Health Promotion Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Health Promotion - Research Paper Example Law enforcement, health care, and low labour productivity are estimated to be 9.2 billion yearly in Ontario alone. 10% of mortalities in Ontario arise indirectly or directly from consumption of alcohol. Ontario’s Ministry of health developed the program that targeted 21 communities in the entire Ontario community that have shown interest and commitment in addressing this menace. The key audiences for this program are youth and children, with every project asked to allocate 30 per cent of their budget to reach the target population. The program builds the success of highlighting projects to prevent substance abuse and alcohol at sites in 21 communities. The evaluation of the program found that the project offered a promising future of preventing alcohol and related substance abuse. Based on the finding, the ministry has come up with a FOCUS community program that implements the existing 11 sites and 10 new sites (â€Å"Partners in action: Ontarios substance abuse strategy†, 2004). Every site has a local agency responsible for preventing substance abuse and leading the implementation process of FOCUS. Addiction Research Foundation is a branch of Addiction and Mental Health Services Corporation that participated in developing the FOCUS program and in selecting the sites. The ministry invited the agencies to prepare the applications of FOCUS in conjunction with domestic partners like businesses, health agencies, voluntary groups, and injury prevention coalition. In total, there are 220 groups in partnership with FOCUS Community Program. Funding from the ministry of Health will supports the staff resources and program costs (Weinstein & Hanson, 2005). The communities that are participating in the program have matched the funding of the ministry with domestic in kind resources on a ratio of 1 to 1. Consequently, the domestic program partners have taken part in valuation of resources worth over 2.5 million

The Changing Role of HR Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

The Changing Role of HR - Essay Example These four categories are most basic to the functioning of the modern day organisation. The human resource or human capital element in the organisation ahs emerged as one that perpetuates this role at every level of the organisation through an effective integration of personal and organisational goals. (Johnson, 1996. P 13 to 18) The first role of the human resource in today's organisation is that of a business partner. This has come to the fore with the emergence of various service oriented companies that provide intensive marketing services along with the products that are being produced. The emergence of a marketing network has been crucial to companies like Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance, Oriflame Cosmetics and many others. (Green, 2002. P 111) These business partners work independently from home or under the name of their own business in order to cater to people exclusively and bring the products and services of the company to the doorstep of the independent clients. The role of these business partners is to bring business to the company by exploring their personal networks so as to earn commissions on the sales that they make. This is a formal level of institutionalised operations where the organisation profits greatly. This is done by pushing the product in quarters where the effects of regular marketing and promotion cannot reach. It is also an elevated level of salesman ship where the sales agents are offered a share in the business that they make. The advantage of this is that the business partners take a personal interest in the development of a clientele. (Green, 2002. P 111) Further, this serves the two fold purpose of sales and promotion. While there might not be immediate sales in some cases, there is a creation of awareness for future sales. This in turn, leads to increased sales and repeat orders through word of mouth and brand recall. At an informal level, the term business partner can be used to denote the modern day human resource base. This is due to the fact that the human capital in an organisation today is motivated enough to integrate the personal goals with those of the organisation in an effective way. In this way, the goals are achieved at both ends. The management of an organisation attaches great importance to the act of motivating the human capital through the use of incentives that may be material or immaterial. The material benefits include bonuses, promotions and other such means, while the immaterial ones include good reports and feedback. This helps the employee gain confidence and self esteem. Also, it caters to the employees need to achieve a certain social standing. Thus, the employee begins to realise that only by forwarding the goals of the organisation will his or her own goals be met. In this way, the human resource has emerged as a business partner that works in tandem with the organisati on as far as goal achievement is concerned. (Green, 2002. P 111) Change Manager The modern day economy is one that is changing with each passing

E-Business. Classification, Development And Implications Of E-Business Essay

E-Business. Classification, Development And Implications Of E-Business On Modern Organizations - Essay Example The global information infrastructure served as the foundation for new methods of personal interaction, communication, transaction and this has tremendously changed the way people did business. From the mid 1990s, global networking platform grew rapidly until 2000 and has started showing major signs of success stories of many multinational companies by 2003 (Schneider, 2011, p. 4). Within just few years after the mid 1990s, the internet-based business has become a larger part of the total economy. Electronic Business, generally termed as E-business, is one of the most important aspects to emerge from the internet. E-business is more than another way to sustain and improve the traditional business practices. Most of the researchers highlighted the revolutionary aspects of e-business adoption and its positive impacts on human life whereas some others suggested that e-business is a kind of disruptive innovation as it radically changes the traditional way of carrying out business. E-marketing, E-banking, E-learning, E-government etc are other major breakthrough developed with the use of internet