Restorative Justice: Benefits and Limitations

Restorative Justice: Benefits and Limitations Systems of Restorative Justice have been utilized around the world for many centuries, examples can be found in many civilizations throughout history. In recent times there have been numerous concepts and reinventions of what many believe or feel is the modern restorative justice model of today. This essay will consider some of the strengths and critics of restorative justice, with a focus on some of the latest research and studies. The vast majority of early studies concluded and indicated that the type of restorative justice model, that each examined, was achieving good positive results and appeared to be a viable alternative to incarceration. Later studies however appear to place limitations on these findings and many question the definition and cultural context of restorative justice, concluding that there could be limited merit in the application of restorative justice in modern society. This apparent shift in the thinking of the true efficacy of restorative justice raises many more questions that will need to be addressed with the primary question what is restorative justice? Until a comprehensive and unified definition is developed and all studies and reviews are truly comparative, there may only be limited reliability in the findings or conclusions of any research or study.What is restorative justice? Does it work? Who does it benefit? Is it relevant today? Can it be used for all forms of offending? These are just a few of the many questions that require some form of answer to establish the efficacy of restorative justice in todays society. There are as many supporters as there are critics of the use and efficacy of restorative justice around the world (Daly, 2002). A mixture of restorative justice style paradigms have been in existence and utilized as a method of penalty or reparation in many cultures around the world for many years. The wide spread use has resulted in many styles, forms and types of restorative justice being developed, redeveloped and conceptualized throughout the centuries. Several paradigms are still evolving even today. Progression from the early retribution style practices, to the use of the circle process has been the key component in some cultures. The early use of the circle process by the indigenous people of Canada (Department of Justice Canada, 2000) was one of the first primal steps to what is now developing and considered by many to be the modern form of restorative justice. The circle process of mediation has many forms but the basic principle is a conference style meeting or discussion in a non threatening environment that involves all the relevant parties, victims and offender. The modern concepts of restorative practices, which have evolved from the original circle process, characteristically contain a focus which promotes mutual understanding, respect, acknowledgement and a mutually agreed resolution between the victim and the offender. However there are many who believe that there are some major problems with the modern concept of restorative justice. In a recent study Kathleen Daly (Daly, 2002) highlights the myths that are portrayed by many who advocate the success of restorative justice and who promote the concept as being a successful modern ideology. Daly (Daly, 2002) also suggests that those who promote these myths may be endeavouring to reform the justice system and therefore are accentuating these myths which may also be in part politically motivated to maintain the funding for restorative justice. The view of possible political motivation promoting positive reviews is also expressed in by White (White Perrone, 2005). What is evident is that the re is a lack of reports, studies and information covering the failures of restorative justice. The vast majority of evidence highlights the positives and as suggested by Daly (Daly, 2002) thereby giving the appearance of success for restorative justice. In a 2010 thesis Roberts (Roberts, 2010) evaluated the methodology of how the evaluation of restorative justice practices is conducted. The thesis highlighted the considerable differences in results and outcomes primarily related to the different types of paradigms assessed and in use around the world. The main concerns that regularly appear in most critical reviews and studies focus on the issues related to the lack of a recognised singular definition of restorative justice and how evaluations are conducted (Walgrave, 2011). Around the world there are literally hundreds of definitions each specific to their own culture, ideology and political will. Many discussions have been focused on comparing community justice to restorative styles endeavouring to answer, are they the same or different? (McCold, 2004).This lack of continuity or agreement raises concerns as to the legitimacy or efficacy of many if not all studies and research and the outcomes reported(Walgrave, 2011). Braithwaite (Braithwaite, 2007) pointed out that political desires can also be influential on the application of restorative justice principles. Negative findings on the use of restorative justice or if the public perceived that there was a breakdown in law and order by the overuse of restorative practices, there c ould be a reduction in political support for restorative justice. There however appears to be an element of strength when restorative practices are implemented within the education system (Shaw, 2007), in particular with the very young. The practice of restorative justice has found some merit within the education system, however the success is qualified. In 2007 a report on restorative type practices in Australian schools (Shaw, 2007) highlighted some of the success with these practices and principles in initiating some cultural change within the school environment. The study also found there was considerable support for restorative type practice when actively utilized in facilitating bullying, alienation and harassment situations as well as the reintegration of marginalised students in the school system. Further support for the application of restorative justice style practices within the youth justice system (Hayes Hayes, 2008), concluded that with the requirement for the offender themselves to meet face to face and speak to the victim imparted a strong influence on the outcome. The requirement for the offender to speak to the victim without another person representing them was seen as a strong reinforcement to t he offender of their unacceptable behaviour. A recent study however, conducted in the United Kingdom observed a single student participating in restorative practices to address behaviour problems. The study concluded that restorative practices had no overall effect on improving the students behaviour despite isolated qualified success (Standing, 2012). The study also highlighted a major issue that could have contributed to the failure of the restorative practices. The inability of all sectors of the school staff, in a whole of school approach, to actively and positively engaging in the process created gaps in the continuity thereby reducing the positive outcomes. This result reinforces the necessity for all parties to be willing and dedicated to achieving the desired outcome. Despite some reports and studies showing that there is potential for restorative justice to be successful, as shown in the Victorian schools study (Shaw, 2007), there is however a distinct possibility that the merging of 2 or more of the numerous paradigms, community justice and restorative justice, may lead to uncertainty, ambiguity and misinterpretation thereby creating a doubt in the efficacy of either (McCold, 2004). In other studies the face to face benefit or disincentive to the victim is considered and investigations (Stubbs, 2009) have shown that the impact on the victim in sexual assaults, where they are required to face the offender may create more problems for the victim and be far from beneficial as a restorative practice. Apologies (Choi Severson, 2009)appear to be the main criteria that many practitioners of restorative justice promote and the actual impact on the victim may not be as favourable as most believe. One study that had appeared to report a positive conclusi on (Okimoto, Wenzel, Feather, 2012) supporting restorative justice however examination of the results showed a tendency favour the offender rather than the victim. The victims of crime are still peripheral to the justice system and feel intimidated and can find the offender has no remorse and that the apology is insincere (Choi Severson, 2009). Some offenders have been observed making positive assertions, promises and apologies with the desire simply to obtain a reduction or dismissal of punishment only to later reoffend with no remorse or consideration for the affirmations previously made (Walgrave, 2011). Recidivism is an area of concern as was demonstrated and highlighted by Pranis (Pranis, 2004). Despite what appeared at first to be a successful use of restorative justice in a case involving theft the youth offender apologised to the elderly victim and promised not to reoffend. However the victim later became aware of another incident involving the same youth and requested another face to face meeting with the youth offender. The victim reinforced the disgust at the offenders lack of respect for the victim and the disappointment of broken promises previously made. The victim requested the offender reaffirm the promises, maintain contact with the victim and refrain from further offending (Pranis, 2004). The offender showed great remorse and has remained free from offending post the second meeting. This success however relied heavily upon the very strong character and tenacity of the original victim which would probably not be replicated in the vast majority of situations. The outcome s for some processes appear to be offender orientated with very little consideration for the needs of the victim. There has been a consistency demonstrated in many studies reporting positively how effective restorative justice practices have been found. These positives may be creating a mistaken attitude to the effectiveness of restorative justice. Choi (Choi, Bazemore, Gilbert, 2012) highlights the lack of negative reviews and reinforces some of the problems, as demonstrated within this essay, that may result from the overabundance of positive results. In conclusion the questions proposed at the beginning of this essay will still need to be carefully examined in other forums. What is restorative justice? There is no simple answer. Does it work? In very limited and qualified situations. Who does it benefit? It appears to favour the offender in the majority of situations. Is it relevant today? Many would suggest that it is more relevant. Can it be used for all forms of offending? Agreement appears to support limited use within targeted offending. With no widely accepted definition and the lack of a standard paradigm, comparisons and the true evaluation of the strengths and critics of restorative justice may remain a contentious issue for many years to come. There appears to be a growing amount of information available that indicates that the use of restorative justice has only limited effectiveness, primarily with youth, and the use of restorative justice in the adult realm may have no measurable efficacy. There is much ambiguity and contradiction in the use of restorative justice, much of which will need to be rectified to allow the advancement of the principles. The strengths and success of current restorative practices must largely rest with the facilitators, whilst allowing the academics to solve the dilemmas in definition and paradigm.

Fascism in Venice

Ryan Johnson December 13, 2012 HIST 3400 Soper Venetian Fascism in the Shadow of Wars The qualities that compose fascism are debatable and endless. What is really important about fascism is how it attempted to succeed by influencing not only Venetian, but also Italian culture and society from the beginning of World War I until the end of World War II. Benito Mussolini when speaking on fascism stated that, â€Å"†¦For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Enciclopedia Italiana, Handout).The success with which fascism had in expanding the nation is an argument for another time, but the ways they attempted to maintain the â€Å"essential manifestation of vitality† and challenged the boundaries of cultural society in hopes of success are well worth mentioning. Fascism did not have many cultural victories and this could be one aspect of an argument as to why it was a failure. However, one of fascisms greatest â€Å"cultural victories† in Italy can be viewed when studying the floating city of Venice and events that accompanied it.Fascism, as a whole, attempted to conquer in more ways than just obtaining land by means of military victory or tangible items as tokens of their success. As stated above by Mussolini himself, if fascism was indeed to succeed, it needed to support the growth of the Italian nation. The Fascist Party needed to not only influence the Italian people through propaganda, but also gain the support of the Italian nation while challenging the cultural and societal boundaries.In the years between World War I and World War II, fascism made attempting strides to try and create an aesthetic visual for the party, mainly by intervening in society and culture. All moves made by the fascists with regards to culture appeared to be solely instrumental and functional to gaining one hundred percent support of the po pulation in favor of the dictatorship. The effects of World War I, World War II, and fascism can still be seen today in Venetian and Italian culture. World War I was a horrendous time for Italian soldiers fighting in the trenches.Venice was very close to the battle lines on the border with Austria-Hungary, just North of where they lie. Venetians could not only feel the constant threat from the Austrians, but also had a daily reminder when they stepped outside. Venice closed their port, for fear of attack, but they also had to deal with the fact that, â€Å"†¦barrage balloons could be seen†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . Barrage balloons had long steel cables attached to them and were mainly used to deter low-flying enemy aircraft from reaching or bombing an area.These defense balloons were used during World War I and II. For the short distance that Venice was from the battlefront they were fairly lucky in how little devastation took place during the war. During World War I Venice was always ex tremely nervous about their next-door neighbors, the Austrians, of attacking the maritime port, but the city never fell to enemy attack. There were very few bombing that occurred in Venice, and the deaths that did take place mainly happened during the â€Å"black-out† hours.These â€Å"black-out† hours would occur in hopes of minimizing the amount of light escaping outside. By doing this, the Venetians were making it very difficult for any sort of aerial attack to bomb their city, port, or boats off of visibility alone. These were the only significant negative effects even worth mentioning that occurred for the city of Venice during World War I. World War II was similar to World War I with regards to the significantly negative effects it had on the city of Venice, there were just about none.As opposed to the devastation that occurred throughout much of Italy, Venice got away pretty nicely. Yet again, the â€Å"blackout† hours when people would fall into the cana l or injure themselves in other ways in the dark were one of the primary contributors to the death toll. It has been stated that Venice remained essentially untouched throughout the duration of the Second World War. However the minute losses that did occur, with exception of Germans capturing Jews, can be summed up in a few sentences. One or two windows were broken; a stray shell hit the tower of San Nicolo del Mendicoli as the Germans were retrateing; and the Tiepolo friezes in the