Sandra M. Sufian. Familial Fitness: Disability, Adoption, and the Family in Modern America Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 360 pp.

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kate Rousmaniere
{"title":"Sandra M. Sufian. Familial Fitness: Disability, Adoption, and the Family in Modern America Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 360 pp.","authors":"Kate Rousmaniere","doi":"10.1017/heq.2022.47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"final chapter, Markus Arnold retreads the classic debate about the relationship between planning, knowledge, and freedom that took place between Americans, such as C. Wright Mills, and Austrians, such as Friedrich Hayek. Arnold emphasizes social-science practitioners whose ideas were not simply “caused” by military funding structures, but who were actively reckoning with the problems of the role of the social sciences in Cold War culture—a worthwhile aim, even if other contributors successfully demonstrate that seemingly rigid Cold War institutions were also populated by fractured selves, tense debates, and individuals in transit, thinking reflexively while weaving in and out of nations and orthodoxies. The studies in the volume are most revelatory and engaging when focused on the individual lives that composed, questioned, and worked between national ideological projects. At other times, the breadth of the volume threatens its structural stability. The contributions provide no coherent conclusion to central interpretive questions, such as the utility of the “Cold War” as a framework. Are its temporal bounds rigidly deceptive? Does it privilege bipolarity and obfuscate local narratives? Or is it an essential lens, properly wielded, through which to examine the debates about subjectivity, knowledge, and social change that raged across the world in the latter half of the twentieth century? The volume’s keywords—“transnational” and “entanglements”—provide messy guidance for harmonization. But polyphony need not descend into Babel. The category of the Cold War social sciences is capacious enough to incorporate more voices, even as their voluminous questions strain its seams. For researchers interested in the history of the social sciences, Cold War history, intellectual history, or global postwar political history, as well as critical practitioners of social science, this volume and its concerns are an essential entanglement in which to become enmeshed.","PeriodicalId":45631,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

final chapter, Markus Arnold retreads the classic debate about the relationship between planning, knowledge, and freedom that took place between Americans, such as C. Wright Mills, and Austrians, such as Friedrich Hayek. Arnold emphasizes social-science practitioners whose ideas were not simply “caused” by military funding structures, but who were actively reckoning with the problems of the role of the social sciences in Cold War culture—a worthwhile aim, even if other contributors successfully demonstrate that seemingly rigid Cold War institutions were also populated by fractured selves, tense debates, and individuals in transit, thinking reflexively while weaving in and out of nations and orthodoxies. The studies in the volume are most revelatory and engaging when focused on the individual lives that composed, questioned, and worked between national ideological projects. At other times, the breadth of the volume threatens its structural stability. The contributions provide no coherent conclusion to central interpretive questions, such as the utility of the “Cold War” as a framework. Are its temporal bounds rigidly deceptive? Does it privilege bipolarity and obfuscate local narratives? Or is it an essential lens, properly wielded, through which to examine the debates about subjectivity, knowledge, and social change that raged across the world in the latter half of the twentieth century? The volume’s keywords—“transnational” and “entanglements”—provide messy guidance for harmonization. But polyphony need not descend into Babel. The category of the Cold War social sciences is capacious enough to incorporate more voices, even as their voluminous questions strain its seams. For researchers interested in the history of the social sciences, Cold War history, intellectual history, or global postwar political history, as well as critical practitioners of social science, this volume and its concerns are an essential entanglement in which to become enmeshed.
Sandra M. Sufian。《家庭健康:现代美国的残疾、收养和家庭》伊利诺伊州:芝加哥大学出版社,2022年。360页。
最后一章,马库斯·阿诺德重温了美国人(如c·赖特·米尔斯)和奥地利人(如弗里德里希·哈耶克)之间关于计划、知识和自由之间关系的经典辩论。阿诺德强调社会科学的从业者,他们的思想不仅仅是由军事资助结构“引起的”,而是积极地思考社会科学在冷战文化中的角色问题——这是一个值得追求的目标,即使其他贡献者成功地证明了看似僵化的冷战机构也充斥着破碎的自我、紧张的辩论和流动的个人,他们在国家和正统观念之间来回穿梭,进行反射性思考。本书中的研究是最具启发性和引人入胜的,当专注于个人生活组成,质疑,并在国家意识形态项目之间工作。在其他时候,体积的宽度威胁到它的结构稳定性。对于一些核心解释性问题,如“冷战”作为一个框架的效用,这些贡献没有提供连贯的结论。它的时间界限是严格欺骗性的吗?它是否偏袒两极,混淆了地方叙事?或者它是一个重要的镜头,正确运用,通过它来审视在20世纪后半叶席卷全球的关于主体性、知识和社会变革的辩论?这本书的关键词——“跨国”和“纠缠”——为协调提供了混乱的指导。但是复调并不需要下降到巴别塔。冷战时期的社会科学范畴有足够的空间容纳更多的声音,即使它们的大量问题使其接缝紧张。对于对社会科学史、冷战史、思想史或全球战后政治史以及社会科学批判实践者感兴趣的研究人员来说,这本书及其关注的问题是一个必不可少的纠缠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY
HISTORY OF EDUCATION QUARTERLY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: History of Education Quarterly publishes topics that span the history of education, both formal and nonformal, including the history of childhood, youth, and the family. The subjects are not limited to any time period and are universal in scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信