technology. This paper provides detailed answers to the questions what is E-business and how does it matter to an organization. Based on relevant literatures, this paper examines the theoretical perspectives of e-business and describes its general impacts to a business organization. This paper will focus on the field of e-marketing and examines how e-marketing is influencing today’ s business and marketing arenas. E-business The terms E-commerce and E-business are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts. E-commerce is a term used to describe the process of transacting business over the internet, but E-business involves the fundamental reengineering of the business model in to the internet-based networked enterprise. More specifically, ecommerce is narrower in the sense that it refers only to the buying and selling of goods or services by using internet technology, whereas E-business accounts for all business activities, including both internal and external, that are conducted online. E-business describes the information system and application using the internet to support and carry out business processes. As Bartels (2000) noted, to be very specific about the difference, E-business includes E-commerce, but also covers organization’s internal activities such as manufacturing, inventory management, financing, human resource management, knowledge management etc. With E-business, companies can link its internal and external activities very effectively to work more closely with different stakeholders such as suppliers, partners, and customers etc to satisfy customers’ needs. Grefen (2010) strongly argued that primarily three criteria are to be met to call a combination of business activities and information technology e-business. These three criteria are: 1- The business activities must be core activities. The activities must be directly related to the reason of the existence of the business. 2- The use of information techn

The First World War Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 1

The First World War - Essay Example The seeds of the First World War had been sawn several decades before the conflict actually occurred. After a decade of using the military power to unify Germany and finally establish the second Reich in 1871, Otto von Bismarck applied his energies to win the time needed for the country to recover and gain power. The only way to achieve that goal was to neutralize at any cost the potential enemies that might threaten the country's new found position as a major European power. Therefore, Bismarck's foreign policy was coloured by the shades of peace over the next two decades and resulted in the famous Bismarckian Alliance system. Bismarck had three major goals establishing a complex system of European alliances: (1) to create a peaceful German facade; (2) to create defensive alliances; (3) isolate the potential enemies. Consequently, after Europe recognised Germany as a nation during the Berlin Congress in 1878 Bismarck focused on keeping France which he perceived as the most dangerous threat to Germany in isolation. It is commonly believed that this task became the cornerstone of Bismarck's international policy from 1871 to 1894. Simultaneously the Chancellor took every possible effort to uphold peaceful co-existence with the other two major conservative European powers, Russian and Austria-Hungary by assuring them Germany did not represent any threat (Carr, 1987). The first crucial step toward creation of the new balance of powers in Europe occurred during the Berlin Congress of 1978 when Bismarck took advantage of the opportunity to act a peace mediator between the Russian Empire, Austria, and Great Britain. The role allowed Bismarck to maintain the peace between major European powers, establish closer ties with Austria, prevent the Russian Empire from gaining too much power out of its win in the Balkan War, and promote the image of Germany as an effective international peacemaker (Pflanze, 1990). The Chancellor immediately capitalised on such an impressive success: a defensive military Dual Alliance with Austria against the Russian Empire was established in 1879 and after five years of intensive political manoeuvring Bismarck signed the defensive Reinsurance Treaty with the Russian Empire in 1885. Bismarck supported the colonial interests of France in Africa and Asia being perfectly aware that Great Britain would sooner or later become concerned about the French threat to its traditional colonial supremacy. Consequently, France and Britain got involved in a series of conflicts over the colonies: the countries had neither time nor resources to seriously influence the political developments on the territory of Europe and threaten Germany. Bismarck further limited the influence of France by convincing Italia to join the Dual Alliance in 1882; the new configuration became known as the Triple Alliance (Carr, 1987). Only Bismarck retirement revealed the true amount of complexity associated with the Bismarckian model of alliances. Thus, Germany participated in defensive alliances with Austria and Italy against France, the Russian

Applying Risk Management Consulting Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Applying Risk Management Consulting - Essay Example In general, risks may vary from operational, strategic, financial, networking to marketing and such. Thus risks are inevitable though undesired. The correct definition of â€Å"risk† as such, depends upon the situation pertinent to it. Identifying and understanding risks is the most crucial part in any risk management principle. Once the risk factors are identified, a thorough analysis is undertaken after which appropriate measures are taken to eliminate, control or reduce them. In the given case of Riordan Manufacturing Inc., a virtual organization, the following study discusses the network system of the different branches of the organization at varied geographic locations. The current network topology reveals vulnerabilities in diverse points and is prone to risks that can be eliminated or minimised adopting certain effective security measures. For a large organization like Riordan Manufacturing, security is an overriding concern. In the current scenario, of networking threats and hacking techniques being reinvented and developing every minute, it is crucial for the network administrator of any network, be it small or big , to implement stringent security measures to prevent any damages. Damages may either be in the form of leakage, destruction, manipulation or misuse of data, intrusion into the home network hindering smooth flow of operations thereby eliciting huge financial losses. Considered to be the building block of network protection,risk itself, should be the backbone of the designed safety strategies and the resulting security architecture. â€Å"Risk management† (Commercial Insights Risk Management Insights, 2012). principles are generally evolved considering factors both of internal and external natures. Internal factors may be assets, vulnerabilities or policies while external factors may be threats, legal or business forces.So, in conducting risk analysis, the foremost issue that comes up is, in identifying the threats the system are

