Jeff Stats Posted: Mesopotamian, Ancient Egyptia...
by admin on July 9th, 2009
filed under College And University
Jeff Stats posted:
Mesopotamian, Ancient Egyptian, Hellenistic Greek, and Roman were great civilizations that enormously influenced the following development of the world. Each civilization contributed a large amount of it’s achievements to the overall progress of the world. However, I think that Hellenistic Greek was the most important out of the chosen civilizations to impact the world. Hellenistic Greek was the culmination of the advancement of the ancient world. By using the following comparison of these civilizations I will try to prove my point of view of Hellenistic Greek being the greatest.
Mesopotamian is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. It is very interesting that Mesopotamians had a started some sort of democracy. They solved all the rising questions and problems by public assemblies and voting. They used debates to have pros and cons presented and then decided about the following actions or solutions. However, their class structure was sharply divided. At the top were kings and noble classes. There were also slaves who could engage in business, own property, and even testify in court.
The daily life of Mesopotamians was very boring. They only worked and worshiped their gods. The main industry that people were engaged in was agriculture. The tools used to work in the field were made out of stone. This shows not much of the progress in innovations that would make the very day life much easier.
The main reminding of Mesopotamian art are the frescoes that were found as decorations of sanctuary rooms. Bull and bear heads were also used as decorations. Scholars also found drawings that probably were the musical notes for Mesopotamians. Mesopotamian did not achieve much in architecture. Their houses were plain without any decorations which is probably the result of people being busy working and not having time to decorate their houses.
Mesopotamian philosophy is revealed in their myths that were the combination of Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian and Sumerian myths. Each of these regions had their own myths but due to the closeness all of them were related and had a lot of similarities. Myths were mostly about the religious events and importance of worshiping their ancestors. Most of the writing, though, that survived from Mesopotamian times consist of laws, accounting records, list of kings and enemies.
Ancient Egypt had a different concept of political structure comparing to Mesopotamia. In Egypt it was all up to the pharaoh and there were no debates and public discussions. The social structure was similar to the Mesopotamian. On the very top was the pharaoh, then vizier, then high priests and nobles, then priests, engineers and doctors, then scribes and craftsmen. On the very bottom of the social pyramid were soldiers, farmers and tomb builders.
Agriculture was the main occupation for Egyptians just like for Mesopotamians. The Egyptians were one of the first groups on earth to begin farming, probably around 10,000 BC. They were also great at building. The Egyptian pyramids were built throughout ages and still remain one of the wonders of the world.
Most of what we know about Egyptian art comes from the paintings the Egyptians created in the tombs of rich people when they died. It is very similar to Mesopotamians. These pictures were supposed to help the dead person when he or she reached the next world, where the Egyptians thought a person lived after the death in this world. So the paintings showed all sorts of things that people did in their regular lives.
Egyptian homes were made of dried mud bricks. Towns had small narrow streets. Throughout the Egyptian history the styles in architecture were changing. In the beginning, they built mainly mastabas, a kind of tomb with a flat roof like a house. Then during most of the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians built the pyramid tombs which are now so famous. In the Middle Kingdom, the mastaba tomb came back again, although in a more elaborate form for the Pharaohs. No more pyramids were built. Finally in the New Kingdom there was a lot of building that was not tombs: temples for the gods especially, but also palaces for the Pharaohs.
The main philosophy of the Egyptians was to be afraid of nature gods. They believed in Gods, sacrificed, and were afraid of them. Each natural thing had its own God. What we have left of Egyptian writing, like Egyptian art, mostly comes out of tombs. Because of this, most of what we have left is prayers. Other writing like laws and lists of who gave their fair share to the temple mostly has rotted away over the years. We do not know whether the Egyptians wrote novels or stories, but if they did then these stories have also rotted away.
The civilization that I believe is the greatest is Hellenistic Greek. During the Hellenic era Macedon was the most popular, important, and interesting city-state of Greece. Hellenistic Greece was more similar to Mesopotamia than to Egypt in its political structure. Huge Greece was divided into city-states that has own governing bodies. Macedon was also kind of buffer to protect the rest of the Greek empire from the aggressive neighbors. However, Macedonians were always unappreciated by their fellow Greeks. Hellenistic era was also called “the age of the Greeks” because Greeks’ culture was spread all over the world.
Unlike the previous civilizations Greeks were not afraid of finding something new about the Earth. Greeks were the first to find out that the earth was round. Greeks wanted to know more about the universe, heavens, and themselves. They studied the sky, moon, connection to other planets.
