Larkin and Abse write about the society Essay Example for Free

Larkin and Abse write about the society Essay Larkin often seems to criticise society. In the light of this statement, what connections have you found between the ways in which Larkin and Abse write about the society in which they live? In your response include at least two of Larkins poems. Larkin criticises society in many of his poems and also does it from a superior place in an attempt to distance him from the society which he criticises and this can be seen in Nothing To Be Said. On the other hand, Abse writes about society and community whilst he participates in it and is a part of it. Larkin tries to stunt and remove the parts of society he criticises whilst it is clear Abse attempts to preserve many of the positives in society, for example in The Story of Lazarus, a story that surrounds the optimistic tale of someone surviving something so horrific. Abse is also very proud of the society from which he grew for example he is proud of being Welsh. Larkin labels and stereotypes the working class with a superior view in Nothing To Be Said, for example in the first stanza he describes the working class as small-statured cross-faced tribes, giving the impression that he views the working class as poorly developed, and a sense of savagery and it is possible to assume that Larkin viewed them as not very intelligent also. In addition to this, the use of the word tribes is particularly powerful and evokes this idea of animals and removes their traits as a human being. Larkins use of slow dying also helps to emphasise his views that these people arent contributing to society, just slowly dying as they trudge on in their day to day lives, however it could also be Larkins view that for him these type of people arent going fast enough either. It may be true of Larkins opinion that the only thing he shares in common with these people is death and it is possible that Larkin resents this and doesnt believe he should share anything at all with them. Larkin uses enjambment in the first verse to emphasise the steady rhythm at which everybody cruises towards death. In comparison, Abse likes to preserve people in time and focuses on the positives in society. Not only does Abse focus on positives but he presents them in a more favourable way unlike Larkin, in addition to this Abse takes people from history and gives them life again in his poetry for example The Story of Lazarus. This poem aims to continue the legacy of Lazarus, a survivor of the holocaust, he showed us the number on his arm. Abses views on society here suggest that he is upset that people are becoming less interested in preserving the tale, soon they merely nodded. In comparison, Larkin doesnt want to preserve the tale of the people he mentions in Nothing To Be Said, its as though the repetition of Slow dying is emphasising that for Larkin, it wasnt slow enough. Abse also hints at the biblical tale of Lazarus, suggesting that this tale should be savoured and of its significance. On the other hand, in Nothing To Be Said, the title and final line diminishes any significance of the society and can be interpreted that there is nothing more to say on the subject. In the Whitsun Weddings, an observational poem, Larkin takes superior views upon the wedding party, as he does in Nothing To Be Said, and he makes bold and unkind judgments such as mothers loud and fat. Unlike Abse, Larkin distances himself from society, for example in Whitsun Weddings, I leant More promptly out next time he tries to be involved in society but never feels like he fits, and the train in the poem separates Larkin from community. In the Whitsun Weddings Larkin shows a slightly more sympathetic side as he discusses the train journey from Hull to London and how much it has changed and perhaps shows a sentimental side regarding how time has changed the things he knew. In addition to this, the train journey could be a metaphor for Larkins inability to adapt to ever changing society and the fast pace that it moves. To conclude, Abse celebrates people within society and relishes the opportunity to be a part of it, where as Larkin tries distinctly hard to distance him from the ever modernising world, in attempt to disguise his insecurities and promote his sense of superiority. This superiority removes any doubt in Larkins mind that he could be wrong and therefore missed out on so many things in life. Abse on the other hand is proud of the society from which he came, especially emphasises his Welsh nationality and in addition to this his Jewish faith. To conclude, Larkins poems reflect on all that is missing in society, while Abse is in the middle of it and making the most of everything positive society has to offer.