Palazzo Labia were damaged when an ammunition ship exploded in the harbour. † Although the people of Venice saw little to none of the intense fighting, they were not as lucky to maintain an unconquered status during World War II as they had in World War I. For Germany, September 1943 was the beginning of a fairly short control over northern and central Italy that included Venice.Although Germany occupied Venice until April 28, 1945, very few deaths occurred to the Venetian citizens while in the cit y. â€Å"In the city itself a campaign of sabotage was followed by reprisals in which five men were shot in Cannaregio on July 8, 1944; some thirty partisans were executed later that month, followed on August 3 by seven hostages in Riva dell’Impero, called subsequently, in their memory, Riva dei Sette Martiri. † The most extensive part of the death toll came to the Jewish population in Venice with the presence of the Germans in 1943.The Venetians had historically tolerated the Jewish population up until about 1938 with the enactment of new racial laws. After the racial laws, persecution got so bad for the Jewish population, that they were laid off from their job, and grotesque signs were placed on businesses stating â€Å"Dogs and Jews Prohibited†. It only got worse from there after the Germans arrived in 1943, and the open persecution, capture, and killing of Jews from 1943 to 1945 took place.It has been estimated that approximately two hundred Jews were hunted down and sent to concentration camps in the mainland, with some even being deported to Auschwitz. The Germans were so thorough in their cause to vaporize the Jewish population from the earth, they would even go to hospitals to retrieve mentally ill Jewish patients and send them to an early grave. It has been recorded that only eight of the two hundred Venetian Jews captured by the Germans were ever returned home again.The German’s vicious attempts to eliminate the Jewish population and the atrocities that ensued will never be forgotten. With that being said, Venice got out of not only World War I, but also World War II with an extremely minimal death count compared to the millions of lives that were lost as a consequence of the two wars. World War I and II both impacted Venice, but in a fairly nominal way when viewing the status of many other parts of Italy and the world. However, there were two very influential fascist characters that emerge as a product of World War I and are present throughout World War II.These two men are noteworthy fascist figures with one that called Venice a home for a period of his life and another that was a true Venetian. The first man, Gabriele D’Annunzio, assumed a position, as a fascist political figure in Venice, and he was well known even before fascism was created. D’Annunzio was not a native-born Venetian, but was fairly well known in Italy as a â€Å"poet, novelist, playwright, politician (right- and left-wing in rapid succession), and daring First World War pilot who led sorties against Vienna itself†.It was during World War I when D’Annunzio decided to establish his residence in Venice. When he was not contributing to the fighting he could be found at his home, that was located off of the Grand Canal, called Casetta delle Rose. D’Annunzio continues to have a presence in the fascist politics all the way until its eventual demise, but was most famous for his irredentist taking of Fi ume, which is now present-day Rijeka in Croatia. He was angry that Fiume was not ceded to Italy by the Austrians at the end of World War I with the signing of the peace Treaty of Saint-Germain.D’Annunzio ruled over Fiume as a dictator until December of 1921, and it has been said that Benito Mussolini even â€Å"viewed D’Annunzio with a mixture of admiration and envy†¦Ã¢â‚¬  D’Annunzio was a fascist political figure that did not necessarily contribute much to the city of Venice as much as he was solely a constant reminder of the fascist presence. The second man that emerged from the outcome of World War I was an entrepreneurial man by the name of Giuseppe Volpi. Unlike D’Annunzio, Volpi was a native-born Venetian.He was born in Venice in 1877, and before he was thirty years old he had established the Societa Adriatica di Elettricita in the Palazzo Balbi on the Grand Canal, â€Å"which soon had a monopoly on the supply of electricity in the Veneto a nd Emilia-Romagna. † Along with his northeastern electricity monopoly, Volpi was constantly finding new ways to improve and advance Venetian industry. He would dabble in other industries that included petro-chemicals, iron, and shipping that significantly contributed to advancing Venetian industry, more specifically in Porto Marghera.Volpi’s success on top of his founding of Societa Adriatica di Elettricita was substantial; it has been recorded that he was a, â€Å"president or vice-president of twenty other companies, as a member of the boards of forty-six more, and as a major shareholder in over fifty. † During World War I Volpi was the head of a Committee for Industrial Mobilization where his project of turning the old Venetian fortress of Marghera into an industrial port and factory capable area. Volpi was quite successful in his project in Marghera.The area, prior to Volpi’s presence, only contained a thousand inhabitants in 1921. The growth of Marghe ra after Volpi’s intervening was exponential. â€Å"†¦Marghera had grown by 1940 to a town containing fifteen thousand workers in a hundred industries, and by 1967 to one of thirty-five thousand workers in 211 industries. † Volpi’s tremendous success as an entrepreneur and financial guru in northeast Italy, without fail, caught the attention of the Italian government. Volpi was awarded for his successes with the title and position as Governor of Tripoli.Soon after being deemed Governor, and already a standing member of the Fascist party, Volpi was put into office as Mussolini’s Minister of Finance in 1925. It has been stated that Volpi, â€Å"became one of the most successful administrators of the regime. † Three years after Volpi was positioned as Minister of Finance he resigned after disagreeing heavily with Mussolini on the â€Å"artificially high level at which the leader insisted on fixing the exchange rates, and never having become one of his close circle, he concentrated again on Venice and industry. Volpi was always a very influential fascist figure in Venice, but his greatest contribution to the success of the influence of the Fascist party and its cultural production came when he assumed the position as, â€Å"President of the reconstituted Esposizione Biennale Internazionale d’Arte in 1932. † This Exhibition, more commonly known as the Biennale, originated as nothing more than an Exhibition with strange occurrences such as a man’s face that was stuck in rigor mortis known as Supremo Convegno.In 1934, the Fascist government declared the once bi-annual event was to start taking place annually. The success of the Biennale was consistently growing after it was introduced as an annual event. In 1934, there were 41,000 people that showed up, in 1935, 38,500 people, in 1936, 50,000 attended, and in 1937, there was a staggering 60,000 participants. The Biennale by the year 1948 was considered to be one of the most important events in the entire world of art, and the Exhibition got to that point with the help of Giuseppe Volpi as he active President for twelve years. The international respect and publicity the Biennale gained each year was consistently growing. Countries would set up pavilions at the Biennale and present among them even during the Biennale’s early stages were Belgium, Britain, Germany, Hungary, France, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and the United States. Even though the Biennale is an Exhibition where artwork is displayed, it has a sense of friendly competition between countries for who can produce some of the best artwork.During one Biennale exhibition there were not only paintings by nearly all of the best Italian artists under Italy’s pavilion, but also