The main fact that reminds us about the Hellenic architecture is Hellenic Pyramids. Greeks borrowed the idea from the Egyptians. Greeks also got a lot assembled in their culture from different cultures. By doing this they created the best known culture at that time. By the 300′s BC, in the Hellenistic period, there are some new architectural types. Less time is spent on temples. The new form is the theater, and many theaters are built all over the Greek world. Also, there is new interest in town planning at this time: streets begin to be laid out in straight lines, instead of just developing naturally. With the conquests of Alexander the Great, architecture becomes an important way to spread Greek culture and show who is in
charge in the conquered countries.
The main trend in philosophy at that time was unique that was never practiced before. It was called autarkeia which meant self-sufficiency. It was introduced by cynics who were headed by Diogenes. Behind his rejection of traditional allegiances lay a profound concern with moral values. What matters to human beings, he taught, was not social status or nationality but individual well-being.
The Hellenic language is the most perfect human achievement in the linguistic field. And this, of course, is not incidental. This language, therefore, is the creation of people with superior thought and mental consistency. The qualities characterizing the language of the Hellenes, also characterize their being. Proof is that the same qualities (clarity, providence, power, expressional wealth etc) are found in their mental and artistic creations.
Roman civilization was basically a copy of Greek. That is the main reason why I think it is not as great as Greek. The conduct of political affairs was heavily dominated by the senatorial class, particularly by a small number of noble families. The upper classes generally followed one of two informal political factions: Populares (“the party of the people”) Optimates (“the party of the best men” or of the aristocrats).
The main occupation of Romans was agriculture. Latium which was the area around Rome was an agricultural region. That is very similar to all civilizations that I wrote before. Romans also had a new industry – pottery. Pottery was introduced from Campania and the art of bronze-casting from Etruria. A Roman would usually get up early and work a six hour day.
One distinct difference between the civilized Roman world and others was their housing. Whereas others lived in primitive huts, Rome took to housing its people in sophisticated brick-built houses, not so different from what people live in today. The Romans brought a lot of new ideas to architecture, of which the three most important are the arch, the baked brick, and the use of cement and concrete.
Roman art grows out of Etruscan art and at first it is a lot like Etruscan art. Because of this, it has a close relationship to Greek art as well. Roman art as a type of its own really gets going around 500 BC. The Romans were particularly interested in portraiture: in making statues that really looked like one particular person, especially a famous person. As was the habit of Roman society, the Romans did not invent their music. The music of Rome has its origins in Greek traditions. Our term for music itself is derived from the Greek term Mousike, which means “the art of the muses.” Early Greek music was purely melodic, or homophonic, utilizing only one melody without chordal accompaniment. The Greek musical system used Pythagorean mathematics to organize the chief concodant intervals according to simple numerical ratios.
Roman philosophy is thoroughly grounded in the traditions of Greek philosophy. Interest in the subject was first excited at Rome in 155 BC by an Athenian embassy, consisting of the Academic Carneades, the Stoic Diogenes, and the Peripatetic Critolaus. Of more permanent influence was the work of the Stoic Panaetius, the friend of the younger Scipio and of Laelius; but a thorough study of Greek philosophy was first introduced in the time of Cicero and Varro. In a number of works they tried to make it accessible even to those of their countrymen who were outside the learned circles.
Roman authors turned primarily to Greek sources, when composing the cultural heritage that became known as Roman ancient culture. For example Virgil, when describing the mythical origins of Rome in his Aeneid, turned to Homer’s tales about Troy.
Posted by Milton Henyon
Mesopotamian, Ancient Egyptian, Hellenistic Greek, and Roman were great civilizations that enormously influenced the following development of the world. Each civilization contributed a large amount of it’s achievements to the overall progress of the world. However, I think that Hellenistic Greek was the most important out of the chosen civilizations to impact the world. Hellenistic Greek was the culmination of the advancement of the ancient world. By using the following comparison of these civilizations I will try to prove my point of view of Hellenistic Greek being the greatest.
Mesopotamian is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. It is very interesting that Mesopotamians had a started some sort of democracy. They solved all the rising questions and problems by public assemblies and voting. They used debates to have pros and cons presented and then decided about the following actions or solutions. However, their class structure was sharply divided. At the top were kings and noble classes. There were also slaves who could engage in business, own property, and even testify in court.
The daily life of Mesopotamians was very boring. They only worked and worshiped their gods. The main industry that people were engaged in was agriculture. The tools used to work in the field were made out of stone. This shows not much of the progress in innovations that would make the very day life much easier.
