犹太人的宗教选择:“宗教市场论”的视角

一般认为犹太民族历尽磨难而始终能够实现新的发展,得益于其坚定的犹太教信仰,但是犹太历史上不同处境下确实客观存在一些犹太人被迫或主动改教、改宗的行为。运用"宗教市场论"这一宗教社会学理论可以对这种现象给出合理解释。通过对犹太教历史相关史实的分析,揭示出社会资本与宗教资本之间存在一种张力,而且这种张力表现为此消彼长的关系,并贯穿于犹太人进行宗教选择的整个过程。犹太人正是基于对这种张力的消长判断,来做出"理性"的宗教选择。相较之下,传统犹太教更为看重宗教资本,而近代以来的犹太人则偏向社会资本。纠结于二者之间的现代犹太人往往选择折中处理,从而推动了保守派犹太教的发展。     

鲍德温•斯宾塞与后维多利亚时代的古典人类学

The post-Victorian anthropologist Baldwin Spencer was the first to investigate the central and northern aboriginal tribes of Australia. His ethnographic works in this area have greatly in-fluenced related disciplines and studies in fields such as kinship, totem worship, and primitive reli-gions. In the field of classics and anthropology, Spencer’s academic heritage has received wide-spread respect and recognition, and has made sub-sequent academic discussion possible. In order to present Spencer’s personal experiences and aca-demic ideas clearly and comprehensively, it is nec-essary to return to the post-Victorian context, and comb Spencer’ s life history and academic history. Taking important clues from various times an e-vents in his life, the paper introduces three peri-ods:Spencer’s early training in the discipline and his epistemic background, his medium-term eth-nographic investigations and works, and the later investigations of Tierra del Fuego. Textual study, based on Spencer’s life history and academic histo-ry, is very useful to understand his ethnographic investigations. Sir Walter Baldwin Spencer ( 1860 -1929 ) was born on 23 June, 1860 in Lancashire, Eng-land. Spencer was educated at Old Trafford School and at the Manchester School of Art. His interest in art and sketching was lifelong, and would reveal itself in his competence as a scientific draftsman and illustrator ( D. J. Mulvaney,1990 ) . Entering Owens College ( Victoria University of Manchester) in 1879, Spencer intended to study medicine. In-spired by Milnes Marshall, a disciple of Darwin disciple, he became a committed evolutionary biol-ogist, soon abandoning conventional religion. He entered the University of Oxford in 1881 to study
science under Professor H. N. Moseley, who com-bined an enthusiasm for evolutionary biology with ethnological interests. Spencer grasped Oxford ’ s diverse opportunities, which included lectures by Ruskin and E. B. Tylor. In 1887, Spencer ar-rived at Melbourne University . With his colleague Professor David Masson, Spencer helped to trans-form university standards and they co-operated as entrepreneurs of Australian science. Spencer was recruited as zoologist and photog-rapher in the 1894 Horn scientific exploration ex-pedition to central Australia. His anthropological interest was rekindled when he met F. J. Gillen, the Alice Springs postmaster, during the expedi-tion. In 1896 Spencer joined Gillen for the most intensive fieldwork then attempted in Australia. The Native Tribes of Central Australia ( 1899 ) , which resulted, was to influence contemporary theories on social evolution and interpretations of the origins of art and ceremonial practices. Spencer and Gillen drove a buggy from Oodnadatta to Borroloola in 1901-02 . Their research resulted in The Northern Tribes of Central Australia ( 1904 );Haddon had written that the names of Spencer and Gillen are familiar to every ethnologist in the world, and probably no books on ethnology have been so wide-ly noticed and criticized as have The Native Tribes of Central Australia and The Northern Tribes of Central Australia (A. C. Haddon ,1902). To assist the Government of the Common-wealth, Spencer was appointed Special Commis-sioner for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, and also their Chief Protector. He also led three other scientists, including J. A. Gilruth, on the 1911 Preliminary Scientific Expedition. Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia (1914)
described his ethnographic observations and the ex-tensive collections made on the expedition. At the government ’ s request, Spencer visited Alice Springs and Hermannsburg in 1923 . He published The Arunta: A Study of a Stone Age People ( 2 vols, 1927 ) to respond to the criticisms derived from Carl Stretlow and defend his work. A popular rewrite of previous books followed—Wanderings in Wild Australia ( 2 vols, 1928 )—this time under his sole authorship. Spencer retired as emeritus professor in 1919 . His nerves and his judgments were impaired from the strain of continuous overwork, the virtual disin-tegration of his marriage, and he was finally hospi-talized in 1921 . His health improved and within two years he resumed anthropological activities and rebuilt his art collection. He sailed to Tierra del Fuego together with Jean Hamilton to undertake anthropological studies early in 1929. Spencer, with an unrivalled record of anthropological field-work in Australia, undertook this journey to fill a gap in our knowledge, and compare very different and remote races of mankind (A. C. H. ,1931). However, his gallant attempt was prematurely frus-trated by his death from angina pectoris, at which point he had been only two months in the field. His notes were organized and published as Spencer’s Last Journey (1931). His achievements were recognized. Elected as a fellow of the Royal Society in 1900 , he was ap-pointed C. M. G. in 1904 and K. C. M. G. in 1916 . Manchester University conferred him with an honorary doctorate of science, while Melbourne a-warded him a doctorate of letters. Exeter College, Oxford, elected him to an honorary fellowship in 1907 , and stained glass in its hall commemorates his contribution. James Frazer’s letter to Spencer in 1899 was prophetic: books like mine, merely speculative, will be superseded sooner or later ( the sooner the better for the sake of truth) by bet-ter induction based on fuller knowledge;books like yours, containing records of observations, will nev-er be superseded ( John M. Cooper, 1932 ) . Therefore, the sense and value of reading and un-derstanding Spencer and his books today goes with-out saying.     

