Greek Tragedies

Greek Tragedies Hamartia in Oedipus Rex According to Aristotle, a tragic hero is a distinguished person occupying a high position or having a high status in life and in very prosperous circumstances falling into misfortune on account of a "hamartia" or some defect of character. He should be good or fine man though not perfect. There is nothing to arouse the feelings of pity or fear in seeing a bad character pass from prosperity into misfortune while the ruin of a man who represents near-perfection in the moral sense is repugnant and horrible. The tragic hero is neither a moral paragon nor a scoundrel. He should be true to type, and consistent or true to himself. Aristotle would attribute disaster or catastrophe in a tragedy to an error rather than a deliberate crime. The main requirements of Aristotle in regard to the tragic hero are thus (1) high social standing, (2) moral excellence or goodness, and (3) some fault of character, or error committed by the hero in ignorance. Oedipus answers to all these requirements.  Oedipus is a man of royal birth; he is brought up by a King and a Queen and he himself afterwards becomes a King and marries a Queen. He is thus a man of social eminence and possessing excellent qualities of character, though his is by no means perfect. We cannot say that his misfortune is due to any defect in his character, though his defects do produce the impression that such a man must pay for his defects. It would be wrong to say that he is a puppet in the hands of fate. Within certain limits he is a free agent, though it must be recognized that the prophecy of the oracle would yet have been fulfilled.  Oedipus is a good king, a great well wisher of his people, a man of integrity, an honest and great administrator and an outstanding intellect. He is a pious man who believes in oracles, respects the bonds of family, and hates impurity. His belief in the prophecies of gods is the very basis of the whole play. The suppliant people approach him almost as a god and he is honoured as a saviour. When Creon reveals the cause of the city's suffering, Oedipus declares his resolve to track down the criminal and he utters a terrible curse upon him. We can say that Oedipus is almost an ideal King. He also shows himself as a devoted husband and a loving father. He shows due consideration for the opinions and feelings of Jocasta and he lavishes all his affection on his daughters. His relations with the Chorus are also very cordial and he shows all due courtesy to them. In short both as a man and as a king Oedipus is worthy of high respect. However, Oedipus has his faults. He is hot-tempered, hasty in his judgment, proud of his intelligence, and random in his decisions. He quickly loses his temper when he finds the prophet reluctant to reveal the things that he knows. He jumps to the conclusion that Teiresias and Creon have hatched a conspiracy against him. This attitude of distrust towards the prophet is in sharp contrast to Oedipus's genuine piety. Oedipus belongs to the world of politics and human standards rather than to the divine order of the world. His piety fails also later on when, under the influence of Jocasta, he becomes somewhat skeptical regarding the oracle. An outstanding feature of Oedipus's character is an inherent feeling of pride in his own wisdom. Because of this arrogance, Oedipus certainly alienates some of our sympathy. When self-confidence takes the form of pride, haughtiness, arrogance or insolence, it becomes disgusting and obnoxious. His attitude of intolerance towards both Teiresias and Creon and his highly offensive and insulting words to both of them create in us the impression that he is paving the way for his own downfall. Of course, Oedipus has already committed the crimes which make him a sinner in the eyes of the god, in his own eyes, and in the eyes of other people. But the tragedy lay in discovery that he is guilty of them. If the crimes had remained unknown there would hardly have been any tragedy. Tragedy comes with the fact for discovery both for Jocasta and himself. It would be a flaw in the logic to say that Oedipus suffers because of his sin of pride, but his pride is not the direct cause of his tragedy. He tried to avoid the fulfillment of the prophecies made by oracle. He killed his father and married his mother. His tragedy is a tragedy of error. If he had been a little more careful, things would have taken a different shape. He might have avoided the quarrel on the road if he had not been so proud or hot-tempered; and he might have refused to marry a woman old enough if he had not been blinded by the pride of his intelligence in solving the riddle of the Sphinx. But, then, the prophecies of the oracle would have been fulfilled in some other way, because nothing could have been prevented their fulfillment. Pride has little to do with Oedipus's killing his father and marrying his mother. If Oedipus had not relentlessly pursued his investigations, he might have been spared the shock of discovery. Something in him drives him forward on the road to discovery. After Teiresias has first refused to tell him anything and then uttered some frightening prophecies. Oedipus is discouraged by Jocasta to continue his investigations. But he pays no heed to her philosophy of living at random. She makes another effort to stop his investigations when she has herself realized the truth, but again she failed. The Theban shepherd too tries, but in vain. It is this insistence on the truth that leads to the discovery in which lies the tragedy. We may interrupt this insistence on the truth as a form of pride, the pride of intellect, or the pride of knowing everything. The link of cause and effect is unmistakable between Oedipus's pride of intellect and Oedipus's discovery for his sins. But there is no strong link between his pride and the actual committing of his sins because the sins would have been committed in any case, if the oracle was to be fulfilled. The oracle did say that Oedipus would be guilty of those crimes but no oracle said that Oedipus must discover the truth. Oedipus is thus an authentic tragic hero in the Aristotelian sense because his tragedy is as much due to his own initiatives in discovering the truth as to external circumstances. To the modern mind, a high social position is not necessary for the tragic hero nor do they recognize the validity of oracles too. In Oedipus we see the helplessness of man in the face of the circumstances and his essential greatness. The manner in which Oedipus blinds himself after realizing his guilt and in which he endures his punishment raise him high in our esteem. The spirit of Oedipus remains unconquered even in his defeat and that is the essential fact about a tragic hero. Comparison between Oedipus Rex and Medea In Medea, a tragedy written by Euripides, the focus is on conflict in human spirit between Medea's love for her children and the desire for revenge. The story of Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles, is very different and more complex. He uses dramatic irony and close comparison to make the audience think and to try to figure out the meanings behind the words.  The plot is the most important aspect of the tragedy. Aristotle tells us that a plot is a representation of an action and must be presented as a unified whole. The plot of Oedipus Rex has a beginning, middle and an end. In the play Medea, the reader can see the possible outcome of the tragedy in the very beginning. There is not much higher development in this play. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Greek Tragedy