The main reminding of Mesopotamian art are the frescoes that were found as decorations of sanctuary rooms. Bull and bear heads were also used as decorations. Scholars also found drawings that probably were the musical notes for Mesopotamians. Mesopotamian did not achieve much in architecture. Their houses were plain without any decorations which is probably the result of people being busy working and not having time to decorate their houses.
Mesopotamian philosophy is revealed in their myths that were the combination of Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian and Sumerian myths. Each of these regions had their own myths but due to the closeness all of them were related and had a lot of similarities. Myths were mostly about the religious events and importance of worshiping their ancestors. Most of the writing, though, that survived from Mesopotamian times consist of laws, accounting records, list of kings and enemies.
Ancient Egypt had a different concept of political structure comparing to Mesopotamia. In Egypt it was all up to the pharaoh and there were no debates and public discussions. The social structure was similar to the Mesopotamian. On the very top was the pharaoh, then vizier, then high priests and nobles, then priests, engineers and doctors, then scribes and craftsmen. On the very bottom of the social pyramid were soldiers, farmers and tomb builders.
Agriculture was the main occupation for Egyptians just like for Mesopotamians. The Egyptians were one of the first groups on earth to begin farming, probably around 10,000 BC. They were also great at building. The Egyptian pyramids were built throughout ages and still remain one of the wonders of the world.
Most of what we know about Egyptian art comes from the paintings the Egyptians created in the tombs of rich people when they died. It is very similar to Mesopotamians. These pictures were supposed to help the dead person when he or she reached the next world, where the Egyptians thought a person lived after the death in this world. So the paintings showed all sorts of things that people did in their regular lives.
Egyptian homes were made of dried mud bricks. Towns had small narrow streets. Throughout the Egyptian history the styles in architecture were changing. In the beginning, they built mainly mastabas, a kind of tomb with a flat roof like a house. Then during most of the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians built the pyramid tombs which are now so famous. In the Middle Kingdom, the mastaba tomb came back again, although in a more elaborate form for the Pharaohs. No more pyramids were built. Finally in the New Kingdom there was a lot of building that was not tombs: temples for the gods especially, but also palaces for the Pharaohs.
The main philosophy of the Egyptians was to be afraid of nature gods. They believed in Gods, sacrificed, and were afraid of them. Each natural thing had its own God. What we have left of Egyptian writing, like Egyptian art, mostly comes out of tombs. Because of this, most of what we have left is prayers. Other writing like laws and lists of who gave their fair share to the temple mostly has rotted away over the years. We do not know whether the Egyptians wrote novels or stories, but if they did then these stories have also rotted away.
The civilization that I believe is the greatest is Hellenistic Greek. During the Hellenic era Macedon was the most popular, important, and interesting city-state of Greece. Hellenistic Greece was more similar to Mesopotamia than to Egypt in its political structure. Huge Greece was divided into city-states that has own governing bodies. Macedon was also kind of buffer to protect the rest of the Greek empire from the aggressive neighbors. However, Macedonians were always unappreciated by their fellow Greeks. Hellenistic era was also called “the age of the Greeks” because Greeks’ culture was spread all over the world.
Unlike the previous civilizations Greeks were not afraid of finding something new about the Earth. Greeks were the first to find out that the earth was round. Greeks wanted to know more about the universe, heavens, and themselves. They studied the sky, moon, connection to other planets.
The main fact that reminds us about the Hellenic architecture is Hellenic Pyramids. Greeks borrowed the idea from the Egyptians. Greeks also got a lot assembled in their culture from different cultures. By doing this they created the best known culture at that time. By the 300′s BC, in the Hellenistic period, there are some new architectural types. Less time is spent on temples. The new form is the theater, and many theaters are built all over the Greek world. Also, there is new interest in town planning at this time: streets begin to be laid out in straight lines, instead of just developing naturally. With the conquests of Alexander the Great, architecture becomes an important way to spread Greek culture and show who is in
charge in the conquered countries.
The main trend in philosophy at that time was unique that was never practiced before. It was called autarkeia which meant self-sufficiency. It was introduced by cynics who were headed by Diogenes. Behind his rejection of traditional allegiances lay a profound concern with moral values. What matters to human beings, he taught, was not social status or nationality but individual well-being.
The Hellenic language is the most perfect human achievement in the linguistic field. And this, of course, is not incidental. This language, therefore, is the creation of people with superior thought and mental consistency. The qualities characterizing the language of the Hellenes, also characterize their being. Proof is that the same qualities (clarity, providence, power, expressional wealth etc) are found in their mental and artistic creations.
