Differences between content and process theories of motivation

Anne Cameron, a very gifted white Canadian author, writes several first person accounts of the lives of Native Canadian women. At the International Feminist Book Fair in Montreal, a group of Native Canadian writers ask Cameron to, in their words, "move over" on the grounds that her writings are disempowering for Native authors.

Differences between content and process theories of motivation

Anne Cameron, a very gifted white Canadian author, writes several first person accounts of the lives of Native Canadian women. At the International Feminist Book Fair in Montreal, a group of Native Canadian writers ask Cameron to, in their words, "move over" on the grounds that her writings are disempowering for Native authors.

After the elections in Panama are overturned by Manuel Noriega, U. President George Bush declares in a public address that Noriega's actions constitute an "outrageous fraud" and that "the voice of the Panamanian people have spoken.

At a recent symposium at my university, a prestigious theorist was invited to give a lecture on the political problems of post-modernism. Those of us in the audience, including many white women and people of oppressed nationalities and races, wait in eager anticipation for what he has to contribute to this important discussion.

To our disappointment, he introduces his lecture by explaining that he can not cover the assigned topic, because as a white male he does not feel that he can speak for the feminist and post-colonial perspectives which have launched the critical interrogation of postmodernism's politics.

He lectures instead on architecture.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

These examples demonstrate the range of current practices of speaking for others in our society. While the prerogative of speaking for others remains unquestioned in the citadels of colonial administration, among activists and in the academy it elicits a growing unease and, in some communities of Differences between content and process theories of motivation, it is being rejected.

There is a strong, albeit contested, current within feminism which holds that speaking for otherseven for other womenis arrogant, vain, unethical, and politically illegitimate.

Primary Links

Feminist scholarship has a liberatory agenda which almost requires that women scholars speak on behalf of other women, and yet the dangers of speaking across differences of race, culture, sexuality, and power are becoming increasingly clear to all. In feminist magazines such as Sojourner, it is common to find articles and letters in which the author states that she can only speak for herself.

In her important paper, "Dyke Methods," Joyce Trebilcot offers a philosophical articulation of this view. She renounces for herself the practice of speaking for others within a lesbian feminist community, arguing that she "will not try to get other wimmin to accept my beliefs in place of their own" on the grounds that to do so would be to practice a kind of discursive coercion and even a violence.

In anthropology there is similar discussion about whether it is possible to speak for others either adequately or justifiably. The recognition that there is a problem in speaking for others has followed from the widespread acceptance of two claims. First, there has been a growing awareness that where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says, and thus that one cannot assume an ability to transcend her location.

In other words, a speaker's location which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker's claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one's speech.

The creation of Women's Studies and African American Studies departments were founded on this very belief: The unspoken premise here is simply that a speaker's location is epistemically salient.

I shall explore this issue further in the next section.

Differences between content and process theories of motivation

The second claim holds that not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous. This was part of the argument made against Anne Cameron's speaking for Native women: Cameron's intentions were never in question, but the effects of her writing were argued to be harmful to the needs of Native authors because it is Cameron rather than they who will be listened to and whose books will be bought by readers interested in Native women.

Persons from dominant groups who speak for others are often treated as authenticating presences that confer legitimacy and credibility on the demands of subjugated speakers; such speaking for others does nothing to disrupt the discursive hierarchies that operate in public spaces.

For this reason, the work of privileged authors who speak on behalf of the oppressed is becoming increasingly criticized by members of those oppressed groups themselves. However, we must begin to ask ourselves whether this is ever a legitimate authority, and if so, what are the criteria for legitimacy?

In particular, is it ever valid to speak for others who are unlike me or who are less privileged than me? We might try to delimit this problem as only arising when a more privileged person speaks for a less privileged one.

In this case, we might say that I should only speak for groups of which I am a member. But this does not tell us how groups themselves should be delimited. For example, can a white woman speak for all women simply by virtue of being a woman? If not, how narrowly should we draw the categories?

The complexity and multiplicity of group identifications could result in "communities" composed of single individuals.Bu site dil bilimi ve ona bagli diger disiplinleri tanitmak amaciyla hazirlanmiştir. Consider the following true stories: 1. Anne Cameron, a very gifted white Canadian author, writes several first person accounts of the lives of Native Canadian women.

What makes you behave the way you do? Are you pushed towards your actions or is some force pulling you along? This lesson defines the push and pull theories of motivation and presents examples of. Motivation is the reason for people's actions, willingness and yunusemremert.comtion is derived from the word motive which is defined as a need that requires satisfaction.

These needs could also be wants or desires that are acquired through influence of culture, society, lifestyle, etc. or generally innate.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Motivation is one's direction to behavior, or what causes a person to want to repeat a. The term motivation is derived from the Latin word movere, meaning "to move." Motivation can be broadly defined as the forces acting on or within a person that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of goal-directed, voluntary effort.

David Kolb's learning styles model, and more free online materials for organizational and personal development, and free business training tools, tips and guides.

Motivation Theories: Top 8 Theories of Motivation – Explained!