Mediterraneanization Article Critic Article Reviews Example
Type of paper: Article Review
Topic: Literature, Globalization, Target, Public Relations, Audience, Theory, Instance, History
Mediterraneanization Article Critic
Medirerraneanization process is a complex, and proactive subject that has created appoint of focus in debates among historians, archeologists, researchers and critics in the modern world. Therefore, the proposers of the mediterraneanization process base their argument on the interconnectedness and globalization model theory looking at the contributions it has been able to rise in cities, individuals, markets, and States. Alternatively, those who affirm the process regard mediterraneanism as a social science and a humanity movement directed towards treating the covered as an analytic unit as a response to modern globalization. However, the critics of the mediterraneanization base their argument on the general effects it has been able to create from social barriers, restrictions and policies.
Analysis presented in this paper is helpful in understanding the Ian Morris mediterraneanization article based on his arguments, facts, bias, explicit and implication extracted. On a broad front, the paper uncovers the author’s key points of ideas, arguments and the choice of data. Similarly, the article further discovers the validity of Morris arguments revealing out the ideas and the theories generated and the methods used to convince or persuade his target audience to capture his view on new mediterraneanization. Lastly, a conclusion as well as a recommendation is given at the end of the paper analyzing the entire author’s weakness and strength that makes his work look unique, criticized, invalid or recommended (Law, 2014).
In the author’s (Ian Morris) preceding statement, Ian Morris claims that,’’ Mediterranealism is a form of response to modern globalization, interconnectedness and a science of social humanity and movement’’. This statement realistically indicates that, I understand critically and creatively the author’s argument. However, although Morris claims may well have merits in his case, he present himself with a poor reasoned arguments that are beyond acceptance as being valid based on several questionable assumptions, premises and based on the solely evidence that only Morris can offer. Therefore, the author’s theories and generated ideas supported by the choice of data makes his argument unacceptable (Leiden, 2006).
Conversely, as a transitional tool, the primary and secondary author’s selection of data in the first and the second paragraph are more sophisticated than expected. For instance, the author uses question and answer strategies to convince the target audience that his arguments are substantial enough to be relied on rather than generating ideas that are useful to the target audience to believe in his ideas. For example, when the author describes ''Mediterraneanism'' as interconnectedness of the Mediterranean basin since 1980s and goes further to display the study of the Mediterranean history as a corrupting sea as also claimed by Nicholas Purcell and Peregrine, he just expose himself with multiple flaws. In this regard, analyzing the interconnectedness theory or model and paradigm shift as a form of appeal lack evidentiary support and is open to alternative explanations and loophole (Leiden, 2006).
Nevertheless, Morris weakness his interconnectedness argument by only making several assumptions and failing massively to support his claim or provide an explication of the link that exist between models of the Mediterranean connectivity and globalization. For instance, the author may seem providing a relationship that exist between the modern globalization and mediterraneanization, but confuses his target audience by bringing in the term Static mediterraneanism defiles the entire relationship. For example, from the author’s initial claims at beginning of his work, it can prove that, the author acknowledges the importance of mediterraneanization from a human and social perspective (Law, 2014). However, the author goes further pointing out some troubling anomalies that exist in defining the link between the unity and Mediterranean to come up with a general definition (the unity of Mediterranean) brings a lot of questions than answers.
In contrast, globalization means joining the entire world into a single unity that provides a geographical scope of planned partnership that illustrate a share political-cultural dialogue, free trade and other imaging issues that faces the entire world without limiting itself to a geographical boundary. In this regard, Morris assumptions of defining mediterraneanization as globalization are entirely biased and lack facts since the two terms cannot be used interchangeably (Dobie, 2014). Archeological survey evidence tries to date back origin and the activities involved in the Mediterranean history such as Barcelona process and the Caboteurs tied to the Mediterranean concepts such as mobility change the author’s target audience reasoning assumption. In simple terms, the author does not understand the theoretical question of globalization as well as mediterraneanization as his theoretical background might have influenced his views to use globalization definition interchangeably with that of mediterraneanization.