The Construction of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Essay Example for Free

The Construction of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Essay The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) is operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned authority. The site is approximately ten miles south of Spring City, TN, approximately 1. 25 miles south of the Watts Bar Dam that it is named for, and on the west bank of the Tennessee River. There are two units, Unit 1 which is operational and Unit 2 which is unfinished. The Groundbreaking for Unit 1 took place in 1972, with major construction beginning in 1973 (TVA website). However Unit 1 did not begin commercial operation until 1996 – twenty-three years after major construction started and according to Munson (2002) at a cost of $7 billion – and Unit 2 has yet to be completed. Construction licenses for both units were awarded by the nuclear regulator of the time the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1973, and construction of both units was supended in 1985. Unit 1 construction was restarted in 1990 and the full power operating license was issued in 1996. Unit 2 remained only partially constructed until 2007 when TVA announced it would resume construction. Detailed information about the original tender, construction process, numbers of workers, time scales and original budgets is not available for Unit 1 as the project began in the early 1970s and the information is archived and not easily retrievable (Johnson, personal communication). However Unit 1 is typical of the reactors of its time so some general information is available. For example, in terms of the plant overall, figures from 1974 (Peterson, 2003) indicate that the construction of a typical nuclear plant required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. With a capacity of over 1000 MWe, figures for the construction of Unit 1 can be estimated as over 40,000 MT of steel, and 190,000 m3 of concrete. Due to the geologic features of the site (see below), it is reasonable to assume that the real figures were even higher. There is some information with regards the restart of construction for Unit 2. Reactors Both units are Westinghouse Four-loop Pressurized-Water Reactor (PWR), as shown in the figure below (TVA website) capable of electrical output of 1125 MWe. A four-loop Westinghouse plant has four steam generators, four reactor coolant pumps, and a Pressurizer. There are 193 fuel assemblies arranged in a 17 x 17 array inside a reactor vessel that has an internal diameter of 173 inches. The reactor vessel is constructed of a manganese molybdenum steel, and all surfaces that come into contact with reactor coolant are clad with stainless steel to increase corrosion resistance. The reactor coolant flows to the steam generator (USNRC, 2003). Typically, PWR containments typically consist of heavily steel-reinforced concrete cylinders ranging in thickness from 3. 5 feet to 4. 5 feet, capped by a hemispherical dome of steel-reinforced concrete. The cylinder is typically 140 feet high, with a 140-foot diameter. Reinforcement bars that form a cage within the concrete are typically Grade 60 #18 steel bars on 12-inch to 15-inch centers. A #18 rebar is two and one-quarter inches in diameter (ABS Consulting, 2002). Additional reinforcement may be called for depending on the results of the seismic survey undertaken for the site. This was the case for the Watts Bar reactors. The Final Safety Analysis Report for WBN (TVA 1991), reported that the plant is located in the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands, and the major geologic feature at the site is the Kingston thrust fault, which developed 250 million years ago. The fault has been inactive for many millions of years, and recurrence of movement is not expected. The fault lies to the northwest of the site area and is not involved in the foundation for any of the major plant structures. The SAR for the WBN states that it was designed based on the largest historic earthquake to occur in the Southern Appalachian Tectonic Province the 1897 Giles County, Virginia earthquake. This earthquake is estimated to have had a body wave magnitude of 5. 8. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake for the plant has been established as having a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0. 18 g and a simultaneous maximum vertical acceleration of 0. 12 g WBN Unit 2 Restart of Construction As Unit 2 is essentially identical to Unit 1, the scope of work for Unit 2 duplicates that of Unit 1 as much as possible with some additional scope for Unit 2 not included in the Unit 1 startup such as another cooling tower, transmission system, various upgrades and work completed since Unit 1 startup such as a process computer upgrade (Moll, 2007). Estimated cost of the project to complete startup is 2. 