Company Q is a small local grocery store chain located in a major metropolitan area. They have recently closed two stores in higher-crime-rate areas of the city because they were consistently losing money. After years of requests from customers, all of their stores have started offering a very limited amount of health-conscious and organic products—all of which are high-margin items. When asked by the area’s food bank for donation of day-old products, management declined deciding instead to throw the food away, citing worries over lost revenues due to possible fraud and stealing by employees who may claim they are donating the food.
Write a brief essay responding to the given statement (suggested length of 2–3 pages) in which you:
A. Evaluate Company Q’s current attitude toward social responsibility.
1. Determine whether Company Q’s actions, as described in the scenario, are socially responsible or not.
a. Explain your reasoning as to whether Company Q’s actions are socially responsible or not.
B. Recommend three actions that Company Q could take to improve the company’s attitude toward social responsibility, based on the information described in the scenario.
C. When you use sources, include all in-text citations and references in APA format.
Van Gennep’s Stages of a Rite of Passage Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: 30th April, 2018 Disclaimer: This exposition has been put together by an understudy. This isn’t a case of the work composed by our expert exposition journalists. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any feelings, discoveries, ends or proposals communicated in this material are those of the writers and don’t really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. Van Gennep’s stages and understanding a soul changing experience in relationship to at least one ceremonies Wittgenstein (1987, p.14, Chapter I. Presentation) set an extensive test for human sciences that still can’t seem to be taken up. In the wake of perusing the Golden Bough, he contends that Fraser committed a urgent error by endeavoring to find what things mean. He blamed Fraser for not understanding that practices connote only rather themselves, and that the degree of human sciences could be to delimit and work out the viable structure of such undertakings. For as long as fifty years or thereabouts, human studies has to a great extent overlooked Wittgenstein’s comments and has fabricated a human studies that benefits the spectator. It benefits the eyewitness since it is just the spectator who can read into wonder their fundamental socio-social significance. It is definitely this kind of reifying reductionism that we find in Van Gennep’s (1909) hypothesis of the transitional experience. Soul changing experiences exhibit an overwhelming and troublesome concentration for the ethnographer: they are groups of stars of compacted implications expelled from the procedure of regular day to day existence. In the creator’s own understanding, they are additionally the absolute most baffling things to investigate. Given such a significant number of surprising wonder, the ethnographer asks, what does this cover mean just for your source to react with a shrug. This trouble of compacted significance may somewhat clarify why ethnographers rush to overlook the wonder engaged with a soul changing experience for understanding it as an auxiliary procedure. This trouble may likewise clarify why, completely one hundred years after it was distributed, Van Gennep’s Rites of Passage hypothesis stays unchallenged in the anthropological world. So, Van Gennep’s general structures has remained astoundingly proficient at coordinating up to every one of the customs individuals apply to it. Be that as it may, there ought not be taken as a sign of its prosperity. It one is to review that the ‘achievement’ of Evans-Pritchards basic functionalism (Kuper: 1988, pp. 190-210, Chapter 10 Descent Theory: A Phoenix from the Ashes), was more in light of the tastes and social standards of anthropologists than it was on its correspondence to any ethnographic reality. This paper will contend that Van Gennep’s phases of transitional experiences do without a doubt connect to numerous customs, in any case, similar to Turner’s plans (1995), these stages do little to disclose to us the noteworthiness of custom. So as to do as such, this article will contend, it is important to swing to how the phenomenologically experienced reality of custom constitutes the social reality of a custom. To influence this contention this article to will center around three soul changing experiences: French marriage custom in Auvergne (Reed-Dahany: 1996), Yaka recuperating ceremonies in Zaire (Devisch: 1998, 1996) and displaced person involvement in Tanzania (Malikki: 1995). The last illustration demonstrates the most troublesome for Van Gennep’s hypothesis: on the grounds that however it compares to his stages, nothing about the experience of exiles would relate to the socially inflexible classifications Van Gennep claims are integral to soul changing experiences. From this case, this exposition will contend to comprehend soul changing experiences we have to consider all the more completely the relationship of time-out-of-time in culture. For until the point when we defy the topic of what enables a specific unit of time to be removed from the experience of the regular, we will be no nearer to seeing how soul changing experiences manage different faculties of time-out-of-time. Van Gennep (1909, Chapter I The Classification of Rites) endeavors to show a there is a widespread structure fundamental all soul changing experiences. While there may be physiological, factors included (e.g. coming to adolescence) the components that decided the transitional experiences are constantly social, and these social developments show a culturally diverse likeness. Customs and services in Van Gennep’s plan serve the capacity of promising one’s way