Blog on The definition of a tragedy according to Artistotle and the The tragedies of Oedipus Rex and Medea.

Tragedy

-Shreya Shyamsunder

"A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable acces­sories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with in­cidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions."

"Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some ampli­tude; in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties; acted not narrated; by means of pity and fear effectuating its purgation of these emotions." (L. J. Potts: 24).

            Excepting the famous concepts of "unit of time" (or length of tragedy) and "character's flaw" (or hamartia), probably there's not other concept or part in Aristotle's Poetics as puzzling and celebrated as the famous definition of tragedy.

In his Poetics, Aristotle outlined the ingredients necessary for a good tragedy, and based his formula on what he considered to be the perfect tragedy, Sophocles's Oedipus the King. According to Aristotle, a tragedy must be an imitation of life in the form of a serious story that is complete in itself; in other words, the story must be realistic and narrow in focus.

A good tragedy will evoke pity and fear in its viewers, causing the viewers to experience a feeling of catharsis. Catharsis, in Greek, means "purgation" or "purification"; running through the gamut of these strong emotions will leave viewers feeling elated, in the same way we often claim that crying might ultimately make you feel better.

Aristotle also outlined the characteristics of an ideal tragic hero. He must be "better than we are," a man who is superior to the average man in some way. In Oedipus's case, he is superior not only because of social standing, but also because he is smart: he is the only person who could solve the Sphinx's riddle. At the same time, a tragic hero must evoke both pity and fear, and Aristotle claims that the best way to do this is if he is imperfect. A character with a mixture of good and evil is more compelling that a character who is merely good. And Oedipus is far from perfect; although a clever man, he is blind to the truth and stubbornly refuses to believe Teiresias's warnings. Although he is a good father, he unwittingly fathered children in incest. A tragic hero suffers because of his hamartia, a Greek word that is often mistakenly translated as "tragic flaw" but really means "mistake". Oedipus' mistake - killing his father at the crossroads - is made unknowingly. Indeed, for him, there is no way of escaping his fate.