论破产别除权的权利基础及其裁判规则的选择

我国理论界与实务部门对破产别除权权利基础及其范围认识存在一定分歧。这一问题已在破产司法实践表现出来。因此,必须全面考察别除权的权利基础,对其范围作合理界定,从而为司法解释的制定及法律适用提供清晰的理论支撑。通过国外立法案例考察,可以发现,各国均将典型担保物权确认为破产别除权的权利基础,还有不少国家将破产别除权的权利基础不同程度地扩展到非典型担保物权及优先权。在我国,除典型担保物权无可争议地构成别除权的权利基础外,以特定化的金钱交付的定金、让与担保、所有权保留均应可成为破产别除权的权利基础。     

立体建构:唐诗演进模式的新探索——谈余恕诚唐诗研究的贡献

余恕诚先生在立体建构唐诗的演进体系上,进行了积极探索。他既对诗歌迁变的纵向轨迹进行细致寻绎,又对唐诗广泛吸收众体之长、推陈出新,异体交融的恢弘文学景观,作了横向展示。他的唐诗演进体系建构,还特别注意从时代文化土壤与作家主体心理两方面寻找成因,认为是多方面因素共同作用,才促成一代文学的全面繁荣。     

A Review of China Tourism Education during the Republic of China(1912-1949)

With the primary development of tourism industry during the Republic of China,tourism education had drawn the attention of the relevant people and a number of practical activities were carried out one after another.This article mainly analyzed the general situations of tourism education of the Republic of China from the object,the form and the content of tourism education and thought that tourism education of that period had extensive objects,various forms,rich and practical contents.Also the characteristics of tourism education during the Republic of China had a positive role in the future development of tourism education in China.     

个体理性还是整体理性——宏观行动者职业角色中的理性张力与角色异化

马克斯·韦伯的理性理论未能区分行动者的层级,实际上,处于社会权力结构不同层级的个体其社会行动后果或波及范围不同.由社会行动的层级性所引出的“理性单位”概念可以用来分析宏观行动者的职业角色中所蕴含的个体理性与整体理性的张力.在理想的制度性角色设计中,宏观行动者的职业角色中的个体理性与其职权所管辖的组织或行政区划的整体理性之间应该是一致的.但在委托-代理制中,由于宏观行动者的职业角色履行存在一定范围的“脱嵌”的自主性,使得其个体理性与整体理性常常发生脱节.在“劳动力去道德化”的背景下,宏观行动者也往往会奉行个体理性原则,背离整体理性原则.这种情形,就是宏观行动者的角色异化.要克服这种角色异化,必须建立和完善制度性超越机制、观念性超越机制和价值性超越机制.     

用系统思维推动中国软实力发展

当前,软实力发展已经成为国家发展战略的核心,中国软实力发展是一项复杂而艰巨的系统工程。从系统论的角度看,我国软实力发展中存在的主要问题表现为缺乏整体性、系统性、关联性、结构失衡等。针对以上问题,中国软实力发展中必须注重软硬实力的关联性,突出内容的主体性以及动态性。     

城市公共艺术与文化软实力的对接关系研究——以广州为例

文化软实力是一个国家除军事经济之外让别人主动接近的吸引力,城市公共艺术也是一种与大众有亲缘关系的艺术形态。某种程度上说,城市公共艺术是文化软实力在艺术领域的一种显象。广州城市公共艺术在器物层、行为层、制度层诠释了文化软实力的静态和动态的维度。     

春心莫共花争发,一寸相思一寸灰——评李商隐无题诗之幻灭感

李商隐的无题诗充满了悲剧美和幻灭感。究其原因与当时的日薄西山的晚唐颓势、政治漩涡中的悲惨仕遇、无可倚恃的不幸家世以及爱而不得的恋情悲歌等种种无奈与不幸有关。     

家庭类别视野下家务劳动补偿制度的法律建构

共同财产制家庭、分别财产制家庭以及两代复合家庭中,均应当确立家务劳动补偿制度。地区年度服务业平均工资可作为家务劳动补偿金的计算标准。在共同财产制和分别财产制家庭中,权利义务主体是夫妻双方。家务劳动量可认定为一方完全家务、主要家务、次要家务或夫妻同等家务。夫妻双方共同签署的家务承担情况证明,可作为家务补偿请求权的证据。分别财产制家庭的家务补偿请求权在婚内和离婚时均可提出。两代复合家庭中权利主体是承担了家务劳动的老人,义务主体是老人的成年子女夫妻或成年子女,老人承担家务期间成年子女夫妻之间不再有家务劳动补偿关系。