社會分析最新文献

{"title":"世界史的異例：由韋伯方法論看台灣和香港","authors":"顧忠華 顧忠華","doi":"10.53106/221866892021120019004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892021120019004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 香港在1997回歸中國後，由於有「一國兩制」的保護傘，基本上仍是與西方倡議的「普世價值」接軌的社會，自由、人權、法治、乃至民主，都是主流的「集體意識」，而2014年風起雲湧的「反送中」運動，可說是一個分水嶺。2021年開始，北京當局則開始強力施行「國安法」，香港就此不再具有由英國殖民開始的某種「異例」地位。\u0000 相對而言，台灣的民主化成果，是否代表華人群居社會的另外一種「異例」？本篇評論嘗試借用韋伯論述基督新教倫理和資本主義精神之間歷史脈絡的方法論，以「世界史異例之想像」來探討特殊條件下形成的「因果鎖鏈」，或可協助我們進行某種攸關中國、台灣和香港未來命運的思想實驗。\u0000 本篇評論分析，台灣過去基於種種因緣際會的組合元素，成為克服威權體制、落實自由民主價值的成功案例。這使得台灣具備了目前全球「抗中」形勢下的戰略位置，並有資格被視作是「世界史的異例」。然而究竟在「普世價值」和「中華民族偉大復興」兩種意識形態的鬥爭下，孰能真正勝出？恐怕就如韋伯所承認，歷史進展中處處隱含著「理性化的弔詭」，除了人為的「責任倫理」努力外，恐怕仍存在若干不可知力量(如理念式的「卡里斯瑪」)，有如轉轍器般，改變了軌道的方向。且讓世人拭目以待！\u0000 At the time of Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, freedom, human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, which are among the universal values of Western culture, were mainstream values in Hong Kong’s collective consciousness. However, the Umbrella Movement in 2014 was a watershed moment in Hong Kong’s history. Beginning in 2021, the People’s Republic of China began to enforce the National Security Act, with Hong Kong no longer maintaining the special status it had held since British colonization.\u0000 In the context of Chinese communities, is Taiwan’s democratization exceptional? In this review, Weber’s theory of the historical connection between Protestant ethics and the capitalist spirit is applied to explore the causal chain of the world’s historical process. This exploration entails a thought experiment of sorts, the conclusions of which may have vital implications for the future of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.\u0000 This review analyzes how Taiwan has succeeded in overcoming an authoritarian system and implementing the values of liberal democracy. As a polity that successfully transitioned to liberal democracy, Taiwan is perceived to be strategically important by other democracies in under a climate of rising tension with China. It remains unknown whether the global order created and fostered by liberal democracies will continue to occupy a central position in world affairs or if China will succeed in carving out an increasingly significant role in world affairs. Based on the Methodology of Max Weber, this review article tries to analyze the current situation in Hong Kong and Taiwan, then point out the special meaning of these two examples in the world history.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127453643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"宗教是什麼？為研究韋伯宗教社會學的準備工作","authors":"裴元領 裴元領","doi":"10.53106/221866892021120019002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892021120019002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 為了理解韋伯的宗教社會學，我們必須先理解「宗教」是什麼。但韋伯從未明示宗教「是」什麼。本文原為研究韋伯宗教社會學的準備工作。以下是關於「宗教是什麼」的猜想。\u0000 瞭解何謂宗教的困難，正出於把宗教當作一個物、對象、概念、因素、變項、範疇、體系、一套儀式或神話奇觀。這些說法可能不無道理，但不知有誰會把這些「道理」套用到自己身上？若自己的人生不能這樣理解，則為何可以這樣理解宗教？這種素樸卻不言而喻的設定顯然是理解的根本障礙。若宗教恆為彼而我恆為此，則再多說法也只在笛卡爾式迷宮裡打轉。\u0000 韋伯主張：一種帶有倫理色彩的生活導引的格律[準則]之特徵，這才是此處所採取的資本主義精神概念的特殊意義。資本主義的概念不是孤立個體，而是人類團體所承擔起來的一種直觀模式。人類團體的直觀模式只是某些人的直觀。這裡沒有神的「靈」，只有世俗人群的「意」。\u0000 宗教不是一成不變的玩偶。在字源上，宗教一詞源於拉丁語的(religare)，意指[再]綑綁約束。宗教被界定為對一個原則的信仰、敬拜、忠誠、或奉獻的一個體系。能重新把信徒綁在一起的思想、信仰和力量體系都是宗教。但「我們」重新綁在一起「練過」什麼？本文保留開放態度。\u0000 To understand Weber’s sociology of religion, we must first understand what religion is; this is something that Weber never explains. This article is a preparatory work for studying Weber’s sociology of religion. The following is a conjecture on what religion is.\u0000 It is difficult to understand what religion is because it is often regarded as, for example, an object, a concept, a set of rituals, or a set of mythological wonders. These definitions might be somewhat reasonable, but religious adherents typically chafe at their self-application, finding them to be inaccurate or misleading.