Relationship between mythology and earthly authority Research Paper

Relationship between mythology and earthly authority - Research Paper Example Studying different myths also enable scholars to establish the relationship between different races and the period of their separation. Myths have their basis in the existence of supernatural beings that have extra-ordinary powers. This aspect protects myths from challenges and preserves their credibility. Closely related to mythology is the earthly authority. Unlike mythology, earthly authority is based worldly governance and institutions. Although the two concepts are different, they share common roots and practices. This paper will therefore analyze the relationship between mythology and earthly authority. The paper achieves its objective by discussing the implications of myths on kingship authority. The reality of existence between myth and kingship stands out as the main difference between the two aspects. However, different kingships around the world existed in a close relationship with supernatural world. Relationship between earthly kingships was of immense interest to differ ent rulers since it strengthened their influence. Kingship acted as a link between the supernatural world and the mortal world. In this relationship, the earthly rulers acted as the mediator between the people and the supernatural world. In such cases, the people believed that their kings had direct conversations with their gods and ancestors. The kings or people in authority were also expected to offer sacrifices to the spirits in orders to reconcile them with the people. This usually happened when there was a catastrophe. People believed that catastrophe resulted when the spirits were angry with them. In such cases, the king was expected to offer sacrifice in order to reconcile the people with the spirit spiritual world (Richard, 2004). Kings not only offered sacrifice in order to reconcile the people with the spiritual world but they also offered sacrifice as a form of thanksgiving for a fortune that has taken place in the society. Although people believe in their earthly rulers, they have more faith and adoration to the spiritual world. This indicates that kings associated themselves with mythology in order to build their legitimacy among the people. Believing in spiritual world is human nature that enables people to explain their origin and relationship with the natural world. By acting as the mediator between the spiritual world and the earthly world, kings were able to win people’s confidence. This aspect also enhanced the legitimacy of the kings. Some earthly kings considered themselves as immortal, in such societies people considered the kings as gods. The ancient Egyptian society considered their kings as immediate after their gods. The Egyptians believed that their rulers had powers that were equivalent to the powers of their gods. Ancient Egyptian artifacts such as the pyramids of Giza and the Great Sphinx were constructed to demonstrate the immortal nature of the Egyptian pharaohs. These features demonstrated that different kings existed am ong the people despite them being dead. Egyptian kings also served as a link between the Egyptians and their gods. They played this role by maintaining Egyptian cults and religious practices. The kings also led religious activities within the society and maintained the temple. The king was also expected to protect the community from the chaotic world by maintaining a close a relationship with the gods. By playing this role, the kings appeared as direct apostles or earthly representative of the gods. This made the society to believe in their kings as they believed in their gods. Playing these roles also enabled the kings to win the confidence of their subject that was vital in strengthen their authority (Ions, 1982). Similarly, the Greeks considered their rulers to have a close

Strategic Management in Steel Industry Dissertation

Strategic Management in Steel Industry - Dissertation Example With this understanding, it might appear that the evident differences in economic and social policies among OECD governments are explicable as rational responses to the real world, based on democratic political choice, free of overriding concerns to liberalize national economies". In order to run the steel making and the steel selling business profitably-which often is set up at massive deployment of capital and manpower requiring setting up of large scale steel plants ;it has become virtually necessary to plan the operations and policy along the strategic lines. In fact strategic management gives a way of approaching the various issues in any business along scientific lines so that business objectives are attained in an orderly and timely manner. Some businesses are simple, involving easily understood stages involved right from production to marketing to financial aspects; whilst others -like steel industry- are so very complex that one section of business may not even appreciate the complexities involved in the operations of another section of the business, not to talk about keeping in sync with policy thrusts and strategic orientations of the two sections. Strategic management provides answers readily in such complex business situations by offering a model of identifying the strategic areas where attention and focus is required. This paper approaches the issue of strategic management in steel industry through a thorough literature review exploring the concept of strategic management as it is theorized and practiced in steel industry and attempts to find an empirical support for the same through questionnaire survey of policy making and decision making executives in the randomly chosen steel makers.... From the dissertation, it is clear that the concentration witnessed among the steel industry’s customers is still more marked among its suppliers. In the seaborne iron ore trade, three companies control more than 70 percent of the world market. In coking coal, five suppliers control nearly 60 percent of all exports. The merged entity will immediately achieve industry leadership with a production capacity of approximately 130 million tons a year and around 10 percent of world steel output. The new group will have leading positions in the high-end segments of North America and Western Europe with low-cost production in high-growth, developing economies. In conclusion, Mittal Steel has low-cost operations in the developing economies of Central and Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa; Arcelor has low-cost slab manufacturing in Brazil as well as other South American facilities. For its part, Mittal Steel will contribute sizeable captive supplies of raw materials – enabling the combined entity to have strong positions at every step of the value chain. Mittal Steel is approximately 50 percent self-sufficient in iron ore and coal and in 2004 produced more direct reduced iron (DRI) and coke than it consumed. It intends to invest in lifting raw material production, particularly at its major mines in the Ukraine and Liberia. The combination of Mittal Steel and Arcelor will result in a steelmaker more than three times larger than its nearest competitor and with every chance of reaching a production capacity of between 150 million tons and 200 million tons within ten years.