Throughout the world many different cultures can be found, and while some countries do have similar cultures because of location, every country can offer a unique culture to experience. The Republic of Austria is a landlocked country located in Central Europe. Austria shares its borders with eight other countries including: Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. If an individual were to either plan a trip or move to Austria he/she would first need to learn about the culture that can be found in the country. This paper will explore the culture of the country Austria including: brief history, social structures, the family and home, food and entertainment customs, and …show more content…
Symbols of wealth today may be a second home and more material possessions, whereas in earlier centuries land was a symbol of wealth.
Austria has one of the world 's most highly developed and inclusive social welfare programs, funded by direct and indirect taxes (Culture of Austria, 2015). A highly developed and inclusive social welfare program allows for there to be less negative connotations towards those who use it. Benefits include unemployment pay and disability, survivor pensions, and retirement. Health insurance is required by the state and covers 99 percent of Austrians, workers pay into these plans, but the poor and disadvantaged receive equal benefits (Austrian Customs and Traditions, 2010). Unlike the United States, parents receive many benefits, such as monthly support payments for maternity and paternity leave and child maintenance payments for children, from birth through completion of higher education.
There are both urban areas and rural areas in Austria. Most people who live in urban areas live in four- or five-story apartment buildings, high-rise buildings, or single-family homes. Many rural areas are dominated by farmhouses that have been in the family for hundreds of years. The farmhouses are often equipped with a bell tower to announce mealtimes for people who are working in the fields. Because of the Alps, Austrian farms are small and isolated, making production relatively expensive
They did not have the ideology of accumulation of things to describe their wealth though some things like beds, could have served a symbol for someone’s power and rank, but those things were to shared or given away to others. The land was owned by people as long as they stayed on that land, after they move due to seasonal change anyone could come there clear the land and make a residence on it. Villages had a collective ownership of a land(specific territory) which they could use for fishing, hunting games and gathering food. There were an agreements between villages in territories on the basis of who would use what land for hunting and agriculture, this agreements could be between 2 or more villages and all of them might share the right to use the land or a specific village. These rights on land for most part were for resources found on the land rather than the land itself as said by williams “not the land but the things that were on the land during the various seasons of the year.”(Cronon, 65). Europeans view of property were different from most of the Indians and Europeans thought of land that could be a personal property which could be sold and bought as a commodity. Europeans found their land to be used by these indians for hunting even after
relationships. English colonists viewed wealth as the accumulation of commodities, while the Northeastern Indians viewed it as the accumulation of relationships. For the English Colonists, having wealth meant having power. Usually, the families with the most money would have the most power. Although the same could be said for the Northeastern Indians, wealth was not measured in money but rather a complex social construct consisting of gaining many relationships.
In the early 1500’s, people traveled their whole lifetime, all across the world, just to find two things, gold and property. Gold, the world basically revolved around it and you would do anything to just get your hands on it. It determined who you were in life, your social status and what kind of life you lived. You also wanted to own as much property as you could for multiple reasons. Having more land, led to more people, creating bigger cities, dominant armies, and basically power to one. Starting out with very small possessions and little to accompany him in his journey, Hernando Cortes, a Spanish conquistador, traveled halfway across the world searching for these
After the independence of America, American dreamers started to strive for wealth because possessing materials was important for them to succeed in their dream. According to John A. Pidgeon, “striving for wealth has become a way for Americans to ease their consciences, while one’s morality is often measured by the ability to acquire material possessions” (Pidgeon 2007). They believed that they could achieve any goals by becoming rich and possessing materials, and believed that the wealth and possession could bring anything they sought.
The European social structure was heavily influenced by land ownership, with a land-wealthy elite at its center. Europeans viewed land as a resource to
The Indians and English’s definition of wealth often differed due to the way their respective societies functioned. While both groups understood the concept of wealth, their definitions were far from the same. For Indians, wealth is not defined by the property that one possesses or the amount of money in a bank account. Rather, their definition of wealth has a greater dependence on a social power than financial success. This definition was derived by the way they functioned within their society. The lifestyle they led was that of a mobile one. This lifestyle did not support the owning of multiple goods because of the burden it placed on traveling (Cronon 53). As a result, they typically only own goods that would benefit them in some aspect of life, such as tools for farming or hunting, or they would dispose of their belongings was deemed useless (Cronon, 61). The English, on the other hand, viewed wealth as less of a social aspect and more of a financial
A 2000 word comparative review of the ways different countries approach welfare, as discussed on the unit.
In the world now people think wealth means you are powerful, or important to society. In the world that is true, even back in the Anglo-Saxon time period this was also true. Back then if you were not wealthy you were not powerful, and your kingdom was not strong enough, and other could attack. The Anglo-Saxon time period was the time Beowulf the poem was written, this is a story about a man that is so powerful he can kill anything. In this poem wealth is about being powerful, ending feuds, and having a great future for the kingdom you are living in.
The welfare systems are based on the principle of public responsibility on equitable wealth distribution and equality of opportunities to citizens who are unable to afford minimal levels of quality and good life, through provision of universal education programs, health care and subsidised housing. In most of the states, welfare systems are not used in the right manner they are intended to. Although the systems are meant to reduce the poverty level and at least assists individuals to get decent jobs, many recipients develops news ways every year to prolong their dependency in the system. Statistics show that women easily abuse the welfare system by simply having more children each year since this means that more money will come in their mails. Most of the recipients on welfare are able to work
The analytical findings of Brady, D.( 2009, p.81) stated that “As countries devote a larger share of their economy to welfare, poverty declines steeply.” This happened to Scandinavia, Finland, and Sweden, and European continental countries like Netherlands and Belgium. USA was identified to have high poverty and low welfare expenses. He also made clear that poverty is not necessarily increased by higher welfare generosity.(p.84) and further says that it benefits all rather than just “the elderly or men” (p.87). The 5 features of welfare state were historically proven to reduce poverty through greater generosity with (1) social welfare expenditures, (2) expenditures for public health, (3) social security, (4) government expenditures, and (5) “decommodification” (p.91). Brady, D. (p.92) also contends that public employment is less effective than welfare state generosity as a
On the other hand, the economic capital was another significant factor in this matter. In order to join the nobility, one had to have land or purchase it. However, this cultural practices were the essential status symbols for nobility, and many bourgeois and intellectual bought land, performed these practices and decipted their cultural world in a similar way of the nobility to acquire the noble titles and exempt
At the point when these masters needed men to battle for them, they allowed every vassal a real estate parcel that upheld the vassal and his family. In the Early Medieval times, when riches was construct essentially in light of land, it was the best blessing a master could provide for a
The theory is based on the assumption that people view welfare policies from a moral point. The theory is largely informed by the belief that permissive welfare policies invite personal irresponsibility while paternalistic welfare policies would better achieve moral uplift and help the poor people on the society (Soss et al., 381). The study found out that welfare policies have indeed been influenced by morality politics and problem solving as evidenced by the TANF resolution in regards to two parent families being crucial to receiving welfare. The policies were in response to the moral illegitimacy of unmarried women benefiting from welfare while they kept on having children. The policies thus sought to discourage this illegitimacy and hence the restrictive policy choices adopted by states in the aftermath of
The offer of Americans with well-being protection has been consistently declining since no less than 2000. Starting 2010 just shy of 84% of Americans had some welfare protection, which implied that more than 49 million individuals went without scope for at any rate a piece of the year. Declining rates of range and underinsurance
The liberal welfare state provides modest social insurance plans, and universal transfers to low income, working-class dependents. “It is a model in which implicitly or explicitly, the progress of social reform has been severely