Guns, or weapons in general highlights many different uses and practicality. Much controversy revolves around such as these. In Mark Goulston’s discourse, “America Doesn’t Need Gun Control”, he clearly hints out that contrary to the law on the usage of guns, the fact of it has changed. Firstly, he highlights that in accordance to the law, the right to bear arms is mainly for the reason of protection. However, is it so? Secondly, he brings forth a general understanding that guns are now used as means of problem solving.
Lastly, Mark Goulston justifies and accused America’s culture to be that of “Cowboys”, the sense of pride and power to act base on rash acts rather than thought, leading to the internal American gun “revolution”. It is true to a certain extent that guns are mistreated from the way they should be. Apparently, from the first statement of Mark in relevance to ownership of guns for protection is close to void. With the cross-referencing of the contextual opinion of Mark is of which guns are used even as means to retaliate and seek revenge on one another.
Is this war that we are speaking of? War among each other to the point that force doctrine on weaponry must be misused. This needless violence should be eradicated. It is necessary that due to revenge and humiliation that one should foster the need for killings. In the large population of America, there tend to me at least a couple of people with intellectual disabilities. These might just be the minority of people that has the need for “bloodshed” to go about their daily problems. Take for example in Australia, in 1996, 35 and 23 people were killed and injured respectively.
Why is that so? It is because the gunman had psychotic problems. Thus Australia implemented heavy gun control regulations but not banning the use of weapons. Significantly through this, the death rate due to firearms in Australia is reduced. So what difference is there from America and Australia? Prior to the incident, the similarities in both countries were the same on weaponry. The word ‘praise’ conventionally invokes a notion of positivity through which ones’ approval or assent of another and their actions is expressed.
In Alfie Kohn’s discourse, ‘Criticizing (Common Criticisms of) Praise’, however, he argues that contrary to common belief, praise is not only negative but rather, detrimental to relationships and more importantly, to the person upon who the praise is bestowed. He also argues that praise is just a manifestation of our need for control and power. His first statement contends that praise is a tool of control and reinforces the status quo or hierarchy between one more superior than the other.
Secondly, he puts forth that praise is essentially ones’ judgement of another and their actions, wherein praise for completing a task negates the importance of the process in achieving completion of the task, and praise that is not forthcoming causes one to lose motivation and interest. Finally, he reasons that praise conditions one to inherently internalise the idea that one’s’ value and worth is pegged to and dependent on the approval of others. In light of his arguments, I agree only to a certain extent that praise is and can be a destructive tool.
Firstly, Kohn argues that praise is a tool of control and reinforces the status quo or hierarchy between one more superior than the other. As Kohn’s complete thesis argues in relation to child-adult interactions and relationships, praise in this instance, contrary to his arguments, can be said to be essential in establishing and reinforcing the status quo, and in the setting and maintaining of parent-child boundaries. It is then necessary that a parent exerts their authority over the upbringing of their children. This ability to control the child is important as it helps them relate to the proper hierarchy of the family.
If this is not embedded in the child’s upbringing, basic respect of the parents will not be in sight. They would not understand how and why to respect the authority figures around them. With the cross-reference to an article on the internet, the author describes that he met a group of 21st-century child professionals that clearly exclaimed about the inadequacies of parents. “Parents’ inability or refusal to take charge of their kids—to create any kind of appropriate hierarchy in the family”. (Ron Taffel, 2012). Praise is usually said or shown by someone of the higher authority.
In other words, by saying it to the child, ultimately highlights to them who is the one with the authority. This would then more or less teach the child where is his/her stand in the family. Kohn also argues that praise, ‘like other forms of reward … [is] a way of ‘doing to’ rather than ‘working with’. However, praise may not be such a one-sided affair; praise can be a way of rewarding a collaborative act between one with more power and one with less.
As the saying goes, ‘you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink. The superior can deal out orders, but the way to carry them out is totally by the discretion of the subordinates. Ultimately, praise has to contain sincerity. Between a higher authority and one with less, for the praise to be motivating it has to be sincere, specific and deserved. (Mueller, C. M and Dweck, C. S. , 1998) In this way, both superior and subordinates that are working on a project together. With the praise thrown out, the team would feel the motivation to carry out the tasks assigned to them. Quality and quantity of work would be prosperous.
Therefore, praise is not only a one sided affair, but it works hand in hand with a project setting involving one with a higher authority. The author in other words does describe that he does not fancy the use of praise in child’s context. With reference to another article he wrote “Stop saying Good Job”, it supports the fact that praise manipulates children, create praise junkies, stealing child’s pleasure make them lose interest and reduce achievements. (Alfie Kohn, 2000). It is true to a certain extent that praise does affect child’s development.
Take for example, if a child gets praised too often for a specialized thing that they do – for the next new thing that they attempts at and does not get the praise, would’nt they hate it. Thus the child would not attempt further on exposing themselves to newer experiments. However, the author’s viewpoints on praise in regards to a child may be valid, but he does not take into the consideration the other factors that praise too can work well in other circumstances such as between one with higher authority and one with less.
The author should highlight an example of which a child does fail after getting too much praise more than he/she needs. To convince that in today’s society, praise is not needed anymore. Therefore in conclusion, praise according to the author should only be given out in conjuction with work really well done. It has to be more conditional. However, praise should not be withheld just for work well done. It should however be used as a tool especially by people with authority to motivate and spur others on. Every person deserves a “prize” for things no matter how small they seem.