49 billion, over 54 months with commercial operation of the unit scheduled for early 2012 (Westinghouse, 2008). Moll reports that peak staffing is estimated at 2,300 craft and technical personnel. The project phases will include the Engineering and Analysis phase, which will include plant walk downs to establish the current condition of the plant, the engineering evaluations of program work and identification of design discrepancies. The second phase as outlined by Moll is the Design Production phase to correct identified deficiencies and design changes required to maintain consistency between units. The third phase is the implementation phase which will include the construction, the modifications required in supporting two units, the maintenance activities, testing, non-design repairs and clean up. Finally the Startup Test phase that will ensure the systems are capable of safe shutdown before the operations phase. Major Issues Affecting the Contruction of WBN Unit 1 Nuclear power reactors are regulated by federal and state laws to protect human health and the environment. These regulatory requirements are of paramount consideration in the construction of any nuclear facilities. Regulatory costs for the nuclear industry are a significant percentage of construction and on-going operating costs and as such regulatory considerations play a large role in dictating all aspects of the project from the chosen site to the reactor design to the management of on-going operations. The construction period of the Watts Bar reactors coincided with significant changes in the regulatory environment. The most significant nuclear regulatory authority in the US is United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC). The Watts Bar reactors were in the construction phase when the accidents occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979, and later, Chernobyl in 1986. Reaction to these events resulted in further and more stringent regulatory requirements. Environmental obligations have also become ever more important, and operators must also satisfy requirements for environmental impact statements. Construction of both units was suspended in 1985, primarily because numerous TVA staff made complaints that the construction process was inadequate and that there may be resulting safety risks (NRC, Safety Evaluation Report, 1995). On September 17, 1985 the NRC required TVA to address various deficiencies in its activities and TVA withdrew its certification that Unit 1 was ready to load fuel. The NRC Safety Evaluation Report notes the findings that there were significant problems in construction quality and quality assurance. Deficiencies in construction involved a number of systems and issues including the quality of welding and cabling. There were many staff concerns and complaints that also needed to be addressed. In the report the NRC itself recognises its own role in not providing sufficient regulatory oversight. The report notes the extensive corrective actions performed by TVA, which included a Nuclear Performance Plan to address material, design and programmatic deficiencies and included inspection and testing of the construction issues and programs to respond to staff concerns. Unit 1 construction was resumed in 1990. In terms of estimating and producing time lines for such a project, The Watts Bar example demonstrates that as well as being aware of industry codes and building standards it is crucial to understand the regulatory requirements for the relevant industry. Unforseen delays also need to be considered, as does whether risks of such are allocated to the contractor. If risks are allocated to the contractor, the risk of a long delay should be considered in the estimate. Some of this risk may be offset when components in a project can be worked on independently or concurrently with each other, rather than build components that need to be constructed sequentially. The Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor is a good example of unforseen events affecting the construction process (for example, discovery of the fault, the changes in the regulatory environment after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979). Although Unit 1 was on-line by September 11, 2001, security requirements for installations such as nuclear power stations were increased, and on-going construction projects for security sensitive projects were affected at that time. Changes to regulatory requirements, standards and codes need to be tracked for any project. Quality Assurance systems must be in place, and accounted for in the initial estimating process. References 1. TVA Website Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Retrieved April 3, 2008 from : http://www. tva. gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar. htm 2. Munson, Richard.The Electricity Journal, Vol:15, Issue:10, December 2002 pp76-80. 3. NRC, Partial Chronology WB Unit 2 (Table) (2007 August 23) Retrieved April 3, 2008 from: http://www. nrc. gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/watts-bar/watts-bar-partial-chronology. html 4. (Terry W Johnson, Communications, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, April 5, 2008). 5. Peterson, F. â€Å"Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository? † The Bridge National Academy of Engineering Vol:33, No. 3, Fall 2003. 6. TVA Website (Figure of Reactor). Retrieved April 3 2008 from: http://www. tva. gov/sites/wattsbarnuc. htm# 7. USNRC Technical Training Center, Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems 2003. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from: http://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/04. pdf 8. ABS Consulting and ANATECH, Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant’s Structural Strength, December 2002. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from: http://www. stpnoc. com/EPRI%20study. doc 9. The Final Safety Analysis Report for WBN (TVA 1991), excerpt retrieved from: http://www. hanford. gov/rl/uploadfiles/ea/ea1210/section4. htm

Language Is Rule-Governed

Language Is Rule-Governed Wittgenstein stated that his aim in philosophy was to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle that is, to lead us out of the web of misconceptions and confusions that cloud our understanding. He argued that our confusion lay in our misunderstanding of language and the rules that govern its use. This misunderstanding resulted from the assumptions of traditional Western Philosophy which are based on a Cartesian theory of mind, a Platonist conception of reality and an Augustinian view of language. These assumptions led to the belief that the private mental realm was the primary source of language, the essential function of language was to name objects, and the rules of language were set in a fixed pattern of application respectively. As this account of rules relies on their having a fixed content, the only way to follow these rules is to discern their meaning by finding an appropriate mediating interpretation. Once the rules have been interpreted correctly, they would then disclose h ow they should be applied. Wittgenstein argued that these assumptions cloud the true nature of rule-following and meaning, leaving them vulnerable to scepticism as we lay down rules, a technique for playing a game, and that then, when we follow the rules, things dont turn out as we had assumed. So that we are, as it were, entangled in our own rules.  [2]  The issue that Wittgenstein raises is if we can argue that any action can be interpreted as acting in accordance with a rule, how can we ever know if we are following a rule correctly and therefore, how can we justify that our use of language holds any meaning? This reveals the flaws in the traditional belief that it is the rules themselves that act as the normative standards by which we discern whether or not our use of language is correct. Therefore, we must look for another source of normativity in order to preserve the notion of meaning. In light of Wittgensteins view that following a rule is a practice  [3]  which is analogous to obeying an order  [4]  , I believe that his account of language establishes it as rule-governed by situating the requisite justification and normativity in the linguistic community. These requisites are met in Wittgensteins account as when we are taught a rule we are also trained to follow it in a particular way determined by the linguistic community of which we are a member. I will expound this view by firstly looking at the rule-following considerations as found in 185 and 201 to explicate Wittgensteins view that we cannot establish how to follow a rule correctly by looking at the rule itself, but rather we must examine at how the rule is applied as part of a communal practice. I will then use Meredith Williams critique of Saul Kripkes sceptical solution to the paradox and her argument for a communitarian view of Wittgensteins account of rule-following to discuss what a socially e mbedded justification and standard of normativity might entail. Following from this I will go on to examine John McDowells critique of Crispin Wrights anti-realism in order to discuss how a social normative standard can be established through the shared understandings held by a linguistic community. When describing the purpose of the rule-following considerations, Wittgenstein stated that what we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand  [5]  by which he means that through a re-evaluation the nature of language we may dissolve the empty questions that traditional philosophy had been concerned with, including the question of what constitutes meaning. Wittgenstein aimed to achieve this by reminding the reader that rule-following cannot be a mental process by which we discern the meaning of the rule and then establish a set pattern of application. Perhaps the most important issue with the traditional view of rule-following that Wittgensteins attack brings to light is the regress of interpretation. Wittgenstein highlights this flaw in the belief that interpretation necessarily clarifies the content of a rule and provides a method of application. He does so by stating that there is no reason why an interpretat ion may not be just as ambiguous as the rule itself and therefore may also be subject to the same interpretative process as the rule. No one interpretation is going to be unambiguous in every situation to every individual. Therefore, the move to symbolic language does not clarify the rules contents, it simply leads to a regress as in this chain of reasoning we place one interpretation behind another as if each one contented us at least for a moment, until we thought of yet another lying behind it.  [6]  This regress means firstly that there is no ultimate justification to be found through interpretation, and secondly that the countless interpretations that a rule may be subject to renders the rule meaningless. From this Wittgenstein concludes that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation  [7]  , meaning that understanding is not always aligned with the act of interpretation and rule-following does not necessarily involve a mediating interpretation bet ween the rule and its application. A second challenge uses the discrepancy between the infinite applications of a rule and the finite amount of times we can observe this application. This discrepancy shows that we cannot regard our understanding of a rule as the grasping of a set pattern of application that we must replicate in every future circumstance. Wittgenstein explicates this challenge in his deviant learner example in paragraph 185, in which a student seems to be following a numerical series +2 correctly up until he reaches 1,000 where he then changes to the series of +4. If the teacher had made the student stop following the series before 1,000 he would have never known that the student misunderstood the rule that he had been taught. The deviant learner also brings forth the issue that for any rule applied, for example, a 100 times, we can imagine other rules that give the same results but then diverges on its 101st application. This means that we cannot conceive of the meaning of rules as an infinite set of their application and therefore it is implausible to argue that when we explain a rule that we have an infinite set in mind. Just like the teacher in the deviant learner example, we may believe that someone has mastered the application of a rule, up until the point where they begin to get it wrong. This may happen at any point through a sequence and thus there is no way of knowing for certain if the person has understood the rule. Therefore, if we represent rules as infinite sets of applications but we only deal with finite numbers of these applications we can never be sure that we have successfully taught the rule, or are following it correctly ourselves. This means that if we wish to examine rules through how we follow them rather than their content, we cannot regard rule-following as being guided by rails invisibly laid out to infinity  [8]  if we wish to develop any semblance of normativity. Regarding his own view of the relation between a rule, our understanding of it and our method of application, Wittgenstein uses the analogy of playing chess, stating where is the connection effected between the sense of the words lets play a game of chess and all the rules of the game? Well, in the list of rules of the game, in the teaching of it, in the everyday practice of playing  [9]  . This means that our understanding of a rule results in how we are taught to understand it and this socially constructed comprehension manifests in the action of following of the rule as part of a custom. For example, when we encounter a signpost pointing right, we react to this by turning right because there is an established custom of doing so which we are initiated into through training. As there is clearly nothing inherent in the arrow that tells us how to react to it, this custom can only have been established by the community of which we are a member. Although Wittgenstein makes it clear that he believes that how we follow a rule is how we participate in a communal custom, he recognises the problem concerning the sustainment of normativity that this view must address. If our understanding is moulded by how we are trained, what happens when two people react to their training differently and how do we know which reaction is the correct one?  [10]  As it is the community that establishes how we follow a rule, and we can make no valid reference to the rule itself, it must then be the community that decides whether an individual follows a rule correctly. However, is there any way to prove that the community can provide the normative standard required to know whether or not we are following a rule correctly? I will now address this issue, beginning with an examination of Kripkes sceptical account of rule following. Saul Kripkes discussion of Wittgensteins account of language (which he stressed was not an interpretation, but a line of thought inspired by his reading of Wittgenstein) rests on the sceptical belief that there is no mental fact that can provide an ultimate justification for our belief that we are following the same rule in the same way as we have in the past, and therefore no objective notion of meaning. Although Kripkes account has not been popular, its influence is undeniable as it is used as the point of departure for the standard approach to rule-following  [11]  . Kripke founded his sceptical version of Wittgensteins account of rules on the first challenge to the classical account that I previously discussed which he named the sceptical paradox. This was our paradox; no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be brought into accord with the rule. The answer was: if every course of action can be brought into accord with the rule, then it can be also brought into conflict with it. And so there would be neither accord nor conflict here.  [12]   Kripke saw this issue to be, the most radical sceptical problem that philosophy has seen to date  [13]  he stated that the problem lies in that we cannot discern a fact about the mental state of an individual that can justify their belief that they are following a particular rule in the correct way. Thus, the notion of rule-following becomes meaningless. In order to explicate the problem Kripke used the quaddition example in which he asked the reader to imagine in the method of calculation quaddition where, x quus y = x + y if x, y This would mean that quus would give the same results as plus for numerous calculations, up until y In order provide a solution to the sceptical paradox, Kripke argues that Wittgenstein must look for an exterior source for justification and normativity. Kripkes Wittgenstein finds this justification by first accepting the sceptical problem and acknowledging that there can be no ultimate justification therefore the solution must be sceptical itself. From this starting point he then reduces the severity of the problem by arguing that what is required to solve the sceptical problem are not truth conditions (the facts that meanings must obtain to in order to be true), but justification conditions. These justification conditions rest on our answers to the question what is the role, and the utility in our lives of the practice of asserting (or denying) the form of words under these conditions?  [14]  In other words, we must justify our understanding of a rule by showing how we use it within our everyday lives. Our application of the rule is then evaluated by the community as to whethe r it conforms to the usual application of the rule and is therefore correct. Kripkes sceptical account of rule-following does succeed in providing a comprehensive and plausible account for how we invest meaning into the notion of rule- following through community based justification and evaluation. However, it seems that by accepting the scepticism brought to light by the by the paradox Kripke is guilty of the very misunderstanding that Wittgenstein was trying to correct. Wittgensteins rejection of the sceptical problem appears to be shown in the second paragraph of 201 in which Wittgenstein states that we thereby show that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which, from case to case application is exhibited in what we call following the rule and going against it  [15]  . From this it appears that Wittgenstein believed it was possible to reject the view that understanding is reliant on interpretation without having to accept on a sceptical theory of meaning. Meredith Williams highlights Kripkes misunderstanding, arguing t hat his belief that the apparent lack of epistemic guidance and justification for the correct application of a rule presents a genuine problem reflects a continued allegiance to the ideal expressed in the classical view  [16]  . She argues that this allegiance distorts Wittgensteins view by searching for an epistemic solution, leading Kripke to replace truth conditions with justification conditions and subjective verification with communal verification. Although Williams shares Kripkes community view of rule-following, she holds that this is not simply a sceptical solution but a genuine source of justification, stating that Wittgensteins answer to the paradox is not a sceptical throwing up of the hands with But this is what I or we do, but an appeal to the social embeddedness of rules  [17]  . She also criticizes Kripke for misunderstanding the community view by denying the authority of those who have mastered the language and forms of life that they are involved with, thus making the authority of the community arbitrary. Williams argues that Wittgenstein held an overtly communitarian view of rules, she evens goes as far as to argue that only the communitarian view can provide rules with the power to constrain the behaviour of the individual and space needed for the basic normative distinction between correct and incorrect. Williams describes the activity of rule-following as a matter of establishing a second nature  [18]  . Rules gain their power from appearing natural and inevitable, meaning that we develop an instantaneous and blind obedience