works â€Å"by Picasso and Klee, by Chagall and Kokoschka. The French staged exhibitions by Braque, Rouault, and Maillol, the Belgians by Delvaux and Ensor, the British by Henry Moo re. † The participation of artists as prestigious as these helped in securing the validity and existence of the Biennale as a true appreciation for art. There was even an exhibition for Impressionist artist and that same year there were ninety-eight Impressionist pieces of art.The Biennale was an exhibition that appears to be more of a friendly competition and get together between major countries of the world. All of the countries that have previously been at one another’s throats in prior wars all come together to participate in the Biennale that takes places in Venice, Italy. The Biennale brings together a magnitude of countries, despite their differences, and allows them to partake in a mutually pleasing and intellectually stimulating event. The importance of the Biennale is much greater than the sole criticizing of artistic works and abilities.The event brings together a variety of countries with extremely varying viewpoints and opinions to meet communally and peace fully. The Biennale during the presence of fascism and in attempting to be a useful tool of fascism held a much more substantial meaning than multiple countries coming together peacefully. It allowed for Italy to feel unified even if it was on the smallest cultural level of coming together for an art festival, and it also gave the Fascist party yet another opportunity to use propaganda towards the masses to their advantage.In 1932, Giuseppe Volpi was deemed the President of the Biennale and Mussolini was in his tenth year of his regime when, â€Å"a good number of prizes went to pictures of marching Blackshirts, dynamic cranes and planes, idealized Italian landscapes, and women and children saluting Il Duce. † Just prior to this particular Biennale of 1932, Volpi was an active member of the Fascist party, and was most recently the Minister of Finance for Mussolini and the Fascist party. Then again, in 1935 during the film festival aspect of the Biennale, prizes were awarded t o Nazi, Soviet, and Palestinian-Zionist films.Volpi’s ability and willingness to give awards to fascist based artwork, regardless of actual artistic value, was no coincidence. Marla Stone describes Fascist Italy as presenting a paradox with regards to the cultural politics of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that reigned in Europe in the time period between World War I and World War II. She states that since, â€Å"No one style, school, or monument summarizes the patronage practices of the Fascist state. Rather, the official culture of Italian Fascism is best defined by its diversities, contradictions, and ambiguities. The culture that was present during fascism closely mirrors the culture of the United States, but with different ingredients. The United States is considered a melting pot with all of the diversities that are represented in the country. Fascist Italy creates its own form of a melting pot, but not with an abundance of ethnic diversity. The â€Å"offi cial culture†, if there was a true â€Å"official culture†, of Fascist Italy was composed of the differences between the Italian people geographically, politically, hierarchically, socially, and of course culturally.Therefore terms that have become popular when speaking of Fascist culture such as â€Å"Fascist realism† and â€Å"Mussolini modern† are irrelevant and inconceivable. Since the beginning of Mussolini’s regime he had always strived to obtain and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with those who encompass the art world. Under Mussolini’s dictatorship artist were free from censorship as long as they were not openly and actively anti-Fascist, and in return, as a sign of their gratitude, many artists and architects would accept the Fascist regime’s patronage.Certain artists who defied Mussolini’s regime would end up with repercussions. Such is the case with a Venetian abstract painter, Armando Pizzinato, who was an avid member of the Italian Communist Party, and from September 1943 until the end of the war he fought with the partisans and did jail time for certain anti-Fascist activities. However, Pizzinato represents a small portion of the artistic community that was anti-Fascist. The majority of artists cooperated with the Fascist regime, and â€Å"the association between aret and the state was one of mutual recognition and legitimation. Mussolini and his mutually beneficial policies with the art world began to create a more central form of cultural production. Marla Stone refers to the outcome of the newly centralized form of cultural production as a cultural policy of â€Å"aesthetic pluralism – the Mussolini dictatorship’s practice of accepting and supporting a range of aesthetics†. This now meant that there was a magnitude of â€Å"imageries and aesthetic formulations† that represented Fascism and â€Å"were a part of its cultural system, it imaginary and its aesthetic universe. The Fascist party was in a constant search to uncover a single Fascist rhetorical-aesthetic vision while at the same time combining â€Å"modern and avant-garde aesthetics, emerging mass cultural forms, and a discourse of natural culture to produce, during the 1930s, many dynamic and vibrant products. † The products such as exhibitions, fairs, and expositions, that the government produced and were heavily supported by the Fascist party, generated a considerable audience from the Italian population. More specifically speaking, the Biennale was a direct product of the cultural productivity that was being pursued by the Fascist party.Victoria De Grazia argues that the Fascist party was never able to obtain a singular aesthetic vision and identity due to its incapability to mobilize the masses, limits due to the party’s interests, and â€Å"†¦its appropriation of preexisting cultural forms and institutions, which precluded the formation of â €Å"total† Fascist identities†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å" The introduction of Exhibitions such as the Biennale were a key component in Fascism’s political aesthetic vision considering the primary goal was to encompass the cultural sphere of Fascist Italy. In doing so, the Fascist party was hoping to unify Italy under a national culture.Exhibitions had multiple purposes to them while aiming to obtain a unified national culture: â€Å"(1) they were primary sites of state patronage; (2) they opened the social boundaries of culture to the mobilized masses; (3) they offered a location for the appropriation of the cultural identities and cultural capital of preexisting elites; and (4) they courted the participation of cultural producers. † The Venetian Biennale and other similar Exhibitions were, for the most part, good for everyone that attended regardless of party affiliation, social status, or job title.World War I, World War II, and the fascism that accompanies them individuall y had a lasting impact on the country of Italy. Venice, in particular, was not prone to mass amounts of devastation as a consequence of the World Wars. The Fascist presence in Venice was very strong even though the actions of the majority of its supporters were minimal. This problem of mobilizing the masses was not just a problem of Fascism’s in Venice, but throughout Italy. The best attempt Fascism had at completely unifying a Fascist Italian culture was through its support of state patronage in the Exhibitions such as the Biennale in Venice.The political differences, ambiguities, and varying class rank made it virtually impossible to create a single Italian culture under Fascism. However, the ability of the Fascist party to participate in state patronage and allow aesthetic pluralism allowed artists to maintain their careers and not have to alter their stylistic ways. The Fascist party did not succeed in creating their own cultural identity under Fascism, but they did allow for a hybrid-like culture to develop. Fascism did many terrible things for the country of Italy, but allowing the aesthetic pluralism to flourish aided unifying the country under one culture.Lucky for Italians it did not create a unified Fascist culture, but rather a hybrid culture unified due to the intervention of Fascism and the varying differences among the Italian people. Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter. Venice: Pure City. New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009. Print. Garrett, Martin. Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion. New York: Interlink, 2001. Print. Hibbert, Christopher. Venice: The Biography of a City. New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. Print. Reich, Jacqueline, and Piero Garofalo. Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002. Print. Stone, Marla.The Patron State: Culture & Politics in Fascist Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998. Print. ————————————â₠¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€œ [ 1 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 2 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 320 [ 3 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 48 [ 4 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 48 [ 5 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 144 [ 6 ].Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 7 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 8 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 9 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 144 [ 10 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 11 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural an d Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 12 ].Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 13 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 14 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 15 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 316 [ 16 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 17 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 18 ].Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 316-317 [ 19 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 20 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 21 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (Ne w York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 22 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 23 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 24 ].Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 25 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 26 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 27 ]. Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garofalo, Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943 (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002), 294 [ 28 ]. Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garofalo, Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943 (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002), 294 [ 29 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 318 [ 30 ].Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 318 [ 31 ]. Christopher Hibbert, V enice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 319 [ 32 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 319 [ 33 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 47 [ 34 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 35 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 36 ].Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 37 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 38 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 39 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 40 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: C ulture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 41 ].Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 42 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 6 [ 43 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 6 [ 44 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 14 [ 45 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 18 Fascism in Venice Ryan Johnson December 13, 2012 HIST 3400 Soper Venetian Fascism in the Shadow of Wars The qualities that compose fascism are debatable and endless. What is really important about fascism is how it attempted to succeed by influencing not only Venetian, but also Italian culture and society from the beginning of World War I until the end of World War II. Benito Mussolini when speaking on fascism stated that, â€Å"†¦For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Enciclopedia Italiana, Handout).The success with which fascism had in expanding the nation is an argument for another time, but the ways they attempted to maintain the â€Å"essential manifestation of vitality† and challenged the boundaries of cultural society in hopes of success are well worth mentioning. Fascism did not have many cultural victories and this could be one aspect of an argument as to why it was a failure. However, one of fascisms greatest â€Å"cultural victories† in Italy can be viewed when studying the floating city of Venice and events that accompanied it.Fascism, as a whole, attempted to conquer in more ways than just obtaining land by means of military victory or tangible items as tokens of their success. As stated above by Mussolini himself, if fascism was indeed to succeed, it needed to support the growth of the Italian nation. The Fascist Party needed to not only influence the Italian people through propaganda, but also gain the support of the Italian nation while challenging the cultural and societal boundaries.In the years between World War I and World War II, fascism made attempting strides to try and create an aesthetic visual for the party, mainly by intervening in society and culture. All moves made by the fascists with regards to culture appeared to be solely instrumental and functional to gaining one hundred percent support of the po pulation in favor of the dictatorship. The effects of World War I, World War II, and fascism can still be seen today in Venetian and Italian culture. World War I was a horrendous time for Italian soldiers fighting in the trenches.Venice was very close to the battle lines on the border with Austria-Hungary, just North of where they lie. Venetians could not only feel the constant threat from the Austrians, but also had a daily reminder when they stepped outside. Venice closed their port, for fear of attack, but they also had to deal with the fact that, â€Å"†¦barrage balloons could be seen†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . Barrage balloons had long steel cables attached to them and were mainly used to deter low-flying enemy aircraft from reaching or bombing an area.These defense balloons were used during World War I and II. For the short distance that Venice was from the battlefront they were fairly lucky in how little devastation took place during the war. During World War I Venice was always ex tremely nervous about their next-door neighbors, the Austrians, of attacking the maritime port, but the city never fell to enemy attack. There were very few bombing that occurred in Venice, and the deaths that did take place mainly happened during the â€Å"black-out† hours.These â€Å"black-out† hours would occur in hopes of minimizing the amount of light escaping outside. By doing this, the Venetians were making it very difficult for any sort of aerial attack to bomb their city, port, or boats off of visibility alone. These were the only significant negative effects even worth mentioning that occurred for the city of Venice during World War I. World War II was similar to World War I with regards to the significantly negative effects it had on the city of Venice, there were just about none.As opposed to the devastation that occurred throughout much of Italy, Venice got away pretty nicely. Yet again, the â€Å"blackout† hours when people would fall into the cana l or injure themselves in other ways in the dark were one of the primary contributors