Hubris is translated as excessive pride. This term inevitably comes up almost every time you talk about a piece of ancient Greek literature. There's no denying that Oedipus is a proud man. Of course, he's got pretty good reason to be. He's the one that saved Thebes from the Sphinx. If he hadn't come along and solved the Sphinx's riddle, the city would still be in the thrall of the creature. It seems that Oedipus rightly deserves the throne of Thebes.

 

As far as heroic or non heroic behaviour is concerned the battle between good and evil seems to always be waged. In contrasting Oedipus and Medea we see this battle again, but with a twist because the tales both end in tragedy. The question is, however, in keeping with our discussion of heroes, whether or not a heroic behaviour is displayed by either Oedipus or Medea during the battles. The answer is yes and no. There are many differences between Oedipus and Medea but in the end they ultimately destroy everything around them that they love the most because of the wrong choices they make in the face of anger. First of all however Medea does display some heroic qualities by showing that she is willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done. In this case it was to be with Jason. As discussed before heroes are clever and resourceful. Medea certainly was both. Instead of using brut force to accomplish her plans, Medea uses her mind instead. Physical strength is always impressive but Medea uses cleverness and intelligence which are more impressive as heroic qualities. Things change a bit though when she poisons the King of Corinth with the poison gifts taken to him by her children. This plan makes Medea into the perfect villain. In this role of villain Medea's behaviour is then seen as cunning and manipulative and alternates between rational and irrational, and in the end is just plain evil. On the other hand Oedipus' downfall was his heroic quality of always seeking the truth no matter the cost. It was the need for truth that caused him to consult the oracle and learn about 

the prophecy. This need for truth caused his sins to be revealed to the world. As with all heroes he would not stop until he had what he was after. He was not to be stopped until he had it. He sought the truth in the end though it was his pride that was responsible for his downfall. Pride was responsible for him not stepping aside at the crossroads. Heroes need to know when to use good judgment. Oedipus did not use good judgment. He let pride over ride that. It was pride that caused him to want to solve sphinx's riddle which helped fulfill the second part of the tragic prophecy. Also his pride played a part in his eagerness to find Laius's killer, believing that he was the only one who could do it and he wanted to show it off. Both Medea and Oedipus' downfalls were also pushed by the lack of good judgment in making the right choices and extreme anger to the point of rage when things did not go as they were suppose to. They were both placed in situations where they reacted with such rage it clouded their judgment. Fate was also a huge part of it seemingly. But as far as fate goes, it seems like Oedipus was forever running away from his fate by trying to escape the oracle's prophecy. One the other hand Medea was generally cold, manipulative and ruthless; She knew her mind well and did exactly what she wanted; she was leaving nothing to fate. Oedipus and Medea proved in both situations that in the end any action or choice comes with responsibility and consequences. 

Blog on The definition of a tragedy according to Artistotle and the The tragedies of Oedipus Rex and Medea.

Tragedy and Greek Tragedy

The most cited definition of tragedy is that by Aristotle in his "Poetics". "Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of certain magnitude;in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornamnent, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions."  [cnr.edu]

Drama in the Greek is 'action' - generally surrounding men. Aristotle describes these men as imitation of real men as is applied to any writing or art (mimesis). These imitations of men, Aristotle points out is either better than reality, the same as in reality, or much worse. Depending on the imitation, the drama becomes a tragedy (men perceived/ represented as better) or a comedy (men perceived/represented as worse).

The six elements of tragedy include: Plot (mythos), Character (ethos), Thought (dianoia), Diction (lexis), Melody (melos) and Spectacle (ohsis).

However, the modern understanding of tragedy has invariably changed. With a diversified timespan and setting, tragedy since before Shakespeare didn't necessarily have to have one timespan, one setting, one story, etc. as it did during the times of Aristotle. Greek tragedy also accepted that drama can only surround, great men (exaggerated if they had to be), however modern tragedy takes this as characteristic and not necessarily personality - that the men need not be great or powerful, but could have great ambition - separate from their character.

