Myth Of Unity Research Articles

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN SHAPING THE IMAGE OF A POLITICIAN


 
 
 This article discusses the ability of the media to influence the political culture and consciousness of society, in particular through the creation of stereotypical symbolic constructs such as political images and political myths. The features and the role of each type of media in the formation of the images of political leaders and parties are presented, as well as some techniques that the media use in the process of updating political images are presented. It is known that the main goal of the media in the process of constructing political images is the creation and dissemination of political myths. The article discusses in detail four main topics from all possible plots of political myths: “the myth of the conspiracy”, “the myth of the golden age”, “the myth of the hero-savior”, “the myth of unity”.
 
 

Th e Leibholz-Schmitt connection’s formative influence on Bonhoeffer’s 1932–33 entry into public theology

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s brother-in-law Gerhard Leibholz’s insight into the Fascist theory of the state’s messianic leadership and myth of creating communal life became a major source of information for Bonhoeffer. Leibholz had gained this knowledge in close jurisprudential cooperation with Carl Schmitt as is evidenced by Leibholz’s 1929 habilitation thesis which at the same time intersected with Bonhoeffer’s academic work. Their original political leanings towards authoritarianism, Volk, and Vitalism were revised by Bonhoeffer and Leibholz in November 1932 through stepping out into a coordinated public opposition to the approaching political changes. But both only recognized the populist xenophobic destructiveness of such a life, hidden beneath the myth of unity, once Schmitt turned to National Socialism in early 1933. Bonhoeffer’s theology, built on the Leibholz-Schmitt discourse, remains a call for vigilance against the abuse of power, populism, and xenophobia, and continues to call for seeking God-revealed life.

Jewish "Officialdom" and The Passion of the Christ : Who Said What and What Did They Say?

Introduction Among the falsely perceived myths not only of this historical American Jewish experience but the contemporary one as well is that of a singular American Jewish community, seemingly united by such common factors as religious faith and belief; love of and support for a continuously beleaguered State of Israel; higher educational agendas for the young; support for defensive organizations against the on-going post-Holocaust/Shoah specter of antisemitism; politically left-wing, liberal, primarily Democratic voter identification; uncanny fund-raising abilities; opposition to inter-religious or mixed-marriages; socio-economic concerns associated with middle-class to upper-middle-class to upper-class lives, and the like. The reality of the American Jewish community is, however, quite the opposite: While certain concerns may assume dominating positions momentarily only to be replaced by others, the myth of unity is precisely that: myth. American Jews remain divided along religious lines, have strong and varied opinions about the State of Israel and its political and military behaviors, are divided about how best to confront antisemitism both in the American context and elsewhere, continue to be conflicted about the best course of action in response to increasing intermarriage rates, find themselves increasingly both protective and preservative of their achieved socio-economic status, and the like. Commensurate with this historical and contemporary divisiveness is the one question that, in truth, has been the bane of the American Jewish experience: Who, in fact, speaks for the Jews? Who best represents on the national and international stages Jewish concerns? The plethora of Jewish organizations -- more than 600, according to the 2003 edition of The American Jewish Yearbook published by The American Jewish Committee -- dramatically and graphically supports the contention that there are many representative voices at the table purporting to speak for American Jews, some louder than others depending upon the issue and context, and more often than not, upon membership numbers. Thus, just as the Jews of the United States do not form a unified community, so, too, do their representative spokespersons not speak with one voice regardless of the issues before them. Enter Hollywood icon Mel Gibson and his religio-cinematic blockbuster The of the Christ, pre-screened in February 2004, released to coincide with the Easter holy day season, and complete with an end-of-August DVD availability. Though much ink has already been spilled about every possible aspect of this film and its implications by every possible commentator, the one truism that speaks loudest is the following: Jews and Christians, in the main, whether or not they sat together or saw the film together, saw two very different movies out of their, ultimately, divergent concerns. For many Christians, the film was a religiously cathartic experience, truly expanding their understanding as never before of the loving gift of the Christ's willing suffering and life-sacrifice, and re-affirmed for many the culpability and guilt of all humanity responsible for His death. For Jews, the continuously negative portrayals of the Jewish leaders, primarily priests, and the Jewish populace was, quite simply, the newest adumbration of antisemitism -- a modern, technological Passion not radically other than that produced once every decade in Oberammergau, Germany; the very same play which saw Adolf Hitler in attendance and confirming for him and others of his ilk the Jew as eternal and perpetual enemy. Thus, for these same Christians the film was a religio-theological experience; for Jews the film was an historical experience. And into the fray came any number of Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders and their Jewish concerns. Who said what and what they said are the loci of this essay. I. The Findings Beyond any question, the one American Jewish organization which led the fight against the perceived antisemitic agenda of the film and its co-writer and producer was and remains the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith under its National Director Dr. …

About Western man and the ‘gap’ that is constantly threatening him: Or how to deal with the tragic when staging Greek tragedies today?

The revival of Greek tragedy at the end of the twentieth century raises a number of important aesthetic, philosophical and existential questions. Once we accept that Greek tragedy expresses a number of basic categories of Western thinking and behaving, we also have to acknowledge that the tragic feeling characterizes us more than we would like to agree upon. The history of this existential and philosophical way of thinking will be explored in a twofold way, which will be called “the myth of unity” and “the myth of plurality”.