The pulse code digitization and companding on a signal Essay example --

AIM The main aim of this project is to demonstrate the pulse code digitization and companding on a signal and to observe the effects of sampling depths and companding on the signal to noise ratio (SQR). INTRODUCTION PCM- In the pulse code modulation (PCM), the signal is a digitally represented analog signal in which the signal magnitude is sampled with uniform intervals. Each sample is quantized to the closest value of the digital signal. In the pulse code modulation, the signal is binary. The two possible states represented in PCM are logic 1(high) and logic 0 (low). The main advantage of PCM signal is that it is derived from analog signal which is multiplexed with data from the computer and carried over a common high-speed channel. COMPANDING- The combination of compressing and expanding is known as companding. In companding, the data is compressed before it is sent and then expanded at the receiving end using the same non-linear scale. The noise and crosstalk levels at the receiver are reduced due to companding. It is used in wireless microphones for better dynamic range and also in digital and telephony systems for compressing of the input signal and expanding of the output signal. The below figure 1 shows the demonstration of PCM with and without companding. Figure1- PCM with and without companding Procedure to create PCM and companding on excel sheet The PCM and companding of a signal is done on a spreadsheet using excel. Firstly, a sine wave is created by varying the time with respect to the amplitude. The frequency of the signal is taken as 10 Hz. The quantization process of the signal will be done. A quantized sine wave is then created. Now the number of levels cell (N) should be created. We take the value ... ...ude=0.1, large N=8. GRAPH I) Plot of SQR vs Amplitude with Companding (mu=255) and without Companding (mu=0). GRAPH J) Plot of SQR vs bit depth both with Companding (mu=255) and without Companding (mu=0). Where A=1, and bit depths are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256. CONCLUSION: This lab was carried out to compand and quantizes a voice signal. We In the Using the pulse modulation technique, the analog signal is converted into the digital signal. The process of quantization and companding of a signal is carried on the spreadsheets. To attain a clear signal to quantization noise ratio, the number of samples should be increased. By increasing the sampling depth, the quantization error can be minimized. By companding process, the quantization noise and distortion levels can be minimized. Companding improves response for low amplitude signals.

The Bush Doctrine

President George W. Bush made known to the people all over the world the existence of his new National Security Strategy on September 2002. While the new scheme preserved a few components from past strategies, in many aspects it is a daring digression from previous U. S. policy. It clearly asserts that the United States is in an extremely distinctive spot of political and military ascendancy and that it possesses an ethical responsibility to utilize this power to institute an autonomous and noninterventionist world order.This new strategy maintains that the United States must set up and sustain a global military supremacy to achieve the kind of democratic and peaceful world it has visualized. According to this plan, its execution necessitates blocking, if necessary by force, any and all those who will challenge this notion of U. S. military dominance. As it is, terrorists and some states that are known to seek or actually possess weapons of mass destruction pose a colossal challenge to world stability.Fearing that the Cold War principles of deterrence and containment may be outdated or would no longer work, and that â€Å"if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long,† Bush declared in the National Security Strategy a novel â€Å"preemption doctrine† to combat such threats (Speed & May, 2005, pp. 38-49). The Bush Doctrine This doctrine is a set of foreign policy courses of action initially disclosed by President Bush during his commencement speech addressed to the graduating class of West Point on June 1, 2002.When taken as a whole, these principles shaped a comprehensive and novel stage in US policy that stressed military pre-emption, military superiority (what has been known as strength beyond challenge) unilateral action and a dedication towards extending democracy, liberty and security to all regions. Such set of principles was made official in a document called The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 20, 2002.This doctrine provided the framework for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The term Bush Doctrine at first referred to the policy formulation stated immediately after the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center assault that the United States would see no difference between terrorists who commit outrageous acts against property and humanity and those people who believe and protect these terrorists. During the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, this policy was stridently applied.Even though the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan volunteered to extradite al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden if concrete proofs were given that he was really responsible for the September 11 attacks and also offered to entrust bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried under Islamic law, their refusal to extradite him to the U. S. with no preconditions was considered justification for