Conversely, the author’s defined questions at the ground in analyzing the concepts and principles of mediterraneanization and the appeal for stimulating his target audience to apply actively his theory is unclear. For instance, the author traces the pre-historical benefits of mediterraneanization in interconnecting the entire world in trade and social phenomenon with no historical records and evidence make contexts unclear (Leiden, 2006). In addition, the fails to define Mediterranean concepts in relation to the modern globalization to allow his target audience to exploit different situation or relate his concepts with the current situation facing globalization makes his contexts meaningless. For example, the author does not provide an explicit comparison of the Mediterraneanization winners and losers so that his target audience can relate and compare the relationship that exists to that of modern globalization.
Similarly, it’s clear that, the author lack enough concrete evidence to justify or support his Mediterraneanization argument to prove to a more general point that uncovers the themes, motifs and symbolism of his argument to that of modern globalization. However, the author ignores as well as underemphasizes some critical evidences that are contrary to his central point of argument (Mullen, 2013). For instance, the author ignoring to explain the losers of globalization and mediterraneanization convincingly as well as underemphasizing on the validity of his choice of data or sources dating makes his argument non-compelling. For example, the author’s target audience can claim that modernization is inherently useful given the corruption and barriers created in the pre-historical times. In addition, there are a lot of bias resulting to un-credibility of the evidence provided by the author in supporting his ideas where there are no records and precise sources of his research work (Leiden, 2006).
On a broad point of view, it is worth acknowledging that, while Ian Morris does possess several critical issues in his appeal to the new mediterraneanization argument’s assumptions and premises, that is not to subjectively claim that his entire argument lack base. The author illustrates the idea of modern comparison of globalization with that of new mediterraneanization. In addition, the author explores his central idea of new mediterraneanization as a dynamic process, interconnectedness and a form of unit in which the entire world would be focusing (Law, 2014). For this reason, though there are multiple issues that challenge the Morris’s argument at the moment, with a broad research and clarification on the losers and winners of modernization and globalization as well as citing proper sources and the background of his argument would improve Morris’s case significantly.
The paper position itself as unique and complimenter of the new mediterraneanization in relation to other prior scholars such as Culican’s argument on the on the same subject. However, the author draws some critical pieces of other authors’ ideas and thoughts but in a narrow and inconsistent way. In addition, the author’s work does not modify or overturn other author’s ideas but rather applies them to support itself (Mullen, 2013). For instance, Phoenicia and Phoenician colonization argument portrayed by Culican’s argument displays all facts and supportive evidence in a consistent manner that makes the author’s target audience get subjectively convinced. For instance, Culican’s approach on Mediterranean theory are also portrait by ideas through the nature of trade, interconnectivity in Assyria and Egypt as a form of the modern movement is also indicated in author’s ideas (Culican, 1991).
In summary, Morris illogical mediterraneanization and globalization ideas are based on unsubstantial and unsupported premises or facts that render his judgment invalid. However, if Morris truly looks forward to changing his target audience’s thoughts or mind on the issues raised in his argument, he would rather primarily focused on restructuring his argument by clearly explicating his assumption and fixing the flaws or loopholes in his logic and facts. In addition, Morris ought to provide evidentiary support for his argument that build his mobility, dispersed power and connectivity ideas related to mediterraneanization and connectedness model theory in a clear and consistent manner. However, if these facts and corrective measures are not applied in Morris argument, his poorly reasoned and unsupported argument would likely to convince a limited number of target audiences.
Culican, in John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, E. Sollberger and C. B. F. Walker. 1991.Phoenicians and Phoenician colonization. The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume II.2, 2nd edition, 461-546, especially 498-502. [E-BOOK]
Dobie, M. 2014. For and against the Mediterranean: Francophone Perspectives. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 34, 389-404
King, R., Proudfoot, L., & Smith, B. 2014. The Mediterranean Environment and Society. Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1639317
Kinoshita, S. 2014. Mediterranean Literature. 314-329.
Law, I. 2014. Mediterranean racisms: connections and complexities in the racialization of the Mediterranean region. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=662150.
Leiden, Dominguez, A. J., ‘Greeks in Sicily’, in Tsetskhladze (2006-8). Greek colonization : an account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, volume 1.
Mullen, A. 2013. Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean: multilingualism and multiple identities in the Iron Age and Roman periods.