The Real Controversy About Child Sexual Abuse Research: Contradictory Findings and Critical Issues Not Addressed by Rind,Tromovitch, and Bauserman in Their 1998 Outcomes Meta-Analysis

SUMMARY

This article presents a review of all types of child sexual abuse research ignored by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman in their 1998 meta-analytic study. Eight major findings are addressed. Altogether, these findings demonstrate the narrow focus of the Rind et al. meta-analysis. By restricting a supposedly broad meta-analysis to only some of the research and population in question, the conclusions Rind et al. drew regarding this complex topic (primarily, that adult-child sex is not necessarily harmful to children) are invalid.     

The curious case of case study: a viewpoint

Abstract

This paper focuses on microethical issues concerning interactions in which the process of informed consent occurs. It draws on research analysing the biographies and future hopes of 15- to 17-year-old girls and boys participating in targeted youth/educational programmes in the Helsinki area. The ethical challenge explored here is how to negotiate with the young interviewees on expanding the research setting towards a longitudinal and cross-generational approach, which also means expanding the data produced on their already well-reported lives. The paper highlights the power relations between adult researcher and young research participant, the contextual nature of gaining informed consent, and the conflict involved in trying to avoid hounding an over-surveilled group while still tracking their whereabouts and revisiting them for a follow-up interview.     

Endless Interrogation

This paper takes a revisionist look at the first episode of Prime Suspect (1991–2006)—hereafter known as Prime Suspect (1)— in what was to become a cycle of dramas, conceptualised, and in the first instance, written by Lynda La Plante, based upon the female Detective Chief Inspector character, Jane Tennison. Critical attention has hitherto tended to shift away from Brunsdon's (2000) ground-breaking work on Prime Suspect (1)'s “equal opportunities discourse” toward critiques which emphasise its noir, hardboiled and literary, traditions. The paper thus seeks to rehabilitate Prime Suspect (1)'s televisual—rather than derived—lineage, in an adapted form of dramatised documentary practice. By using insights drawn from Kristevan psychoanalytic analysis I undertake an analysis of the programme in order to demonstrate how the masculine police series drama genre may be not only intervened, but is ultimately deconstructed by, the abject female body.     

尼采对基督教的批判

尼采全面、深刻地批判了基督教 ,着重谴责它否定人生的虚无主义本质。尼采确立了肯定人生 ,肯定生命 ,尤其是它的非理性方面的基本原则。尼采对基督教的批判在西方文化史上占有重要地位     

文明的承传与文学的建树──中国当代少数民族小学家系列概评之一

活跃在中国当代文坛的回族小说家张承志、鄂温克族小说家乌热尔图、藏族小说家阿来之所以能在文学创作上有所建树 ,或取得了令人钦羡的丰硕成果 ,最重要的一条就是 :他们各自都具有不同类型的、相当高度的文明基因。     

没有思想的学问和没有学问的思想——对当前文学研究界某些现象的批评

近几年的文学研究界 ,常见没有思想的学问和没有学问的思想。除了道德的层面、技术的层面 ,“学术规范”更重要的是应当指向学理的层面、思想的层面。如果一篇论文经过寻章摘句 ,旁求远绍 ,能求一义 ,征一理 ,也算是有思想有价值 ,但连考据的功夫的都没学到或不愿烦劳 ,嚼人剩饭 ,还要多谈“学术” ,那可真是奈何不得也么哥了。相反如果是冠之以“酷评” ,社会评论派的文章若能有理有据 ,又何以不能作为有价值的学术看待呢 ?     

依附论的理论叙事结构分析及批判

依附论多样化的理论谱系表明其是一种缺乏内在统一性的理论,但反对帝国主义是其共同的意识形态基础。缺乏内在统一依附论具有共同的“致害者———被害者”的叙事结构,其实质是一种具有强烈的道德取向的道德理想主义式的批判理论。理论叙事结构的分析表明:依附论并非是一种解释因果经验的理论;拉美国家受害和发达资本主义国家的富裕之间并不存在因果关系;依附论中的“受害者”之所以成为“受害者”的原因必须重新予以检视:其可能和拉美国家的政治体系的属性相关。不应过分强调依附论的理论叙事中所塑造的被害者形象,与以弱者“哭啼姿态”与道德责备的方式迎接世界的依附论者不同的是,中国的毛泽东开创了自力更生的实用自强传统,在姿态的处置上中国可能是拉美国家的应予以模仿的典范。     

文学“大众化”与当代批评的应对策略——从池莉小说的当代评价谈起

从池莉小说的当代评价入手,揭示在文学"大众化"问题上,从效果层面理解的文学被"大众"接受与从价值层面理解的文学关注"大众"是有一定差异的。这与学术界对"大众"、对文学本质、对大众性与商品性之间关系等问题的复杂认识相关;强调正视文学"大众化"现象及其内部规律;呼吁新的美学原则介入文学"大众化"批判的必要性。     

马克思对犹太人问题的“现实批判”

《论犹太人问题》是马克思哲学理论形成过程中一篇十分重要的文章，马克思站在其现实人的立场，对犹太人间题进行深入、透彻的剖析，并为犹太人间题的解决提出现实路径，这直接突显着贯穿于马克思哲学始终的”现实”本性。马克思哲学正是立足于现实，展开对现实世界的批判，并为现实问题的解决指明路向，抓住马克思哲学的现实本性是理解马克思哲学的真正切入点。     

理性缺位的总体性批判——论哈贝马斯对《启蒙辩证法》的批评

哈贝马斯用“总体化”批判来概括霍克海默与阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》中对启蒙理性进行的反思,将其视作马克思意识形态批判的极端化。总体化批判本应完成对启蒙的启蒙,但不幸的是,总体化批判不仅摧毁了批判的理性基础,使批判陷入尼采式虚无主义,而且将启蒙反思变成反启蒙,使其在自我指涉的反思中迷失方向。对于哈贝马斯的批评,学术界仁者见仁,智者见智。究其缘由在于,哈贝马斯与霍克海默、阿多诺使用相同的概念,如“理性”、“启蒙”、“现代性”等,但却做出了不同的理解,而研究者出发点的差异又无意识地扩大了理解上的歧见,使得共识更难达成。