invasion. This principle then connotes that any country that would not ta ke a pro-active position against terrorism would automatically be seen as a country supporting it.In a televised speech to a session in Congress, President Bush recapitulated the doctrine with these very popular words – â€Å"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. † Roots of the Doctrine History of the doctrine can be traced back to the Department of Defense when a draft version of the internal Defense Planning Guide principles prepared by Paul Wolfowitz came out, at that time then he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in 1992.As the guidelines were leaked to the press and consequently triggered bitter controversy, President Bush commanded it to be re-drafted which now became to be known as the Bush Doctrine. Debate over the Bush Doctrine In spite of the United States’ position as a world power, the ominous September 11 assault on the American people on American soil and Bushà ¢â‚¬â„¢s declaration of a GWOT depicted more than ever the necessity of taking a new perspective of its global security environment (Zelikow, 2003, p. 19).The Bush Doctrine progressed from a realist selective engagement scheme toward a plan of US supremacy with the motivation and enthusiasm to utilize pre-emptive military might in confronting threats essential to American national security (Dueck, 2004, pp. 523-532). Both liberal and conservative standpoints clashed. The Bush Doctrine instigated an ocean of censure, praises and its own set of disputes, deliberating on its legitimacy and strength as the appropriate strategy for America in the twenty first century.President Bush’s administration chose to take a position toward a NSS of Primacy, utilize preemptive military action to take care of national vital interests, and use a â€Å"coalition of the willing† when UN support was less than expected (Bush, 2002). So much disagreements and deliberations surface at home an d abroad after the release of the September 2002 NSS. The idea of United States dominance push people to be on two extreme sides – advocates strongly believe that the US is a principled and a respectable â€Å"knight in shining armor† and a genuine defender against anarchy and wickedness.Those who intensely oppose refer her as â€Å"the all powerful root of evil† (Foreign Policy, 2002). Very specifically, Bush Doctrine detractors see the use of â€Å"primacy† as an unwarranted speechifying and an unlawful rationalization to employ pre-emptive military strikes when the US conveniently opts for it (Ney, 2004, p. 10). It simply means that the doctrine’s antagonists view it as egotistical, over-belligerent and menacingly intimidating (Kagan, 2004, 65-72). â€Å"By the time the war actually began in March 2003, the Iraq crisis was no longer just the result of transatlantic differences, but a significant cause of them† (Gordon & Shapiro, 2004).â⠂¬Å"Critics point out that the practice of preemption is not new, however turning it into doctrine weakens international norms and encourages other countries to engage in risky actions. Similarly, they argue, American primacy is a fact, but there is no need for rhetoric that rubs other peoples’ faces in it† (Ney, 2004, p. 9). Criticisms Those who have been very cynical of the Bush Doctrine articulate that it is not a principle of pre-emptive war but preventive war. A pre-emptive war is one against an enemy preparing to strike right away. A preventive war is one against an enemy that will pose a danger in the future.Likewise, they consider it a huge problem if American preventive wars might motivate other countries to validate attacks on their enemies as â€Å"preemptive wars. † Apparently, the National Security Strategy warns other nations not to â€Å"use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression† and explains that the â€Å"reasons for [American] actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. † However, critics argue that with this policy, it will be difficult for America to be successful in stopping other countries from using pre-emption to wage war.Another argument from detractors further insist that the doctrine implies that America will do what it chooses without respect and consideration for international organization agreements. This principle, according to them, emasculates the authority of the initiatives of these international groups to confront many global predicaments like slavery, drug-running and terrorism, concerns that are also important to the United States. In like manner, these opponents of the doctrine are fearsome that a willingness to use preemptive military force may turn this â€Å"last resort† scheme into a â€Å"first resort† instrument.By going it alone in the world, American power loses its authority and authenticity and the United States is seen as a tough tormentor and persecutor. Finally, say it isn’t realistic. These critics stressed the fact that it took democracy hundreds of years to set in, develop and become established in Western countries. Societies like Iraq, which have no democratic tradition, cannot be expected to right away form liberal institutions. It is also thought that the costs of nation-building will be outrageously overwhelming.And on the personal level, these opponents of the doctrine think that it is definitely shameful for the US to impose her way of life, most especially the capitalistic system, on other cultures. When is a First Strike Acceptable? For the sake of argument, one accepts to be true that some right of pre-emptive self-defense exist under international law, the next query is how far it can go. Experts on the subject claimed that even if there