Roman civilization was basically a copy of Greek. That is the main reason why I think it is not as great as Greek. The conduct of political affairs was heavily dominated by the senatorial class, particularly by a small number of noble families. The upper classes generally followed one of two informal political factions: Populares (“the party of the people”) Optimates (“the party of the best men” or of the aristocrats).
The main occupation of Romans was agriculture. Latium which was the area around Rome was an agricultural region. That is very similar to all civilizations that I wrote before. Romans also had a new industry – pottery. Pottery was introduced from Campania and the art of bronze-casting from Etruria. A Roman would usually get up early and work a six hour day.
One distinct difference between the civilized Roman world and others was their housing. Whereas others lived in primitive huts, Rome took to housing its people in sophisticated brick-built houses, not so different from what people live in today. The Romans brought a lot of new ideas to architecture, of which the three most important are the arch, the baked brick, and the use of cement and concrete.
Roman art grows out of Etruscan art and at first it is a lot like Etruscan art. Because of this, it has a close relationship to Greek art as well. Roman art as a type of its own really gets going around 500 BC. The Romans were particularly interested in portraiture: in making statues that really looked like one particular person, especially a famous person. As was the habit of Roman society, the Romans did not invent their music. The music of Rome has its origins in Greek traditions. Our term for music itself is derived from the Greek term Mousike, which means “the art of the muses.” Early Greek music was purely melodic, or homophonic, utilizing only one melody without chordal accompaniment. The Greek musical system used Pythagorean mathematics to organize the chief concodant intervals according to simple numerical ratios.
Roman philosophy is thoroughly grounded in the traditions of Greek philosophy. Interest in the subject was first excited at Rome in 155 BC by an Athenian embassy, consisting of the Academic Carneades, the Stoic Diogenes, and the Peripatetic Critolaus. Of more permanent influence was the work of the Stoic Panaetius, the friend of the younger Scipio and of Laelius; but a thorough study of Greek philosophy was first introduced in the time of Cicero and Varro. In a number of works they tried to make it accessible even to those of their countrymen who were outside the learned circles.
Roman authors turned primarily to Greek sources, when composing the cultural heritage that became known as Roman ancient culture. For example Virgil, when describing the mythical origins of Rome in his Aeneid, turned to Homer’s tales about Troy.
Posted by Milton Henyon
Gonzalo Casanova Ferro Posted: IntroductionWe Th...
by admin on May 5th, 2009
filed under College And University
Gonzalo Casanova Ferro posted:
Introduction
We think Tourism represents a great deal for any state strategical development. We believe its diffusion and awareness must be so much present in formal as in informal education; thus, we will take over the law teaching issue in higher levels and oriented to tourism students.
From a historical perspective, it is not wrong to assert that Tourism syllabi, in South America in general and in our country in particular, are fairly new. And therefore the reflection on it remains, from a scientific point of view, in an embryonic state.
So recent is it that the UBA has not been able (neither it did not want to, nor has it not been allowed) to include a university academic offer . The first dilemma of the touristic career (still under debate) has been whether Tourism Ph.B., which comprehends hotel Management knowledge should be set forth, or it should be dealt with as two separate Ph.Bs with a common trunk. Although it is not our purpose to elucidate such an enigma, it is important to emphasize it, since it directly affects on any juridical subject content we should try to introduce.
We would also like to clear up that, previous to any discussion and for market reasons, Universities have come across the disjunctive as to incorporate careers related to hospitality industry into their faculties or departments. The second question was then: Where? Thus, some universities, chose a humanistic perspective and added them to their social sciences faculties . Others, from a more technical view, tended to attach them either to their Statistics department , or to the Geography department . The newest ones decided to create independent departments or faculties , others submitted their location to structural causes . And finally, there were institutions who, from an interpretation closer to management, set them in the Economics environment ; situation which, by the way, coincides with our country’s political definition .
But if it was such a problem to set the Tourism Ph.B. at Social Sciences Faculty, none the less problematic was it to set a Law subject into the respective Ph.B. degrees (Hotel Management or Tourism).
From the curricular layout beginnings, it seemed obvious that the normative subject, which gave unity to the whole vision of professional future, could not be absent from the sector’s regulatory frame. And although, to some extent, almost everyone agreed to set this knowledge in the last career grades, the main issues every subject should be based on were not usually dealt with, i.e.: What is taught?; how is it taught?; and what for?