The modern tragedy defies unities of space and time, but maintains the fatal fall, with or without the "tragic flaw" - hamartia. The element of tragedy that has survived since Greek tragedies then is the tragic end as opposed to comedy or other forms of mimesis.

***

Oedipus Rex is a Greek tragedy by Sophocles. This play arouses feelings of pity and fear towards the protagonist's life. Oedipus' tragic flaw has multiple theories about it. Certain critics go on to argue, that there was no real hamartia present in Oedipus and that Aristotle's hamartia in light of this tragedy implied a flaw in judgement rather than character. Other critics claim that Oedipus' hamartia was the 'hubris' which translates to excessive pride. His denial of his fate led him to do what he feared and that was to fulfill the predictions made, that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Along with him, his entire kingdom suffered.

Personally I find Oedipus' hamartia to be his ignorance. His ignorance of a prophecy (even if not consciously), his ignorance of his fate and his ignorance of checking who he ended up marrying. Eventually, Oedipus blinding himself works as a metaphor for his ignorance, voluntary and otherwise. 

Medea is another Greek tragedy by Euripides the Greek playwright. Medea was a woman who only cared for her feelings and would destroy everything around her even her sons because of the wrong choices she made in anger. Lack of good judgement and growing anger within them when things would not go their way led to their downfall.

The reason Aristotle considered Oedipus Rex as the perfect tragedy over Medea is perhaps the tragic hero being male in Oedipus Rex as opposed to the female (and primarily flawed) being that was Medea. 

by

Kalansh Gala

Tragedy

Aristotle identifies tragedy as the most refined version of poetry dealing with lofty matters and comedy as the most refined version of poetry dealing with base matters.

 "Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its Catharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, and Melody."

Tragedy is the "imitation of an action" (mimesis) according to "the law of probability or necessity." Aristotle indicates that the medium of tragedy is drama, not narrative; tragedy "shows" rather than "tells." According to Aristotle, tragedy is higher and more philosophical than history because history simply relates what has happened while tragedy dramatizes what may happen, "what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity." History thus deals with the particular, and tragedy with the universal. Events that have happened may be due to accident or coincidence; they may be particular to a specific situation and not be part of a clear cause-and-effect chain. Therefore they have little relevance for others. Tragedy, however, is rooted in the fundamental order of the universe; it creates a cause-and-effect chain that clearly reveals what may happen at any time or place because that is the way the world operates. Tragedy therefore arouses not only pity but also fear, because the audience can envision themselves within this cause-and-effect chain.

In his Poetics, Aristotle outlined the ingredients necessary for a good tragedy, and he based his formula on what he considered to be the perfect tragedy, Sophocles's Oedipus the King. According to Aristotle, a tragedy must be an imitation of life in the form of a serious story that is complete in itself; in other words, the story must be realistic and narrow in focus. A good tragedy will evoke pity and fear in its viewers, causing the viewers to experience a feeling of catharsis. Catharsis, in Greek, means "purgation" or "purification"; running through the gamut of these strong emotions will leave viewers feeling elated, in the same way we often claim that "a good cry" will make one feel better. 

Aristotle also outlined the characteristics of a good tragic hero. He must be "better than we are," a man who is superior to the average man in some way. In Oedipus's case, he is superior not only because of social standing, but also because he is smart? He is the only person who could solve the Sphinx's riddle. At the same time, a tragic hero must evoke both pity and fear, and Aristotle claims that the best way to do this is if he is imperfect. A character with a mixture of good and evil is more compelling that a character who is merely good. And Oedipus is definitely not perfect; although a clever man, he is blind to the truth and refuses to believe Teiresias's warnings. Although he is a good father, he unwittingly fathered children in incest. A tragic hero suffers because of his Hamartia, a Greek word that is often translated as "tragic flaw" but really means "error in judgement." Often this flaw or error has to do with fate? A character tempts fate, thinks he can change fate or doesn't realize what fate has in store for him. In Oedipus the King, fate is an idea that surfaces again and again. The focus on fate reveals another aspect of a tragedy as outlined by Aristotle: dramatic irony. Good tragedies are filled with irony. The audience knows the outcome of the story already, but the hero does not, making his actions seem ignorant or inappropriate in the face of what is to come. Whenever a character attempts to change fate, this is ironic to an audience who knows that the tragic outcome of the story cannot be avoided.