was a right of striking first, it could only exist when the country affected had no time to take the issue to the United Nations.Based on Article 51, it has been a rgued that â€Å"you have the right of self-defense until such time as the Security Council takes action. And therefore it’s implied that if you have the time to deliberate and to go to the Council before you take pre-emptive action, then you have to go to the Council. † In short, the Bush doctrine was and is obviously illegal. If one considers it closely, there was never an indication or suggestion that Iraq is going to launch an assault at the United States or that any of the countries that potentially fall within the scope of military action validated by the Bush doctrine are immediate threats.Clearly, the policy was aimed at â€Å"effectively closing down dangerous regimes before they become imminent threats† an act which represented a usurpation of the Security Council’s role in global affairs. In the specific case of the United States and Iraq, however, experts did not consider Iraqi actions to pose a grave threat to the United States to justify a p re-emptive attack. As an indication of what might indicate a sufficient threat, there should be evidence that the Iraqi leadership is in possession of some sort of weapon, plus a means to get it to the United States, plus actually intending imminently to do that but otherwise not.The Dangers of Unilateralism It has been asserted that it was intrinsically undesirable for the United States or any other country to take pre-emptive action unilaterally. The difficulty posited by anticipatory self-defense as that of finding a reasonable middle ground between the reductio ad absurdum of two extremes have been depicted, â€Å"If you insisted that a small country wait for a neighbor to attack it with nuclear weapons before responding†¦ everybody would just say the law is an ass.On the other hand, if you have a law which says that any country that feels threatened is free to attack any country from which it feels the threat is emanating, then you don’t have a law at all. † In the case of the United States and Iraq, it has been sketched out what a reasonable interpretation of the law would demand — that the US show other states (starting with the Security Council and NATO) evidence to suggest that Iraq is supporting the use of force by terrorist organizations against a member (or several members) of the United Nations.Without such evidence, â€Å"you probably shouldn’t do it, because everybody is going to assume that you’re acting for other motives. † That would destabilize the international system, because other countries would see the Bush doctrine as a potential threat to themselves. Extending this point to a general principle, analysts say that when there is a rule in international law that had to be interpreted reasonably, as with the right of self-defense, the process by which it was interpreted became more important than the substance of the rule itself.It could not simply be interpreted by a single country, with no a ttempt to persuade other countries of the necessity of its actions. If the process [of interpreting the rule] is an entirely unilateral one, in which the strong do as they will, and the weak have to accept it, then the world is back to the Peloponnesian wars, and certainly most countries would resist that. International Law and the Bush DoctrineAt home and abroad, the doctrine triggered so much alarm because it evidently ignores even the minor respect to international law and collaboration that exemplified Post-Second World War foreign policy until the Clinton administration. From now on, the U. S. might make use of the cover provided by UN resolutions and international coalitions for the sake of expediency, but Bush and his team were openly declaring that the world’s only superpower would do as it wanted without being bound in any serious way by the international community.Between September 11 and the public declaration of the Bush Doctrine, there were many manifestations of the administration’s sweeping condescension for international law. The bombing of civilian areas and the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan were all in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims. Likewise, a blatant infringement of other Geneva Convention provisions is the imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, of aliens detained in the war on terrorism.More than six hundred detainees from more than forty nations are at present being held at Guantanamo. These foreigners are declared by the Bush administration to be â€Å"unlawful combatants† and not â€Å"prisoners of war† whose rights are suppose to be protected under the Geneva Conventions but as it is, these detainees have been prohibited from seeing family members or having access to lawyers. The list of incidents where the Bush administration has written off or repudiated support to various agreements with other powers is huge and far-reaching.One good way to recapitulate the approach the Bush administration is taking and its current line of thinking is to say that the U. S. is now organized, equipped and geared up to hold everyone in the world answerable under international law–except itself. Nowhere has this stance been more prominent than in the administration’s policy towards the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has been a major subject of international discussion and negotiation for years and was scheduled to come into existence on July 1, 2002.It will be made up of judges and a prosecutor chosen by the 66 nations that have ratified the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC and will claim to have jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses resulting from international conflicts (Keach, 2003). Right or Wrong Strategy? Evidently, the Bush Doctrine is an exceedingly audacious plan. However, it is hideously inconsistent and faulty. Some of the flaws are: †¢ International support almost zero. These guidelines will b e confronted with a high degree of opposition from the global community which implies that it will also be the end of open cooperation to stop terrorists and all forms of terrorism.It cannot be denied that global unity and collaboration is a great necessity in order to effectively hunt terrorist leaders and bring them to justice. With the kind of opposition the US is getting and the type of psychological and emotional level the global community is in, that ability to obtain cooperation is in danger. †¢ There is too much to loose economically. Or a poetical way of saying it is – the war may have been won but along the way, peace is lost. Obviously, economics was behind the the West’s great triumph during the Cold War.The US’s consecutive principles of containment permitted wealth and success in the face of peril. It is common knowledge that the US’s high technology and affluence facilitated her to obtain increasing levels of superiority over the USSR. With the Bush Doctrine, the threat of ‘hot’ wars with small nations of insignificant power over a long period of time has and will persist to gravely damage the United States and global economies. Economic catastrophe can and will create problems in states the US formerly had no reason to be afraid of.†¢ US military cannot fight and win clean victories against these opponents. As the Russians found out in Grozny, urban warfare is not even remotely similar to the clean open air victory we fought in the first gulf war. Further, the other foes we may fight are much more difficult, particularly N. Korea. The collateral damage in that situation would likely be massive. Conclusion The Bush administration's language of preemptive strikes, regime change, and anticipatory self-defense, simply present euphemisms for raw military aggression and belligerence.Critics claimed the new â€Å"strike first, ask questions later policy,† and hostile unilateralism are hazardous legitimating of preemptive strikes. Israel, Pakistan, Russia, China, and smaller powers had already made use of the so-called Bush doctrine and â€Å"war against terrorism† to legitimize assaults on domestic and external enemies and there were big possibilities that it could escalate into bigger conflicts that will definitely make the world an extremely volatile and vicious place to live in.â€Å"A global strategy based on the new Bush doctrine of preemption means the end of the system of international institutions, laws and norms that we have worked to build for more than half a century. What is at stake is nothing less than a fundamental shift in America's place in the world. Rather than continuing to serve as first among equals in the postwar international system, the United States would act as a law unto itself, creating new rules of international engagement without the consent of other nations. In my judgment, this new stance would ill serve the long-term interests of the United States† (Galston, 2002).In the book Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Future of Good Intentions, Clyde Prestowitz (2003) asserts that Bush’s doctrine of preemptive strikes and military supremacy emasculates three primary towers of strength as far as international order and stability are concerned – 1) the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia which recognized and established a principle of respect for national SV and noninterference in the affairs of other countries; 2) the UN Charter that disallows the threat or use of military force except in self-defense or under the authority of a UN Security Council mandates; and the 3) Nuremberg Trails which considered preemptive strikes a war crime. In addition, this doctrine of preemptive strikes could give free rein to a sequence of terrible wars that could thrust this planet into a dreadful and nightmarish militarism and totalitarianism vividly depicted in George Orwell’s 1984. The Bush principle is an extremely barbaric policy, bringing the international community to a social Darwinist battleground where years and years of international law and military discretion were set aside in possibly the most perilous foreign policy doctrine that had ever surfaced in American history.It foretells a militarist future and a period of eternal war in which a new militarism could create a succession of interminable bloodshed and reprisals, such as the case in the Palestine-Israel conflict (Vidal & Gore, 2002 / 2003). References/Readings Bush, G. W. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Washington, D. C. : The White House, 17 September 2002 Zelikow, P. 2003. â€Å"The Transformation of National Security. † The National Interest. Vol. 71 p. 19. Dueck, C. 2004. â€Å"Ideas and Alternative in American Grand Strategy, 2000-2004,† Review of International Studies. vol. 30, pp. 511, 523-532. . Ney, J. S. 2004. â€Å"US Primacy Is Fact-So, Now, Work on Soft Power of Persuasion. † Christian Science Monitor. p. 10. Speed, R. & May, M. 2005. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 38-49 Kagan, R. 2004.â€Å"America’s Crisis of Legitimacy. † Foreign Affairs, vol. 83, II, pp. 65-72. Gordon, P. & Shapiro, J. 2004. Allies at War America Europe and the Crisis Over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill Smith, J. W. 2003. World wars: Battles over who decides the rules of unequal trade, economic democracy: The political struggle for the 21st Century. 3rd Edition Whittaker, D. 2003. The terrorism reader. London; New York: Routledge Bush, G. W. 2002. â€Å"Graduation Speech at West Point†, the White House, 1 June, http://www. whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3. html Keach, B. 2003. â€Å"International Law: Illusion and Reality. † International Socialist Review, vol. 27