No wonder just until a few years ago one could take any university program and notice that its core themes were some sort of fast and summarized Civil Law course, with some reference to Hotel Management laws and travel agencies. Nothing more contradictory or detached from the content, skills and appreciations students should incorporate during this stage of development. The underlying idea seems to have been: “Should there be a Law subject, we do not know how or what for; then let the lawyer who gives it place its content”. And thus we have seen such nonsense as Tourism students trying to elucidate the right-possessor’s degree in a complex succession, or wondering about the differences between divorce and de facto separation or the like. Posed this way and stating the obvious, the experience has become frustrating for everyone.
It is not difficult to think this problem could be avoided, had they taken similar and tested pedagogical experiences as reference. Such as, for example, Law teachers from Economics and vice versa who long ago had to work getting over this kind of obstacles for the sake of a holistic vision.
The Law is not some panacea for all sector’s evil, nevertheless it soothes, modulates and directs them. And since we are dealing with a transverse activity as Tourism, it is sensible insert this subject at the end of the academic studies. The Law will work as an engine or as a hindrance, depending on how we build it as participating citizens.
WHAT
Following the test period two inquiries were made: 1) Is there some subject we can call: “Tourism Law” or are we just facing one of the many activities which require some specific regulation? And, after that 2) from which content should the very subject layout spring?
For the first question some authors (they certainly followed the Saxon Travel Law trend of thought) risked the first hypothesis focusing on the “travel agent” actor as the main generator of new contractual figures, so Puig andVitta were able to assert the existence of a “…Tourism Law which is no longer framed in the traditional Civil or Commercial Law matrixes that is only partially concealed by the Navigation Law in both its species aerial and maritime”. Nevertheless, we think that in order to define the autonomy of a branch of the Law, it is necessary to discover whether the principles which govern it are axiologically original so that they make up a complete and closed systematic juridical construction, and make it unnecessary to appeal to the principles of another branch .
As we can see, the debate, still open, goes beyond an academic whim; since whether we choose one posture or the other it will suit the curricular development.
The second question also had dissimilar answers;
1) some understood they should assume students counted or should count on a solid civic formation which allows them to fully go into the different meanings of the law.
2) others proposed that although this was what “it should be” it was not what they perceived within the classroom; therefore the proposal was to “recover” the knowledge to frame the activity. That is to say, I can not develop or expose the “Law” theme if the student lacks the basic notions of “State”, “Nation”, etc…
3) a minority (probably more pressed by a limited time schedule than by curricular academic needs) tended to go straight to content nucleus; mentioning maybe during the process, but leaving it to the student’s initiative, the reconstruction task or the basic concepts incorporation.
HOW
Avoiding the pedagogical debate on whether content determines methodology or not; let’s admit at least they condition it. From our point of view, there are three factors that help in the way of teaching:
A) Teacher’s formation; the subject as given by lawyers bears their formation’s virtues and faults. This is because there are few or no Tourism and Law specialization courses; therefore this demand can not be reached with foreign proposals which obviously suit their own country’s legislations.
B) The institutional. In a structural sense on two levels;
1) From a macro-level variables can be:
i. “time schedule”,
ii. “duty”,
iii. “Level” (University or Further Education) will operate as filter and selection when it comes to establishing curricular priorities and
iv. “Setting” the career regarding the faculty or department it belongs to. Put in other words: if the tourism Ph.B. belongs to a Natural Sciences faculty or department its subject content in general, and the juridical ones in particular can be different from another one which belongs to an Economics faculty.
2) “Institutional culture” also prevents the subject from being dealt with as a water-tight box, but be into gear with others which are a key issue in the global problem interpretation. Thus Tourism Policies, Social Tourism, Programmed Learning, etc. feed and are fed by the normative.
C) The Political. Programs can not merely be a laboratory’s production, or a more or less lucid result of a couple of professionals´ experience. They should be a scientific and academic production reflecting and framed into a wider and serious political proposal, and giving the sector a real “state policy” status, highly above occasional speech and in harmony with the OMT directives to which we belong.
To sum up: The strategies we have been looking through are diverse and deserve to be considered without dogmatism, as follows:
1) Several European programs in general and Spanish ones in particular have dealt with the issue from the different Law branches, so it is not odd to find a “Tourism Private Law” or a “Tourism Public International Law”, etc.
2) In our country, following our treatise writer’s tradition, some have established a General Part and a Particular Part; it is as much as saying that while the first one involves the subject’s founding concepts, the second one aims at the specific themes (Hotel Management, agencies, etc.)
3) Some teachers have focused on Law transmission, others have thought of the traditional case method and some of us have opted for mixed techniques.