to the death toll. It has been stated that Venice remained essentially untouched throughout the duration of the Second World War. However the minute losses that did occur, with exception of Germans capturing Jews, can be summed up in a few sentences. One or two windows were broken; a stray shell hit the tower of San Nicolo del Mendicoli as the Germans were retrateing; and the Tiepolo friezes in the Palazzo Labia were damaged when an ammunition ship exploded in the harbour. † Although the people of Venice saw little to none of the intense fighting, they were not as lucky to maintain an unconquered status during World War II as they had in World War I. For Germany, September 1943 was the beginning of a fairly short control over northern and central Italy that included Venice.Although Germany occupied Venice until April 28, 1945, very few deaths occurred to the Venetian citizens while in the cit y. â€Å"In the city itself a campaign of sabotage was followed by reprisals in which five men were shot in Cannaregio on July 8, 1944; some thirty partisans were executed later that month, followed on August 3 by seven hostages in Riva dell’Impero, called subsequently, in their memory, Riva dei Sette Martiri. † The most extensive part of the death toll came to the Jewish population in Venice with the presence of the Germans in 1943.The Venetians had historically tolerated the Jewish population up until about 1938 with the enactment of new racial laws. After the racial laws, persecution got so bad for the Jewish population, that they were laid off from their job, and grotesque signs were placed on businesses stating â€Å"Dogs and Jews Prohibited†. It only got worse from there after the Germans arrived in 1943, and the open persecution, capture, and killing of Jews from 1943 to 1945 took place.It has been estimated that approximately two hundred Jews were hunted down and sent to concentration camps in the mainland, with some even being deported to Auschwitz. The Germans were so thorough in their cause to vaporize the Jewish population from the earth, they would even go to hospitals to retrieve mentally ill Jewish patients and send them to an early grave. It has been recorded that only eight of the two hundred Venetian Jews captured by the Germans were ever returned home again.The German’s vicious attempts to eliminate the Jewish population and the atrocities that ensued will never be forgotten. With that being said, Venice got out of not only World War I, but also World War II with an extremely minimal death count compared to the millions of lives that were lost as a consequence of the two wars. World War I and II both impacted Venice, but in a fairly nominal way when viewing the status of many other parts of Italy and the world. However, there were two very influential fascist characters that emerge as a product of World War I and are present throughout World War II.These two men are noteworthy fascist figures with one that called Venice a home for a period of his life and another that was a true Venetian. The first man, Gabriele D’Annunzio, assumed a position, as a fascist political figure in Venice, and he was well known even before fascism was created. D’Annunzio was not a native-born Venetian, but was fairly well known in Italy as a â€Å"poet, novelist, playwright, politician (right- and left-wing in rapid succession), and daring First World War pilot who led sorties against Vienna itself†.It was during World War I when D’Annunzio decided to establish his residence in Venice. When he was not contributing to the fighting he could be found at his home, that was located off of the Grand Canal, called Casetta delle Rose. D’Annunzio continues to have a presence in the fascist politics all the way until its eventual demise, but was most famous for his irredentist taking of Fi ume, which is now present-day Rijeka in Croatia. He was angry that Fiume was not ceded to Italy by the Austrians at the end of World War I with the signing of the peace Treaty of Saint-Germain.D’Annunzio ruled over Fiume as a dictator until December of 1921, and it has been said that Benito Mussolini even â€Å"viewed D’Annunzio with a mixture of admiration and envy†¦Ã¢â‚¬  D’Annunzio was a fascist political figure that did not necessarily contribute much to the city of Venice as much as he was solely a constant reminder of the fascist presence. The second man that emerged from the outcome of World War I was an entrepreneurial man by the name of Giuseppe Volpi. Unlike D’Annunzio, Volpi was a native-born Venetian.He was born in Venice in 1877, and before he was thirty years old he had established the Societa Adriatica di Elettricita in the Palazzo Balbi on the Grand Canal, â€Å"which soon had a monopoly on the supply of electricity in the Veneto a nd Emilia-Romagna. † Along with his northeastern electricity monopoly, Volpi was constantly finding new ways to improve and advance Venetian industry. He would dabble in other industries that included petro-chemicals, iron, and shipping that significantly contributed to advancing Venetian industry, more specifically in Porto Marghera.Volpi’s success on top of his founding of Societa Adriatica di Elettricita was substantial; it has been recorded that he was a, â€Å"president or vice-president of twenty other companies, as a member of the boards of forty-six more, and as a major shareholder in over fifty. † During World War I Volpi was the head of a Committee for Industrial Mobilization where his project of turning the old Venetian fortress of Marghera into an industrial port and factory capable area. Volpi was quite successful in his project in Marghera.The area, prior to Volpi’s presence, only contained a thousand inhabitants in 1921. The growth of Marghe ra after Volpi’s intervening was exponential. â€Å"†¦Marghera had grown by 1940 to a town containing fifteen thousand workers in a hundred industries, and by 1967 to one of thirty-five thousand workers in 211 industries. † Volpi’s tremendous success as an entrepreneur and financial guru in northeast Italy, without fail, caught the attention of the Italian government. Volpi was awarded for his successes with the title and position as Governor of Tripoli.Soon after being deemed Governor, and already a standing member of the Fascist party, Volpi was put into office as Mussolini’s Minister of Finance in 1925. It has been stated that Volpi, â€Å"became one of the most successful administrators of the regime. † Three years after Volpi was positioned as Minister of Finance he resigned after disagreeing heavily with Mussolini on the â€Å"artificially high level at which the leader insisted on fixing the exchange rates, and never having become one of his close circle, he concentrated again on Venice and industry. Volpi was always a very influential fascist figure in Venice, but his greatest contribution to the success of the influence of the Fascist party and its cultural production came when he assumed the position as, â€Å"President of the reconstituted Esposizione Biennale Internazionale d’Arte in 1932. † This Exhibition, more commonly known as the Biennale, originated as nothing more than an Exhibition with strange occurrences such as a man’s face that was stuck in rigor mortis known as Supremo Convegno.In 1934, the Fascist government declared the once bi-annual event was to start taking place annually. The success of the Biennale was consistently growing after it was introduced as an annual event. In 1934, there were 41,000 people that showed up, in 1935, 38,500 people, in 1936, 50,000 attended, and in 1937, there was a staggering 60,000 participants. The Biennale by the year 1948 was considered to be one of the most important events in the entire world of art, and the Exhibition got to that point with the help of Giuseppe Volpi as he active President for twelve years. The international respect and publicity the Biennale gained each year was consistently growing. Countries would set up pavilions at the Biennale and present among them even during the Biennale’s early stages were