The tragic flaw in Oedipus Rex's character is Hubris which translates to excessive pride.

There are many differences between Oedipus and Medea but in the end they ultimately destroy everything around them that they love the most because of the wrong choices they make in the face of anger. First of all however Medea does display some heroic qualities by showing that she is willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done. In this case it was to be with Jason. As discussed before heroes are clever and resourceful. Medea certainly was both. Instead of using brute force to accomplish her plans, Medea uses her mind instead. Physical strength is always impressive but Medea uses cleverness and intelligence which are more impressive as heroic qualities. Things change a bit though when she poisons the King of Corinth with the poison gifts taken to him by her children. This plan makes Medea into the perfect villain. In this role of villain Medea's behaviour is then seen as cunning and manipulative and alternates between rational and irrational, and in the end is just plain evil. On the other hand Oedipus' downfall was his heroic quality of always seeking the truth no matter the cost. It was the need for truth that caused him to consult the oracle and learn about 

the prophecy. This need for truth caused his sins to be revealed to the world. As with all heroes he would not stop until he had what he was after. He was not to be stopped until he had it. He sought the truth in the end though it was his pride that was responsible for his downfall. Pride was responsible for him not stepping aside at the crossroads. Heroes need to know when to use good judgment. Oedipus did not use good judgment. He let pride over ride that. It was pride that caused him to want to solve sphinx's riddle which helped fulfil the second part of the tragic prophecy. Also his pride played a part in his eagerness to find Laius's killer, believing that he was the only one who could do it and he wanted to show it off. Both Medea and Oedipus' downfalls were also pushed by the lack of good judgment in making the right choices and extreme danger to the point of rage when things did not go as they were supposed to. They were both placed in situations where they reacted with such rage it clouded their judgment. Fate was also a huge part of it seemingly. But as far as fate goes, it seems like Oedipus was forever running away from his fate by trying to escape the oracle's prophecy. One the other hand Medea was generally cold, manipulative and ruthless; She knew her mind well and did exactly what she wanted; she was leaving nothing to fate. Oedipus and Medea proved in both situations that in the end any action or choice comes with responsibility and consequences. Both were tragic.

 

-Ninad Samaddar

Assignment on tragedy

Dear Sir,

The document of submission has been attached to this mail. 

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely

Ninad Samaddar

1414006

Tragedy, Oedipus Rex and Medea

A tragedy according to Aristotle in his book 'Poetics' is an enactment of a deed that is important and complete, and of certain magnitude, by means of language enriched with ornaments each used separately in the different parts of the play. It is enacted, not merely recited and through pity and fear it effects relief i.e. catharsis to such and similar emotions. It's origin lie in the theatre of ancient Greece. Works that have survived through 2500 years are those of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Shakespeare as well as several playwrights have used this form of drama. Tragedy consists of six important elements they are: Plot (mythos), Character (ethos), Thought (dianoia), Diction (lexis), Melody (melos) and Spectacle (ohsis).
Oedipus Rex is a tragedy by Sophocles. The play is considered a tragedy as it arouses editions of pity and fear. The protagonist undergoes catharsis and suffers due to hamartia (tragic error). The play also shows a downfall of the protagonist due to his pride. The tragic flaw of Oedipus is his hubris (excessive pride). His unwillingness to accept his fate to kill his father and then marry his mother led him to do the thing he feared the most.
Medea is a Greek tragedy by Euripides.The reversal of mood is an important part of the play.
This play is different from Oedipus Rex as Medea does not feel guilty after she kills many people including her sons. Her main aim is revenge no matter who the person is. She commits crime so that her husband Jason may suffer in grief. Her hamartia is passionate vengefulness because in the end everyone suffers except her whereas in Oedipus Rex the tragic hero Oedipus suffers along with his entire kingdom.

