2. 外语
  3. In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made

admin2014-09-18  49
问题     In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contri- bution to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three year old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $ 750,000.
    The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child. During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the "useful" child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the "useless" child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally " priceless." Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’ s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory educa- tion laws predicated in part on the assumption that a child’ s emotional value made child labor taboo.
    For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex. The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality, and the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty)were all factors critical in changing the assessment of children’ s worth. Yet "expulsion of children from the ’ cash nexus’.. . although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures," Zelizer maintains, "was also part of a cultural process ’ of sacralization’ of children’ s lives." Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.
    In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new "sociological economics," who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual " preferences," these sociologists tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their "exchange" or "surrender" value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.
Zelizer refers to all of the following as important influences in changing the assessment of children’ s worth EXCEPT changes in
选项 A、the mortality rate.
B、the nature of industry.
C、the nature of the family.
D、attitudes toward reform movements.
E、attitudes toward the marketplace.
答案D
解析 Zelizer提出以下几个对儿童价值变化起重大影响的因素，除了哪一个没有提?A．死亡率，L38提到。B．工业性质，L35—36。C．家庭性质，L38～43。D．对改革运动的态度。正确。显然原文没有提过。E．对市场的态度，即L54—57所说的美国人为了防止市场观念对儿童的侵袭而将儿童价值“神圣化”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/DctO777K
本试题收录于： GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

GMAT VERBAL

GMAT

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)