Formation by Beyoncé - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 763 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2018/12/14 Category Music Essay Type Case study Level High school Did you like this example? Over the years, music has played a crucial role in shaping the perspectives that people have about their communities and their lives. Musicians covey a lot of thoughts in their lyrics, and in their choreography and it goes without saying that music plays an indispensable role in mainstream American culture as it grants an exclusive opening for literacy training as it prepares people to listen, and learn in new ways and practice aural distinction. One of the most popular musicians of this generation is Beyoncà ©, and she is famed for producing acclaimed and controversial music. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Formation by Beyoncà ©" essay for you Create order Formation is one of the most scrutinized compositions written by Beyoncà © due to the wording of the lyrics used. Formation is a politically charged song as it contains trenchant political stricture in its lyrics. Although some scholars perceive that Beyoncà ©s primary goal is to reiterate and re-establish the African-American history, other scholars note that Beyoncà © uses the struggles of the African-Americans living in New Orleans for quantifiable and individual gain. Janell Hobson contends that the principal intent of the song as presented by Beyoncà © is to restore all aspects of African American life rendered as noxious as waste, as abnormal and as destructive. Hobson supports his claim by using scenes from the video which are ascribable to visual significances of Southern Blackness with echoes from an African diaspora and the post-industrial world. Additionally, Beyoncà © used abandoned parking lots and empty swimming pools to signify the restoration and renewal of the African culture. Based on the lyrics used in the song, it is glaring that each lyric points to Beyonces heritage, her family and the importance of her fame. Through the song, Beyoncà © owns her cultural identity, and she gives a comparable call to black women when she says ladies- Lets get in formation. By rendering this claim Beyoncà © is militarizing ladies to defend themselves, their families, their neighborhood, and communities against state-backed oppression meted towards the black community. Beyoncà © intends to agitate the urge to act by using past disasters that afflicted the black population in New Orleans such as Hurricane Katrina and police brutality to support her cause of action. As a result, it is apparent that Beyoncà ©s song aims to restore the magic of the black lives. Nonetheless, this is not an idea that Shantrelle Lewis shares and he claims that Beyoncà © exploits the traumas of New Orleans. The video of the song begins with Beyoncà © sitting on partly submerged in water just like Hurricane Katrina had flooded the town evoking memories of the infamous Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, Beyoncà © uses the voice of the late Messy Mya as an introduction to the song without acknowledging him, and according to Lewis, this amounts to plagiarism. Beyoncà © does not stop there; she advances to co-opt the culture of African-Americans living in New Orleans and to aggravate the scenario she uses a backdrop that portrays some of the most troubling periods that the Black community in New Orleans has experienced such as Hurricane Katrina and prevalent cases of police brutality. In Shantrelle perspective, Beyoncà © uses these events for personal gain as she exploits the pain and trauma of the black community and this video accurately portrays her moral deba sement as an African-American. In conclusion, music plays an integral part in the modern society, and it is a medium that is used by various people to share ideas or criticize specific social elements such systematized discrimination. Formation by Beyoncà © is a song that has received a lot of praise and criticism in equal measure. Hobson perceives that Beyoncà © has done a remarkable thing by addressing her cultural identity and affirming that she has not forgotten her past and specifically where she came from. Hobson contends that Beyoncà © uses her music to rally African-Americans against systematized oppression meted against them by the state organs. Nonetheless, this is a viewpoint that is debated by Shantrelle who contends that Beyoncà © uses the misfortunes suffered by the African-American community to advance her individual goals and objectives. Shantrelle questions about the morality and applicability of using voices of the dead and performing against a backdrop of black tragedy. Based on these two ar guments, it is glaring the Black culture plays an indispensable role in the production of Formation, but this is a subject that raises numerous moral and legal issues. Work Cited Hobson, Janel. Beyoncà © As Conjure Woman: Reclaiming The Magic Of Black Lives (That) Matter.?  Ms.blog. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2017. Lewis, Shantrelle. With Formation, Beyoncà © Exploits New Orleans Trauma In The Name Of Herself.?  Slate Magazine. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2017.