Divergent Answers

Everyone has their own personality and it's not right to isolate someone, and label them as factionless, just because they’re

A example of a faction that would not cause animosity would be a Union of Workers. The workers might have a protest here and there for better pay or better working conditions but nothing

symbol factories. A lot of things almost every thing about the five factions is symbolic of how their members think about the world. Take something super simple, something you have on you right now (we hope): clothes. In the real world, clothing can really tell us a lot about a person, but Divergent takes this to the extreme, where each factions' clothing tells us how they see the world and how they want the world to see and treat them.

From reading this novel ’Divergent’, an idea I found particularly interesting was the factions. The societal structure is split into five different factions, which included Dauntless, Abnegation, Amity, Candor and Erudite. The society members get to choose which faction they want to belong in, but between each faction, there is conflict, until someday when war breaks out. I found this idea Veronica Roth portrays is very unusual because she has made society divided depending on the way you act and think. “And tomorrow at the Choosing Ceremony; I will decide on a faction; I will decide the rest of my life; I will decide to stay with my family or abandon them”. I felt for Tris during this Choosing Ceremony. The aptitude test was supposed to tell her which faction she belonged in, however since her results from this test were inconclusive, meaning she is divergent, she had to decide between the three factions her results told her she was a

Although additional differences don’t sunder the two factions to the extent of the ones hitherto described, there are still several other

Every state starts off with democratic instability. However, what each state all have in common are the chances of success and the potential of becoming a stable democracy. To be a stable democracy, the government must be able to compromise with their constituents’ demands for a democracy and supply such democratic institutions. A democracy is dependent on receiving their support from copious amounts of people, but these people come along with their definitive interests in various aspects such as land reform, labor, religion, etc. Each one of these aspects listed are capable of bringing people together as an organized collective that could result in pro and anti democratic coalitions. These pro and anti democratic coalitions are then strengthened and have great potential of becoming an institution as a political party, movement, or even an interest group. These institutional formations can result in divergence of either democratic stability or instability. With divergence, comes great opposition. The opposing positions of the pro and anti democratic coalitions both have an extremely polar attitude that could increase the chances of an occurrence of a civil war (Magagna, 2018).

Factors such as lack of information on the opposing part, commitment problems, and indivisibility among rebel groups provide another obstacle for the government to overcome if it wishes to end conflict before the war. Which in the long run serves as an explanation as to why for most groups, it is easier and often financially cheaper to go war rather than negotiate with an opposing party. In short, civil wars and terrorism are a byproduct of “bargaining

Simmel proposed that conflict with another group defines group structure and has a consequent reaction to internal conflict (Coser 1956). Simmel states here that groups in war situations are not tolerant of individual deviations from the unity of the group; the survival of the group is the main focus (Coser 1956). In this case Simmel suggest that the central government or leadership would gain a tight control over the group in order to better organize and protect, this is then the need for dominance, a negative need, in order to best satisfy the need for security. Burton suggest that when individual needs have been frustrated by institutions then we are more likely to act aggressively towards meeting them, however it is proposed that when our

4. I believe that where I was raised, who I was raised by, and the cultural environment that I was

Political factions have played a fundamental role in shaping governments here and around the world in history and will continue to influence in the future. Factions divide a government based on different beliefs of key issue in policies, such as spending and warfare. Political factions are both beneficial to a society and detrimental.

“Conflict is not something separate from organization; disintegration implies integration. Inherit in the whole problem of conflict are such phenomena as power, leadership, and the elite” (International Sociological Association, 34).

Among comparative scholars there is a continuing debate about which kinds of institutions would work best for stabilizing peace in ethnical divided societies. In general, they agree on the necessity of democratic institutions. The question is whether these institutions should be built on the principle of inclusion or moderation (O‘Flynn 2007: 731). O‘Flynn is reviewing the work of Arend Lijphart and Donald Horowitz, the two main characters of this debate. While Lijphart focuses on inclusion with his consociational democracy (ibid.: 734), Horowitz‘s incentives-based approach deals with moderation (ibid.: 736).

There were five different factions. The factions are Abnegation (the selfless), Dauntless (the brave), Erudite (the intelligent), Amity (the peaceful), and Candor (the honest). These factions were created as a means to stop the wars going on between the people. They were believed to separate everyone so that they destroyed the evil desires that people had. Those who blamed aggression formed Amity. Those who blamed ignorance formed Erudite. Those who blamed deceitfulness formed Candor. Those who blamed selfishness formed Abnegation. Those who blamed cowardice formed Dauntless. There are also the factionless, these are the people who didn’t complete their initiation

Moreover, it is this security dilemma that suggests the need for partition according to Kaufmann, as at a certain point of tension opposing ethnic groups have reached a point where they no longer can live in agreement together under a common administration (Pischedda 104). Regardless of typical ethnic conflict remedies such as power-sharing, federalism, consociationalism, or state building (Tir 270). These security dilemmas will persist as these groups will constantly be in fear of the other(s) and attempt to protect themselves and the interests of the group (Tir 270). Therefore, as each group continues to protect itself, it only furthers the security dilemma and proceeds to create a spiral of suspicion and mutual anxiousness (Tir 270). Thus, if these groups cannot coexist, they must be divided as that is the only measure to ensure the population’s safety (Tir 270). This train of thought is categorized as the “last resort” argument by partitionists, suggesting that partition needs to be implemented to avoid the worst possible outcomes (O’Leary 2).

The reason behind the creation of the factions was to create peace and order within the society. I believe that the factions are working because Tris’s society, the factions have held together the structure in her community. In Tris’s society, the fact that they do not have a lot of choices is not really making the society better. Something else that does not help, is that the divergents have to hide.