to them. Blind obedience is cultivated through the training of a novice by a master wherein the novice is taught the technique of application that lies in the background and gives content to the formula as rule  [19]  . These techniques then become bedrock practices which need no epistemic justification as they are legitimised by their conformity. Williams argues that it is the blind obedience in the application of bedrock judgements and actions that create space for the rule rather than vice versa, which she calls the primacy of action. Williams argues that both the novice and the master act blindly, they are alternative blind as they are unaware of alternative actions and judgements. The Novice is blind as they unquestioningly follow the example and in struction of the master as they are aware of no other alternatives. Masters act blindly as once they have mastered the language they are blind (or no longer subject to) the verification of the community. From this Williams then argues that it is these two kinds of blindness than can give weight to the constraints that rules place upon an individual by providing the necessary foundational level needed to stop the regress of interpretation. In regards to the issue of normativity, Williams argues that the necessity of following a rule in a particular way is established through a communal regularity which constitutes the form of life against which error and mistake, truth and falsity can be discerned.  [20]  This means that the community does not provide a normative standard through its assent. Rather, it is the structure of the community or in other words, a certain history and a certain setting  [21]  which sustains the regularity of practices over time therefore acting in accordance with this regularity that constitutes following a rule correctly. This means that when we engage in blind actions and judgements, we comply with rules in a way that has been developed in the community of which we are a member, therefore, it is only in relation to the structured practice of the community that the individual can engage in normative activity  [22]  . Williams theory of blind obedience as the source of the necessity of rules and normativity of rules as socially constructed appears to be a valid interpretation of Wittgensteins account of rule-following. However, the notion of socially embedded normativity appears to be in need of further examination. Even if Williams account does not rely on the overtly arbitrary assent of the community, how can an individual compare their understanding of the meaning of an expression with the one provided by the structured practice of the community and furthermore, how may the community ascertain an individuals understanding of a rule in a comprehensively in order to subject it to verification? In light of these queries, I believe that a more substantial account of social normativity is needed, one that I will explore in John McDowells critique of Crispin Wrights anti-realist theory of meaning. Crispin Wright held a community view of Wittgensteins account of rule-following however, he saw this as necessarily aligned with an anti-realist stance due to the scepticism against investigation-independent truth values that he took to be inherent in Wittgensteins rule-following considerations. According to Wright, there can be no such thing as an objective or investigation-independent fact and so the only source of normativity available to a language speaker is the verdict of the linguistic community. However, due to the lack of investigation-independence this verdict is arbitrary. Wright challenges the existence of investigation-independence by refuting the hypothetico-deductive picture of understanding which he believes to be a foundational aspect. In the case of learning a language, this theory assumes that the trainee is able to form a hypothesis of what they believe their trainer is attempting to convey. Wright argues that this would suggest that we all have some innate grasp of an idiolectic pattern of application. If this is the case, we can then assume that this insight is shared communally. Wright rejects this view of understanding as psychologically artificial  [23]  as it rests on the assumption that we have such access to understanding that allows us to make verifiable assertions about the meaning of expressions. He argues along similar lines to Kripke, that there is no way that a trainee may prove that her hypothesis correctly mirrors that of the apparent investigation-independent fact in every case of application. This then means that it is not possible to have a direct and privileged insight regarding the requisites of understanding an expression irrespective of whether this insight is shared. If we wish to claim that investigation-independent facts pertaining to language exist, they must be recognisable; otherwise the correct use of language would have to be regarded as a radical transcendence of human consciousness  [24]  . However, Wrights examination of the hypothetico-deductive picture shows that an individual cannot attribute themselves with the abil ity to recognise whether they are using an expression in accordance with the prescribed pattern of the fact, let alone persuade anyone else that they have this ability. From this Wright concludes that there is truth in the idea that it is community of assent which supplies the essential background against which alone it makes sense to think of individuals responses as correct or incorrect  [25]  . However, if we suppose that this means that the community has the capability that the individual lacks to recognise whether they are conforming to a determined pattern, we are then faced with the same dilemma as the individual as there is no way of knowing whether consensus aligns with correctness. Wright argues that communal consent can be the only authority regarding the correct employment of language (or in other words the application of the rules of language) but for the community itself there is no authority, so no standard to meet  [26]  meaning a community does not go right or wrong in accepting a particular verdict on a particular decidable question, rather, it just goes.  [27]   In accordance with Wrights belief that meaning cannot be constituted by investigation-independent facts he states that, the only notion of objectivity which the anti-realist can allow himself is the ordinary contrast between areas where disagreement is taken to betoken error or misunderstanding  [28]  . He argues that this is an acceptable view of meaning as our assertions can be given substance through reflecting on our epistemic practices from which they arise. However, this does not seem to be satisfactory, or even in alignment with Wittgensteins intentions due to such statements such as the agreement of ratifications is the pre-condition of our language-game, it is not affirmed in it  [29]  . It appears Wittgenstein believed not only that language games and the rules that govern them are not wholly determined by ratification, but they needed a stronger validation than such ratifications can provide. Although it is clear that Wittgenstein would not regard our grasping of m eaning as the grasping of a private idiolectic pattern, the way in which Wright approaches this seems to threaten normativity in an unnecessary way by associating the invalidity of the hypothetico-deductive picture with an inability of a community to recognise whether or not the individual is able to follow rules correctly. McDowell takes this view in his article Following a Rule in which he argues that Wrights anti-realist theory of meaning and understanding is not recognizable as such and furthermore cannot be regarded as Wittgensteins view. He states that Wrights rejection of investigation-independence yields a picture of the relation between the communal language and the world in which norms are obliterated  [30]  . In light of this it is difficult to see how the susceptibility of the individual to be corrected by the community can be regarded as a form of normativity as there are no norms that may constrain the judgement of the community. McDowell states that this revelation turns Wrights argument on its head  [31]  as it is then becomes necessary to reject anti-realism in order to discern an applicable notion of meaning. According to McDowell, the crux of Wrights misunderstanding, shared with Kripke lies in their overlooking of Wittgensteins intention to refute the convergence of understanding with interpretation which reflects his desire to preserve the sanctity of normativity and meaning. In fact, McDowell sees Wittgensteins goal as finding a middle path between two horns of a dilemma, one which he takes to be Kripkes view that understanding is necessarily interpretative leading to the sceptical paradox, and Wrights view in which expressions are behavioural reactions cultivated by the community making any notion of normativity an illusion. McDowell argues that the way in which we may follow a rule blindly avoiding the need for interpretation while retaining normativity is to situate the questions regarding rules, meaning and understanding within a framework of communal practices  [32]  and furthermore, to redefine what it means to be a member of a linguistic community. According to McDowell, a linguistic community is bound together, not by a match of mere externals (facts accessible to just anyone) but by a capacity for meeting of minds  [33]  . It is as a result of the capacity of members within a linguistic community to access aspects of other members understanding of expressions, that they are able to ascertain a shared meaning. McDowell concedes that Wright is correct to reject the idea that understanding an expression is to formulate a hypothesis concerning something concealed by the speakers linguistic behaviour. However, the anti-realist conclusion from this rejection is misguided in that it fails to also reject the idea that there is such a thing as surface linguistic behaviour. The linguistic behaviour of a speaker that is apparent to others must be characterised in terms of the contents of utterances  [34]  . A command of the language spoken by the speaker allows direct cognitive contact  [35]  with the meaning of this content and thus establishes true meeting of the minds. By this McDowell is suggesting that what we mean by our utterances is not hidden, it is in fact clearly discernible to those who speak the same language. By taking this view McDowell highlights Wittgensteins call for us to stop trying to look beneath the bedrock for reasons as to why we follow rules in a certain way. It is possible to ask further questions concerning the nature of rule-following and meaning but to do so blocks off the obvious and surely correct reading: that hearing a word in one sense rather than another is hearing it in one position rather than another in the network of possible patterns of making sense that we learn to find ourselves in when we acquire mastery of a language  [36]  . When we learn a language we also learn the ways in which this language should be used; there need not be a gap between the expression of a rule given in trainingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and an action in conformity with it  [37]  . Therefore, when we understand an expression we use it in accordance with the communal use and our meaning is clear to those who share our language and customs. If we do not understand, our incomprehension is also clear and we may then be corrected. This appears to coincide with Wittgensteins belief that what is true or false is what human beings say; and it is in their language that human beings agree. This agreement not in opinion, but rather in form of life.  [38]   In this essay I have addressed the question of does Wittgenstein establish that language is rule-governed by discussing the issue of whether his account of rule-following can provide the justifications and normative standards that following a rule require. My exposition of the rule-following paradox and the deviant learner example revealed how Wittgenstein proved that we cannot provide a comprehensive account of rule-following by referring to the content of rules. However, even if this is the case, it does not necessarily mean that we must be sceptics regarding meaning as Kripke suggests. To believe that normativity and justification must be epistemic in nature is to misunderstand what it is to follow a rule. Williams account of how training situated within a particular social structure leads individuals to follow rules blindly effectively encapsulates how the only justification we require for the way we follow rules is that we have been trained to do so. I do believe Wright raises a valid point in asking how we may recognise that our understanding of certain rules is shared by others. However, through my examination of McDowells view that by sharing a language we are able to gain significant insight