\u0000 If a person cannot understand their life based on such definitions, how can they be expected to understand religion in this way? This simple but self-evident truth is the main obstacle to understanding religion. If what religion is defined as does not accord with my perception of what religion is to me, this tension is alienating.\u0000 Weber argues that the character of an ethically colored maxim for the conduct of life is linked to the concept of the “spirit of capitalism,” which is applied herein. The concept of capitalism is not based on an isolated individual; rather, it is a mode of intuition perceived by human groups. There is no “spirit” of God here, only the “intention” of secular society.\u0000 Religion is not static. The word religion is derived from the Latin religare, meaning rebinding constraints. Religion is defined as a system of faith, worship, loyalty, or devotion to one principle. The thoughts, beliefs, and power systems that bind believers together are all constitutive elements of religion. The following question must be asked: what is the purpose of this rebinding? The author approaches the topic open to novel realizations.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117300284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"韋伯與奧斯華德：一個能量社會學的想像","authors":"張君玫 張君玫","doi":"10.53106/221866892021120019003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892021120019003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 這篇文章針對1909年社會學家韋伯（Max Weber）和化學家奧斯華德（Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald）關於文化能量學的爭議，進行一種繞射的閱讀（diffractive reading），從中生產出切合當代人類世困局的觀點。首先，我彰顯當代社會複雜的能量地景，尤其是石化資本主義的高耗能模式。其次，我探討韋伯對奧斯華德的批判，聚焦在藝術和技術的利益群集，以及韋伯多元主義和奧斯華德統合理論之間的張力。接著，我討論晚近學界對奧斯華德能量論的重探，強調涉及技術科學的分子轉向，其促成有機體地景的多樣化。最後，我重新思考能量超有機體的概念，一種雜揉的綜合體，及其可能的方向。\u0000 This paper presents a diffractive reading of the controversy on cultural energeticism involving sociologist Max Weber and chemistry Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald in 1909 to provide a relevant perspective for the Anthropocene conjunction. First, I highlight the complex energetic landscape of contemporary society, especially the high-energy-consuming model of fossil capitalism. Second, I discuss Weber’s critique of Ostwald, focusing on the clustered interests of art and technology, as well as the tension between Weber’s pluralism and Ostwald’s aspiration for a unifying theory of everything. Third, I discuss some recent revaluations of Ostwald’s energeticism, emphasizing the technoscientific molecular turn that has diversified the organismic landscape. Finally, I reassess the conception of an energetic superorganism—a hybrid synthesis— and its potential future direction. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121559459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"第四種支配的純粹類型：韋伯論民主之正當性基礎及其非正當性","authors":"林子新 林子新","doi":"10.53106/221866892021120019001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892021120019001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 本文旨在闡明「民主」係韋伯眼中西方文明所特有的第四種支配類型。一般認為，韋伯根據作為統治者權威基礎的正當性思想的不同類型，僅僅區分出了三種支配的純粹類型，包括傳統型、法制型、以及卡理斯瑪型支配。問題是，韋伯曾在1917年的一場關於〈國家社會學的問題〉的演講中提到，西方不同於東方，具有逐漸形成的「第四種正當性思想(vierten Legitimitätsgedankens)」，又在關於西方城市特殊性的世界性歷史比較研究中，以及在1919年的〈政治作為一種志業〉演講和1920年版的《支配社會學》中反覆強調，西方特有的卡理斯瑪領袖的特殊之處，就在於開發出了一種全新且僅見於西方城市國家與立憲國家的正當性思想：「民主的正當性(demokratische Legitimität)」。若說韋伯確實是以正當性思想之類型差異做為其支配的純粹類型的劃分依據，加上韋伯又確曾將「民主的正當性」視為僅見於西方文明的第四種正當性思想，那麼我們便可以肯定地說：「民主」不只是韋伯眼中具有截然不同於傳統型、法制型、以及卡理斯瑪型支配之正當性基礎的第四種支配的純粹類型，更是唯一一種能夠突顯西方文明特殊性的支配的純粹類型。這樣的發現，不只有助於論者避免因為堅持韋伯只建構了三種支配的純粹類型，而得出韋伯的支配類型學並無助於增進吾人對於「民主」的理解的錯誤結論，更有助於論者在認識到「民主」係韋伯支配類型學中的第四種支配的純粹類型的同時，也能從韋伯關於支配類型的跨文明比較中進一步認識到「民主」所特有的正當性基礎及其非正當性。