Belgium, Britain, Germany, Hungary, France, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and the United States. Even though the Biennale is an Exhibition where artwork is displayed, it has a sense of friendly competition between countries for who can produce some of the best artwork.During one Biennale exhibition there were not only paintings by nearly all of the best Italian artists under Italy’s pavilion, but also works â€Å"by Picasso and Klee, by Chagall and Kokoschka. The French staged exhibitions by Braque, Rouault, and Maillol, the Belgians by Delvaux and Ensor, the British by Henry Moo re. † The participation of artists as prestigious as these helped in securing the validity and existence of the Biennale as a true appreciation for art. There was even an exhibition for Impressionist artist and that same year there were ninety-eight Impressionist pieces of art.The Biennale was an exhibition that appears to be more of a friendly competition and get together between major countries of the world. All of the countries that have previously been at one another’s throats in prior wars all come together to participate in the Biennale that takes places in Venice, Italy. The Biennale brings together a magnitude of countries, despite their differences, and allows them to partake in a mutually pleasing and intellectually stimulating event. The importance of the Biennale is much greater than the sole criticizing of artistic works and abilities.The event brings together a variety of countries with extremely varying viewpoints and opinions to meet communally and peace fully. The Biennale during the presence of fascism and in attempting to be a useful tool of fascism held a much more substantial meaning than multiple countries coming together peacefully. It allowed for Italy to feel unified even if it was on the smallest cultural level of coming together for an art festival, and it also gave the Fascist party yet another opportunity to use propaganda towards the masses to their advantage.In 1932, Giuseppe Volpi was deemed the President of the Biennale and Mussolini was in his tenth year of his regime when, â€Å"a good number of prizes went to pictures of marching Blackshirts, dynamic cranes and planes, idealized Italian landscapes, and women and children saluting Il Duce. † Just prior to this particular Biennale of 1932, Volpi was an active member of the Fascist party, and was most recently the Minister of Finance for Mussolini and the Fascist party. Then again, in 1935 during the film festival aspect of the Biennale, prizes were awarded t o Nazi, Soviet, and Palestinian-Zionist films.Volpi’s ability and willingness to give awards to fascist based artwork, regardless of actual artistic value, was no coincidence. Marla Stone describes Fascist Italy as presenting a paradox with regards to the cultural politics of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that reigned in Europe in the time period between World War I and World War II. She states that since, â€Å"No one style, school, or monument summarizes the patronage practices of the Fascist state. Rather, the official culture of Italian Fascism is best defined by its diversities, contradictions, and ambiguities. The culture that was present during fascism closely mirrors the culture of the United States, but with different ingredients. The United States is considered a melting pot with all of the diversities that are represented in the country. Fascist Italy creates its own form of a melting pot, but not with an abundance of ethnic diversity. The â€Å"offi cial culture†, if there was a true â€Å"official culture†, of Fascist Italy was composed of the differences between the Italian people geographically, politically, hierarchically, socially, and of course culturally.Therefore terms that have become popular when speaking of Fascist culture such as â€Å"Fascist realism† and â€Å"Mussolini modern† are irrelevant and inconceivable. Since the beginning of Mussolini’s regime he had always strived to obtain and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with those who encompass the art world. Under Mussolini’s dictatorship artist were free from censorship as long as they were not openly and actively anti-Fascist, and in return, as a sign of their gratitude, many artists and architects would accept the Fascist regime’s patronage.Certain artists who defied Mussolini’s regime would end up with repercussions. Such is the case with a Venetian abstract painter, Armando Pizzinato, who was an avid member of the Italian Communist Party, and from September 1943 until the end of the war he fought with the partisans and did jail time for certain anti-Fascist activities. However, Pizzinato represents a small portion of the artistic community that was anti-Fascist. The majority of artists cooperated with the Fascist regime, and â€Å"the association between aret and the state was one of mutual recognition and legitimation. Mussolini and his mutually beneficial policies with the art world began to create a more central form of cultural production. Marla Stone refers to the outcome of the newly centralized form of cultural production as a cultural policy of â€Å"aesthetic pluralism – the Mussolini dictatorship’s practice of accepting and supporting a range of aesthetics†. This now meant that there was a magnitude of â€Å"imageries and aesthetic formulations† that represented Fascism and â€Å"were a part of its cultural system, it imaginary and its aesthetic universe. The Fascist party was in a constant search to uncover a single Fascist rhetorical-aesthetic vision while at the same time combining â€Å"modern and avant-garde aesthetics, emerging mass cultural forms, and a discourse of natural culture to produce, during the 1930s, many dynamic and vibrant products. † The products such as exhibitions, fairs, and expositions, that the government produced and were heavily supported by the Fascist party, generated a considerable audience from the Italian population. More specifically speaking, the Biennale was a direct product of the cultural productivity that was being pursued by the Fascist party.Victoria De Grazia argues that the Fascist party was never able to obtain a singular aesthetic vision and identity due to its incapability to mobilize the masses, limits due to the party’s interests, and â€Å"†¦its appropriation of preexisting cultural forms and institutions, which precluded the formation of â €Å"total† Fascist identities†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å" The introduction of Exhibitions such as the Biennale were a key component in Fascism’s political aesthetic vision considering the primary goal was to encompass the cultural sphere of Fascist Italy. In doing so, the Fascist party was hoping to unify Italy under a national culture.Exhibitions had multiple purposes to them while aiming to obtain a unified national culture: â€Å"(1) they were primary sites of state patronage; (2) they opened the social boundaries of culture to the mobilized masses; (3) they offered a location for the appropriation of the cultural identities and cultural capital of preexisting elites; and (4) they courted the participation of cultural producers. † The Venetian Biennale and other similar Exhibitions were, for the most part, good for everyone that attended regardless of party affiliation, social status, or job title.World War I, World War II, and the fascism that accompanies them individuall y had a lasting impact on the country of Italy. Venice, in particular, was not prone to mass amounts of devastation as a consequence of the World Wars. The Fascist presence in Venice was very strong even though the actions of the majority of its supporters were minimal. This problem of mobilizing the masses was not just a problem of Fascism’s in Venice, but throughout Italy. The best attempt Fascism had at completely unifying a Fascist Italian culture was through its support of state patronage in the Exhibitions such as the Biennale in Venice.The political differences, ambiguities, and varying class rank made it virtually impossible to create a single Italian culture under Fascism. However, the ability of the Fascist party to participate in state patronage and allow aesthetic pluralism allowed artists to maintain their careers and not have to alter their stylistic ways. The Fascist party did not succeed in creating their own cultural identity under Fascism, but they did allow for a hybrid-like culture to develop. Fascism did many terrible things for the country of Italy, but allowing the aesthetic pluralism to flourish aided unifying the country under one culture.Lucky for Italians it did not create a unified Fascist culture, but rather a hybrid culture unified due to the intervention of Fascism and the varying differences among the Italian people. Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter. Venice: Pure City. New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009. Print. Garrett, Martin. Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion. New York: Interlink, 2001. Print. Hibbert, Christopher. Venice: The Biography of a City. New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. Print. Reich, Jacqueline, and Piero Garofalo. Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002. Print. Stone, Marla.The Patron State: Culture & Politics in Fascist Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998. Print. ————————————â₠¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€œ [ 1 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 2 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 320 [ 3 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 48 [ 4 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 48 [ 5 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 144 [ 6 ].Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 7 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 8 ]. Peter Ackroyd, Venice: Pure City (New York: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 2009), 324 [ 9 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 144 [ 10 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 11 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural an d Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 12 ].Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 13 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 14 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 15 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 316 [ 16 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 17 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 18 ].Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 316-317 [ 19 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 20 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 21 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (Ne w York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 22 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 23 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 24 ].Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 46 [ 25 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 26 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 317 [ 27 ]. Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garofalo, Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943 (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002), 294 [ 28 ]. Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garofalo, Re-viewing Fascism: Italian Cinema, 1922-1943 (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2002), 294 [ 29 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 318 [ 30 ].Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 318 [ 31 ]. Christopher Hibbert, V enice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 319 [ 32 ]. Christopher Hibbert, Venice: The Biography of a City (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 319 [ 33 ]. Martin Garrett, Venice: A Cultural and Literary Companion (New York: Interlink, 2001), 47 [ 34 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 35 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 36 ].Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 37 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 38 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 39 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 40 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: C ulture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 4 [ 41 ].Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 5 [ 42 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 6 [ 43 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 6 [ 44 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 14 [ 45 ]. Marla Stone, The Patron State: Culture and Politics in Fascist Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1998), 18

What Is Entropy and How to Calculate It

Entropy is defined  as  the quantitative measure of disorder or randomness in a system. The concept comes out of thermodynamics, which deals with the transfer of heat energy within a system. Instead of talking about some form of absolute entropy, physicists generally discuss the change in entropy that takes place in a specific thermodynamic process. Key Takeaways: Calculating Entropy Entropy is a measure of probability and the molecular disorder of a macroscopic system.If each configuration is equally probable, then the entropy is the natural logarithm of the number of configurations, multiplied by Boltzmanns constant: S kB  ln WFor entropy to decrease, you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system. How to Calculate Entropy In an isothermal process, the change in entropy (delta-S) is the change in heat (Q) divided by the absolute temperature (T): delta-S  Ã‚  Q/T In any reversible thermodynamic process, it can be represented in calculus as the integral from a processs initial state to its  final state of dQ/T. In a more general sense, entropy is a measure of probability and the molecular disorder of a macroscopic system. In a system that can be described by variables, those variables may assume a certain number of configurations. If each configuration is equally probable, then the entropy is the natural logarithm of the number of configurations, multiplied by Boltzmanns constant: S kB  ln W where S is entropy, kB is Boltzmanns constant, ln is the natural logarithm, and W represents the number of possible states. Boltzmanns constant is  equal to 1.38065 Ãâ€" 10−23  J/K. Units of Entropy Entropy is considered to be an extensive property of matter that is  expressed in terms of energy divided by temperature. The SI units of entropy are J/K (joules/degrees Kelvin). Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics One way of stating the second law of thermodynamics is as follows: in any  closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase. You can view this as follows: adding heat to a system causes the molecules and atoms to speed up. It may be possible (though tricky) to reverse the process in a closed system without drawing any energy from or releasing energy somewhere else to reach the initial state. You can never get the entire system less energetic than when it started. The energy doesnt have any place to go. For irreversible processes, the combined entropy of the system and its environment always increases. Misconceptions About Entropy This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular, and it has been misused. Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. This is untrue. It just means that to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system, such as when a pregnant woman draws energy from food to cause the fertilized egg to form into a baby. This is completely in line with the second laws provisions. Entropy is also known as disorder, chaos, and randomness, though all three synonyms are imprecise. Absolute Entropy A related term is absolute entropy, which is denoted by S rather than ΔS. Absolute entropy is defined according to the third law of thermodynamics. Here a constant is applied that makes it so that the entropy at absolute zero is defined to be zero.