. French artists are also known.