4) But even if it is difficult to know where to start from, so it is to know where to arrive at. We have seen some complex proposals including trade issues, such as “Time shares”, which although they are closely connected to the touristic phenomenon, it is not thus since they compel us to long juridical considerations in order to comprehend them all. In other proposals it is worrying the lack of themes such as “Natural and Cultural Heritage” by understanding they exceed the required for the professional formation. We shall disagree with such an opinion, since we consider it axial in the subject into which every notion of “sustainability” fits.
WHAT FOR
“First in the intention, last in the execution”, as the old saying goes. The what-for-answer is usually given in that which some teachers call “objectives”, nevertheless most of the times its formulation may be so open and general that it produces ambiguity.
Who utters this first statement? Who outlines each subject’s objectives? : the University. How? Going to the polls with the teacher, with the specialist (or at least they should) Where? In the subject’s outline first, and in the general incumbencies afterwards. Why? By proxy.
With a dubious legislative technique, the 24.521 Higher Education Law, in its 42nd Article speaks of “competences” and delegates their resolution to university institutions. This has produced a chaos of overlapping careers (e.g. Guides) or confusion (e.g. between Tourism Ph.B and hotel Management Ph.B.). This could be solved just by declaring the career of “public concern”. This status compels both the Ministry of Education as well as the Council of universities to specify any careers professional incumbencies. Thus, giving some part to the CONEAU (National Commission of Evaluation and University Accreditation) in the institutional qualification, misleading academical offers could be avoided and the profession would be appraised as of those proposals having the minimum required quality. (That is why, no matter how difficult state supervision is for the private sector, several universities have been struggling for the career to be declared of “public concern”).
As verbally expressed, the somehow shared objectives (neither exclusive nor excluding) arising from the different programs are:
Cognitive:
1) To master the Law basic concepts
2) To relate the different social types with any enterprise’s juridical frame
3) To analyze jurisprudential cases
Procedural:
4) To diagnose responsibility regulations in particular situations
5) To decide whether to appeal to the judicial system and/or to the alternative systems of conflict solution
6) To apply and cooperate with the making of the different sector’s contract modalities
Appreciative:
7) To show interest in the cultural and natural heritage
To work interdisciplinary
9) To show respect for the rules
Sitting from the other side, students also have their own perception on the different answers. They usually give us some hints in the annual poll (always so significant):
A) For life
B) For the completion of my professional formation
C) For determining whether I will need a lawyer or not
D) For being able to count on another management tool
As we can see and despite generalization, institutions and students are not (at least on this point) so disconnected. Civic knowledge is indeed useful and necessary at any instance of citizenship, but in the context of a Tourism career it becomes unavoidably instrumental.
Thus, such an activity, intended to be a model and a development impeller, implies respect for the regulatory frame it is embedded in. Not because (as we said at the beginning) it is going to solve its problems, but because any activity dealt with a “fair play” has greater growth opportunity and generates inversion.
OUR PROPOSAL
- We think it should be talked about a Tourism Applied Law from a multiplicity of actors;
- That certain real deficiencies students normally “drag” from Technical school should be replaced, and therefore this requires an average time schedule;
- That as long as we invest on research, it will be possible to develop subject content;
- That it is necessary to generate academic forum and a courses offer which allows the completion of teacher formation lawyers need to give a multidisciplinary approach;
- That curricula must, without losing originality, integrate with the State’s general planning; and this planning should also articulate with the OMT guidelines;
- That the Tourism Ph.B. career should be proposed as of “public concern”, giving it study level hierarchy and removing shady-zones from its “competences”.
Posted by Milton Henyon
Introduction
We think Tourism represents a great deal for any state strategical development. We believe its diffusion and awareness must be so much present in formal as in informal education; thus, we will take over the law teaching issue in higher levels and oriented to tourism students.
From a historical perspective, it is not wrong to assert that Tourism syllabi, in South America in general and in our country in particular, are fairly new. And therefore the reflection on it remains, from a scientific point of view, in an embryonic state.
So recent is it that the UBA has not been able (neither it did not want to, nor has it not been allowed) to include a university academic offer . The first dilemma of the touristic career (still under debate) has been whether Tourism Ph.B., which comprehends hotel Management knowledge should be set forth, or it should be dealt with as two separate Ph.Bs with a common trunk. Although it is not our purpose to elucidate such an enigma, it is important to emphasize it, since it directly affects on any juridical subject content we should try to introduce.