through liminal short lived classifications as one goes through the phases of division, progress and reincorporation that he guarantees are available in all phases of soul changing experiences. What we can note about this model as of now is that the custom fills the need of a unit of causation in a socially determinist model of society: there is a societal need that custom satisfies. Due to this utilitarian model, we are unaware about how a general public decides the correct components of a custom, or how individuals encounter the custom. Van Gennep’s approach depends on a socially useful model: however he is much more slanted to concede the intensity of the person in the social shape sui generis than is Durkheim (Zumwalt: 1982:304). All things considered, despite everything he guarantees (Van Gennep, 1909, p. 72, Chapter Six Initiation Rites) that in mutilation: the damaged individual is expelled from the mass of regular humankind by a custom of partition which naturally consolidates him into the characterized gathering. His accentuation here is on the social end process: as though it could some way or another be isolated from the phenomenological experience of the torment. In this way, the procedure of scarification that imprints numerous inception customs is simply put as a major aspect of the rationale of social attachment: following such an example, it is difficult to clarify the beating and fear that frequently goes with commencement ceremonies. Surely, it disregards the focal test Merleau-Ponty (1962, p.115, Part I The Body, Chapter III The Spatiality of One’s own Body and Motility) presented when he asked: How would we be able to comprehend another person without giving up him to our rationale or it to him? The space of phenomenology is firmly connected to that of custom. Jackson (1996, p.3, Chapter I Introduction) describes phenomenology as a venture intended to comprehend being on the planet. This endeavor to see how between emotional experience is constituted is a conceivable response to the inquiry Merleau-Ponty presents above how can one comprehend the other. Naturally, phenomenology endeavors to answer this venture by not privileging one space of involvement or learning, as none of them can incorporate the totality of the lived understanding. Rather, it is an examination concerning (Ricoeur, 1979, p.127, Chapter IV The Structure of Experience) the structures of experience which continue associated articulation in dialect. This is the thing that Merleau-Ponty would call the preobjective. This comprehension of the significance of structures that escape semantic formalization has likewise been a piece of the accentuation of the investigation of custom in human sciences. In Levi-Strauss’ (1965, pp.167-186, Chapter Nine The Sorcerer and His Magic) great examination of north American mending magicians he stresses how the experience of the recuperating happens between the set of three of patient, alchemist, and social body. He additionally underlines the significance in this relationship of the tactile experience of the magician. In any case, regardless of this accentuation, he is attempted his investigation from a recorded content, and his accentuation is on the basic coherency magic gives as opposed to its exemplified understanding. He composes (on the same page: 181): In a universe which it [the social body] endeavors to see however whose elements it can’t completely control, typical idea consistently looks for the importance of things which decline to uncover their hugeness. Supposed neurotic idea, then again, floods with enthusiastic understandings and suggestions, keeping in mind the end goal to supplement a generally lacking reality. The tangible experience of the custom as comprehended by Levi-Strauss is constituted as a methods end relationship to get to the coveted objective, the attestation of the cosmological solidarity of the social body. Here we can see a similar example of presumptions about substantial importance we noted before in Van Gennep. This accentuation, an inheritance of Durkheim, distinctively implies that redundancy, regularly the component of custom that constitutes its definition, is disregarded as window-dressing to the legendary ‘meat’ of the service which is what can be vocalized (and consequently externalized). This heritage can likewise be found in the two anthropologists whose expounding on legend has characterized the field, Van Gennep and Turner (1986, 1995). In Van Gennep, fundamental to his idea of custom as a soul changing experience is a hallowed disrespect dualism, which is likewise kept in Turner’s plan, however he additionally incorporates the thought of the peripheral or liminal. In this refinement we can see that the two scholars just manage the connection between the hallowed and dishonor regarding social structure and neglect to manage these components interpenetrate in regular lived reality. It might be said, their refinement is like that made by Mauss (1993, p. 12, Chapter I The Exchange of Gifts and the Obligation to Reciprocate) when understanding the blessing. Mauss claims that the individual for whom the forfeit is performed enters the space of the sacrosanct and afterward rejoins the indecent world, which is separate from the consecrated, however adapted by it. For Turner’s initial work, and for Van Gennep, custom is the increased action in which the sacrosanct dishonor universes are intervened between. What is invaluable about these methodologies is that they recognize custom as the circumstance or dramatization second to none, as an association of training developed and characterized by members and it is a training in which the members go up against the existential states of their reality. In any case, there are issues with Turner and Van Gennep’s methodologies which parallel that of Levi-Strauss’. In the two cases, the accentuation is on the formal solidarity of the social world. Kapferer (1997, pp.55-61, Chapter>