By Daphne Pearl De Souza

A brief introduction to the history and evolution of Strategy as an academic discipline

A brief introduction to the history and evolution of Strategy as an
academic discipline

Twenty four centuries ago a Chinese war advisor and philosopher, Sun
Tzu, wrote to explain what we today understand as Strategy in his
famous work 'The Art of War'. In his work he not only spoke about the
importance of positioning, which he terms as 'Shih'- a place where the
forces (army) have to be deployed so that it automatically gains an
advantage over its rivals, but also the idea of 'preparedness' to win
a war. There are so many statements and quotes of Sun Tzu that one
could get to read on the internet each explaining and exploring a
different dimension that can be readily compared to the nuances of
elements constituting today's business and policy studies.

One of the statements that is made in 'Art of War' goes "The best way
to win a war; is never to fight one". With such statements Sun Tzu
shifts the focus from the euphoria of war to resource acquisition and
retention. In all the thirty one principles, Sun Tzu discusses the
importance of resource management. Another important statement that is
mentioned in the 'Art of War'- "What everyone can see are my tactics
and what no one can identify are my strategies" throws light on
another important concept of strategy which is that it is made of a
series of carefully designed tactics.

Between 350BC and 270BC, a professor from Takshashila University named
Vishnusharma or kautilya who was also known popularly as Chanakya
wrote in his famous work- Arthashastra, tenets that can easily be
considered as ingredients of strategy. Kautilya brought together
knowledge from polity, administration, war sciences, commerce and
economics to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of knowledge of
strategy. This clearly shows the importance of cross functional
(disciplinary) relevance the subject strategy has if one needs to
understand it in its entirety. Kautilya, with his abundant knowledge,
helped Maurya dynasty to be formed and achieve the peak of its
prosperity and glory.
Much like Sun Tzu's art of war Von Clausewitz, a major general in the
German army writes in his book 'On War', in 1930, the importance of
avoiding a war. His influence can be seen in the American nuclear
deterrence under the belief that the best way to avoid a nuclear war
is to have the ability to engage in one. This approach of wanting to
avoid a major disaster by engaging in research and development to
acquire the required capability and resources to do so continues to
influence many countries as a part of their military strategy even
now.

So what brings these thoughts and ideas about war so close to
businesses that in every board room discussion, the main agenda always
revolves around this enigmatic, often misunderstood term called
strategy? Well there are many reasons that show a similarity in the
way world is perceived during war time and the way the world of
business is perceived today. One of the most important reasons among
them is the complexity associated with decision making. The dynamics
involved in a war situation is not very different from the dynamics of
a market place. In both situations, recalling a decision is almost
impossible and even if it is done, is very expensive. Imagine a
situation in the battlefield when a particular troop is ordered to
attack and immediately ordered to retreat. Sounds much like a company
deciding to penetrate the market fully and the very next year deciding
to find a niche for itself.

With this background, now let us try to look at academic developments
that have happened in the area of strategy in business for the last
six to four decades. One particular school of thought that was
primarily advocated during 1960s is the positioning school of thought.
Here the practitioners as well as literati focused on opportunities
that organizations can identify and specify and enable itself to
capitalize on the same. Much like 'Art of War', here too strategy was
looked at a process or an approach to achieve that competitive
positioning. Some of the thinkers who contributed to this era are Igor
Ansoff, Chandler and Andrews.