We would also like to clear up that, previous to any discussion and for market reasons, Universities have come across the disjunctive as to incorporate careers related to hospitality industry into their faculties or departments. The second question was then: Where? Thus, some universities, chose a humanistic perspective and added them to their social sciences faculties . Others, from a more technical view, tended to attach them either to their Statistics department , or to the Geography department . The newest ones decided to create independent departments or faculties , others submitted their location to structural causes . And finally, there were institutions who, from an interpretation closer to management, set them in the Economics environment ; situation which, by the way, coincides with our country’s political definition .
But if it was such a problem to set the Tourism Ph.B. at Social Sciences Faculty, none the less problematic was it to set a Law subject into the respective Ph.B. degrees (Hotel Management or Tourism).
From the curricular layout beginnings, it seemed obvious that the normative subject, which gave unity to the whole vision of professional future, could not be absent from the sector’s regulatory frame. And although, to some extent, almost everyone agreed to set this knowledge in the last career grades, the main issues every subject should be based on were not usually dealt with, i.e.: What is taught?; how is it taught?; and what for?
No wonder just until a few years ago one could take any university program and notice that its core themes were some sort of fast and summarized Civil Law course, with some reference to Hotel Management laws and travel agencies. Nothing more contradictory or detached from the content, skills and appreciations students should incorporate during this stage of development. The underlying idea seems to have been: “Should there be a Law subject, we do not know how or what for; then let the lawyer who gives it place its content”. And thus we have seen such nonsense as Tourism students trying to elucidate the right-possessor’s degree in a complex succession, or wondering about the differences between divorce and de facto separation or the like. Posed this way and stating the obvious, the experience has become frustrating for everyone.
It is not difficult to think this problem could be avoided, had they taken similar and tested pedagogical experiences as reference. Such as, for example, Law teachers from Economics and vice versa who long ago had to work getting over this kind of obstacles for the sake of a holistic vision.
The Law is not some panacea for all sector’s evil, nevertheless it soothes, modulates and directs them. And since we are dealing with a transverse activity as Tourism, it is sensible insert this subject at the end of the academic studies. The Law will work as an engine or as a hindrance, depending on how we build it as participating citizens.
WHAT
Following the test period two inquiries were made: 1) Is there some subject we can call: “Tourism Law” or are we just facing one of the many activities which require some specific regulation? And, after that 2) from which content should the very subject layout spring?
For the first question some authors (they certainly followed the Saxon Travel Law trend of thought) risked the first hypothesis focusing on the “travel agent” actor as the main generator of new contractual figures, so Puig andVitta were able to assert the existence of a “…Tourism Law which is no longer framed in the traditional Civil or Commercial Law matrixes that is only partially concealed by the Navigation Law in both its species aerial and maritime”. Nevertheless, we think that in order to define the autonomy of a branch of the Law, it is necessary to discover whether the principles which govern it are axiologically original so that they make up a complete and closed systematic juridical construction, and make it unnecessary to appeal to the principles of another branch .
As we can see, the debate, still open, goes beyond an academic whim; since whether we choose one posture or the other it will suit the curricular development.
The second question also had dissimilar answers;
1) some understood they should assume students counted or should count on a solid civic formation which allows them to fully go into the different meanings of the law.
2) others proposed that although this was what “it should be” it was not what they perceived within the classroom; therefore the proposal was to “recover” the knowledge to frame the activity. That is to say, I can not develop or expose the “Law” theme if the student lacks the basic notions of “State”, “Nation”, etc…
3) a minority (probably more pressed by a limited time schedule than by curricular academic needs) tended to go straight to content nucleus; mentioning maybe during the process, but leaving it to the student’s initiative, the reconstruction task or the basic concepts incorporation.
HOW
Avoiding the pedagogical debate on whether content determines methodology or not; let’s admit at least they condition it. From our point of view, there are three factors that help in the way of teaching:
A) Teacher’s formation; the subject as given by lawyers bears their formation’s virtues and faults. This is because there are few or no Tourism and Law specialization courses; therefore this demand can not be reached with foreign proposals which obviously suit their own country’s legislations.
B) The institutional. In a structural sense on two levels;
1) From a macro-level variables can be:
i. “time schedule”,
ii. “duty”,
iii. “Level” (University or Further Education) will operate as filter and selection when it comes to establishing curricular priorities and
iv. “Setting” the career regarding the faculty or department it belongs to. Put in other words: if the tourism Ph.B. belongs to a Natural Sciences faculty or department its subject content in general, and the juridical ones in particular can be different from another one which belongs to an Economics faculty.
2) “Institutional culture” also prevents the subject from being dealt with as a water-tight box, but be into gear with others which are a key issue in the global problem interpretation. Thus Tourism Policies, Social Tourism, Programmed Learning, etc. feed and are fed by the normative.