The Merits of a Systemic Vision and the Usefulness of the Genogram in Psychosomatics: Application to Psychodermatology

Background: The authors first demonstrate the necessity of a more complex vision of psychosomatics. This can be achieved by a systemic approach. The authors’ previous research has clearly revealed that one of the most typical relationship characteristics of these families is the tendency to avoid expressing conflicts and emotional tensions. Difficulties in verbalizing emotional experiences stem from the fact that emotions are carefully filtered to conserve a ‘pseudoharmony’ in the family system. This ‘myth of unity’ seems to form the farreaching cement of the family beyond which ‘fantasies of rupture’, fears of family disaggregation can be found. Method: By constructing the genogram we discover the presence of traumatic events in the past of these families. The theme of loss often dominates these histories and is associated with deep emotional experiences of separation anxiety. Case Reports: Two clinical cases are presented. In the first, a woman consulted us for a recent acne aggravation. She progressively relates this to her mother’s sudden death. The genogram reveals that this mother has lost her mother due to a curious bigamy situation, that the patient did not know until 18 the secret of her birth, and that nothing was clear about the roles of the 3 different ‘fathers’ she had in her life. The second clinical case is a woman with atopic dermatitis dramatically increased after her marriage. In constructing her genogram she can express old grievances towards her father. We discover also that her father gave up his career to stay with his mother after his own father’s death. Eczema was necessary for our patient to take the time with her family of origin before leaving to live abroad. Conclusion: These cases illustrate that psychosomatic symptoms are belonging to three levels that are not antinomic: biological, psychological, and relational. These levels are complementary when seen from a perspective of complexity. The therapist’s function is to broaden the creative areas of freedom, giving the possibility for the patient and her/his family to understand the complex meaning of the symptom and free themselves from it.

The Problem of the Unity of Knowledge in Comte's Philosophy of Science*

Comte's philosophy of science is re‐examined from the point of view of the rationalist problematic of the unity of knowledge. It is argued that Comte's attempt to answer this metaphysical problem is the single most important factor determining the final form of his system of positive philosophy, his hierarchy of the sciences, his conception of sociology, and ultimately his positive religion of Humanity. After rejecting the main solutions offered by modern rationalism, Comte provides a subjective unity for the sciences by establishing Humanity as the principle of organization for all knowledge. The article describes the various components of the positive synthesis, their background in the history of ideas, and the contemporary relevance of the problem of unity for logical empiricism and Husserl.Some have said that need for unity expresses the identity of the self; others, that it stands for economy of thought. Possibly, but this is interpretation, psychologically or sociologically tinged. The need for unity is a historical fact and, as such, unresolved. It is also a symbol of science, and its myth. Science is a finely defined and articulated system of symbols; but the ultimate symbol, that of unity, can have no referent. Rather one might say it stands for the totality of the knowable and the unknowable. A confusing situation for the scientific mind, but one it cannot escape. For the conflict at the heart of rationalism is the source of its strength, as long as it lasts.Once the faith is lost, something else has to be found.Under the relentless pressure of social change, with the growing operationalism of physical theory and the metaphysical devastations attendant on Darwinism, the myth of unity could no longer hold. It had to be replaced by unification. But with that the status of science is changed and also that of the scientist. The mirror of nature that reason had endeavored to build up through the ages is shattered, and we look for the first time straight out into an unknown world.

Marital Therapy: Toleration of Differentness

This paper presents a way of understanding marriage and marital therapy in terms of Satir's concept of differentness. One important impetus toward marriage is the individual's need to feel complete through emotional fusion with the spouse. Individuals choose marriage partners who will give them a sense of completion. Marital balance is sought around the fulcrum of this need for unity. Any disturbance to the myth of unity of the two partners is seen as a personal threat by each. Marital balance or homeostatis is a way the partners disguise the unique differentness of each. Acknowledgement of the differentness and separateness of the other is seen as a threat to the self. The task of therapy is to help partners recognize and tolerate the differentness of the other.

The Future of the Atlantic Community

In our discussions, there are above all two myths which it seems to me should be analyzed and, in a sense, exposed. One is the myth of unity. The other, the myth of independence. Unity serves statesmen, pressure groups, and wide sectors of public opinion as the remedy for all ills: so, too, in the world is invoked as the universal panacea. In his State of the Union Message of January 1962, President Kennedy, speaking of the Community, declared optimistically that the Community already existed, being founded on and cooperation. In October 1962, after his Cuban success, the President believed the moment had come to proclaim Western unity in the face of growing Communist disunity between the Soviet Union and China. Alas! On 14 January 1963, General de Gaulle took it upon himself to demonstrate that was less advanced than it had seemed. From then on it became the fashion in circles to say that, were it not for de Gaulle, we would be progressing towards unity. Before analyzing the concept of unity, it should be noted that there are in the world two main schools of thought, which are more often reconciled verbally than genuinely. The first is and speaks of the Atlantic It is not at any rate explicitly hostile to the creation of a European community within the community. But it values the latter more highly. This is not the way the Europeanists, the second of the two schools, think. True, most of them, including the most eminent of all, Jean Monnet, are not hostile to the idea of Atlantic Unity. But they visualize it as comprising two pillars the United States and the European Community linked by an Atlantic partnership which would be built at the same time as the European Community. It appears that it was Jean Monnet who