During 1970s and 80s the idea of strategy graduated from being focused
on the reason behind strategizing to the content and process of
strategy. This time period is when the structure of strategic
management process was deliberated upon. There was a lot of emphasis
given to implementation of strategy and the way these initiatives were
reviewed and controlled. Although people such as Igor Ansoff continued
to contribute to the body of knowledge of strategy, some notable
thinkers like Henry Mintzberg and Michael Porter made remarkable
contribution that would stand relevant even today. Mintzberg's
emergent strategy and Michael Porter's notion of competitive advantage
are some of the most important aspects of discussion even in today's
business world and academia.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s saw a paradigm shift in the way
strategy was understood, taught and practiced. The idea of resource
based view; logical incrementalism took the subject of strategy into a
different direction. Some of the notable works that came during this
era are the concepts of core competence, value system and game theory.
Apart from Michael Porter and Ansoff who continued to contribute to
the area of study, this era saw thinkers such as Sumantra Goshal, C K
Prahalad, Gary Hamel and Jay Barney. The focus in this era was given
to internal capabilities and resources and ideas such as unrelated
diversification and asset acquisition were highly criticized.

2000 and onwards has seen new ideas and theories in the area of
strategy that has much to do with intangibles and the organizations'
take on managing these intangibles. Both from the firm point of view
as well as the industry point of view, thinkers have contributed to
the notion of intangibility that is associated with making a firm's
competitive advantage sustainable. While Prahalad and Hamel continued
to work on the idea of core competence, Andy Grove presented the
notion of inflection point. Much focus was given to the big term
called 'Innovation'. Along with innovation taking the front seat in
most of the novel thoughts presented by thinkers of strategy, there
are others such as 'dynamic capability', knowledge and process
management which were also widely discussed.

This note, as suggested in the beginning, provides a snapshot of
history of strategy as a discipline and brings together some of the
notable contributions in this area over the years very briefly. To get
a deeper understanding of the process of evolution, one must of course
look individually into all the aspects and identify possible linkages
between these nodes more strategically.




Dilipchandra S
Institute of Management, Christ University
+919742070817
+918040129518

MBA department history

The genesis of the MBA department at Christ University (CU), earlier known as Christ College, was the result of AICTE's purpose to promote management education. In 1997, AICTE permitted Christ college to offer the MBA course under Bangalore University. The programme was offered by the Department of Commerce with dual specialization. The first batch began with about 20 students and the student number doubled in the following year. From the start, the department focused on making the programme unique by initiating activities such as Organization Structure Training (OST), Book Review and Dissertation apart from the mandatory Summer Internship Project. The OST was the first glimpse of an organization for an incumbent in the MBA programme. Since the class was a diverse mix of students from different educational background streams, it was pertinent to orient them to management thinking and philiosophy and this led to the launch of another important co-curricular activity, the book review. These flagship activities continue to make the MBA programme unique.

Over the years the student strength increased gradually and the MBA programme was managed by its own department. One of the first strategic shifts occurred in 2007 when Christ College was granted the autonomy to design its own curriculum. The department also initiated the single specialization programme by offering a choice of Finance, Marketing and Human Resources specialization courses. During the same year the MBA department signed an MOU with FHWS, Germany for a twinning programme.

Another turning point in the department was in 2009 when Christ College (Autonomous) was granted the deemed university status. There were several other key events that contributed to the growth of the department. The department signed another MOU with Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), USA for a twinning programme. The university launched MBA programme in another campus in the city of Bangalore. The following year one more specialization stream, Lean Operations and Management was offered to the students. In 2013, General Management was offered as another specialization stream.

Over the years the student numbers grew exponentially which also made it vital to increase the faculty strength. The demand for the MBA programme offered by the University is a testimonial that the brand has established itself in the market. The brand started as an unknown entity and in a decade and half, it became a brand that was reckoned by several companies from across industries for prospective employees.

By 2015, the university offered the regular MBA programme and the PGDM programmes of FHWS and VCU under the deanery of management. The deanery continued its journey by aligning itself to the university's goal to achieve excellence and emerge as a world class institution by reengineering its courses, launching new activities, forging alliances with industry partners, emphasizing on research and striving to offer quality management education.

Compiled by Bharathi Gopal