C) The Political. Programs can not merely be a laboratory’s production, or a more or less lucid result of a couple of professionals´ experience. They should be a scientific and academic production reflecting and framed into a wider and serious political proposal, and giving the sector a real “state policy” status, highly above occasional speech and in harmony with the OMT directives to which we belong.
To sum up: The strategies we have been looking through are diverse and deserve to be considered without dogmatism, as follows:
1) Several European programs in general and Spanish ones in particular have dealt with the issue from the different Law branches, so it is not odd to find a “Tourism Private Law” or a “Tourism Public International Law”, etc.
2) In our country, following our treatise writer’s tradition, some have established a General Part and a Particular Part; it is as much as saying that while the first one involves the subject’s founding concepts, the second one aims at the specific themes (Hotel Management, agencies, etc.)
3) Some teachers have focused on Law transmission, others have thought of the traditional case method and some of us have opted for mixed techniques.
4) But even if it is difficult to know where to start from, so it is to know where to arrive at. We have seen some complex proposals including trade issues, such as “Time shares”, which although they are closely connected to the touristic phenomenon, it is not thus since they compel us to long juridical considerations in order to comprehend them all. In other proposals it is worrying the lack of themes such as “Natural and Cultural Heritage” by understanding they exceed the required for the professional formation. We shall disagree with such an opinion, since we consider it axial in the subject into which every notion of “sustainability” fits.
WHAT FOR
“First in the intention, last in the execution”, as the old saying goes. The what-for-answer is usually given in that which some teachers call “objectives”, nevertheless most of the times its formulation may be so open and general that it produces ambiguity.
Who utters this first statement? Who outlines each subject’s objectives? : the University. How? Going to the polls with the teacher, with the specialist (or at least they should) Where? In the subject’s outline first, and in the general incumbencies afterwards. Why? By proxy.
With a dubious legislative technique, the 24.521 Higher Education Law, in its 42nd Article speaks of “competences” and delegates their resolution to university institutions. This has produced a chaos of overlapping careers (e.g. Guides) or confusion (e.g. between Tourism Ph.B and hotel Management Ph.B.). This could be solved just by declaring the career of “public concern”. This status compels both the Ministry of Education as well as the Council of universities to specify any careers professional incumbencies. Thus, giving some part to the CONEAU (National Commission of Evaluation and University Accreditation) in the institutional qualification, misleading academical offers could be avoided and the profession would be appraised as of those proposals having the minimum required quality. (That is why, no matter how difficult state supervision is for the private sector, several universities have been struggling for the career to be declared of “public concern”).
As verbally expressed, the somehow shared objectives (neither exclusive nor excluding) arising from the different programs are:
Cognitive:
1) To master the Law basic concepts
2) To relate the different social types with any enterprise’s juridical frame
3) To analyze jurisprudential cases
Procedural:
4) To diagnose responsibility regulations in particular situations
5) To decide whether to appeal to the judicial system and/or to the alternative systems of conflict solution
6) To apply and cooperate with the making of the different sector’s contract modalities
Appreciative:
7) To show interest in the cultural and natural heritage
To work interdisciplinary9) To show respect for the rules
Sitting from the other side, students also have their own perception on the different answers. They usually give us some hints in the annual poll (always so significant):
A) For life
B) For the completion of my professional formation
C) For determining whether I will need a lawyer or not
D) For being able to count on another management tool
As we can see and despite generalization, institutions and students are not (at least on this point) so disconnected. Civic knowledge is indeed useful and necessary at any instance of citizenship, but in the context of a Tourism career it becomes unavoidably instrumental.
Thus, such an activity, intended to be a model and a development impeller, implies respect for the regulatory frame it is embedded in. Not because (as we said at the beginning) it is going to solve its problems, but because any activity dealt with a “fair play” has greater growth opportunity and generates inversion.
OUR PROPOSAL
- We think it should be talked about a Tourism Applied Law from a multiplicity of actors;
- That certain real deficiencies students normally “drag” from Technical school should be replaced, and therefore this requires an average time schedule;
- That as long as we invest on research, it will be possible to develop subject content;
- That it is necessary to generate academic forum and a courses offer which allows the completion of teacher formation lawyers need to give a multidisciplinary approach;
- That curricula must, without losing originality, integrate with the State’s general planning; and this planning should also articulate with the OMT guidelines;
- That the Tourism Ph.B. career should be proposed as of “public concern”, giving it study level hierarchy and removing shady-zones from its “competences”.
Posted by Milton Henyon