\u0000 This study investigated the concept of democracy in Max Weber’s theory of domination. The research results suggest that although Weber defined only three pure types of legitimate domination, he further classified charismatic domination into two types, conceptualizing “democracy” as the second type. The critical feature of this type of charismatic domination is that recognition from the ruled, once regarded as “a consequence of legitimacy,” has been primarily and oppositely treated as “the basis of legitimacy.” The findings assist in broadening Weber’s theory of domination through the integration of the fourth pure type of legitimate domination and in deepening our understanding of the legitimate basis of contemporary democracy.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130334584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"「生態溝通」之探索-以印尼的災害應對處置為例","authors":"Hermin Indah Wahyun Hermin Indah Wahyun","doi":"10.53106/221866892020120018002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892020120018002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 本文運用生態溝通的觀點(ecological communication perspective)，來描述印尼作為一個經常遭受自然災害的國家，是如何應對和討論災害問題。從這個觀點看，災難的解決被認為與現代社會立基於的社會系統是分不了關係的。通過溝通可以檢測到共同體如何應對他們面臨的各種物理威脅。在印尼，本文描述了關於災害的不斷演變的溝通過程以及對災害應對的演變特徵。我們將發現，溝通上在多大程度上鼓勵決策者來制定戰略政策，及優先考慮備災工作。\u0000 為實現這一目標，本文將探討生態溝通的兩個向度：實質性和實行操作性。從實質上講，它將回顧社會學家尼克拉斯·盧曼發展起來的生態溝通的獨特性，強調溝通的社會學面向。而實行操作上，它將運用生態溝通的分析工具，描述在災害中發展出何種類型的溝通類型，這種溝通仍然都是關於災前的威脅、受災區災難時的情況發展資訊和災難後的災區訊息，包括印尼所有有關的災害案件為例子。目前所選定的災前案例：蘇拉威西中部莫羅瓦利的海嘯威脅；持續的災害案例：中爪哇塞馬朗的潮汐洪水和蘇門答臘省佩坎巴魯的霧霾；災後案例：2004年印度洋海嘯。實質性的探索發現，生態溝通提供了一個領悟性的概念(comprehensive concept)鼓勵批判性討論也提供另種理解災難的方案。盧曼的\"\"自我檢視\"\"原則描述了一個社會系統的自我參照和自我分化的過程，而這種社會系統獨特地是根據人們的溝通方式而成。在實行層面上，生態溝通應允許同時考慮減災和適應災害。\u0000 This article applies an ecological communication perspective to describe how Indonesia, as a country that often experiences natural disasters, responds and discusses disaster issues. Within this perspective, the solution to disaster is assumed to be integrally related to the social system of modern society based on communication. Through communication, it can be detected how the community responds to the various physical threats they face. In the context of Indonesia, this article describes the evolving communication process regarding disasters and the evolutionary characteristics of disaster response. It will be detected to what extent the communication developed has encouraged policymakers to make strategic policies that prioritize disaster preparedness.\u0000 To achieve this goal, this article will explore two dimensions of ecological communication: substantive and practical. Substantively, it will review the uniqueness of ecological communication developed by the sociologist Niklas Luhmann, which emphasizes the sociological dimension of communication. Practically, it will apply the analysis tools of ecological communication to describe what type of communication develops in the character of a disaster that is still a threat (pre-disaster), communication developed in a disaster-affected area, and communication in a disaster-affected area post-disaster cases. Indonesia has all the disaster cases in question. Selected pre-disaster cases: tsunami threat in Morowali, Central Sulawesi; ongoing disaster cases: tidal flooding in Semarang, Central Java, and haze in Pekanbaru, Sumatra; post-disaster case: Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004). Substantive exploration finds that ecological communication offers a comprehensive concept that encourages critical discussion and offers alternative understandings of disasters. Luhmann’s principle of \"\"autopoiesis\"\" describes the process of self-reference and self-differentiation of a social system that is unique depending on the way people communicate. On a practical level, Ecological communication should allow simultaneous consideration of disaster mitigation and disaster adaptation.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133319900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"演化思維與社會理論：以Steven Pinker與Jared Diamond的暴力論述為例","authors":"酆景文 酆景文, 萬毓澤 萬毓澤","doi":"10.53106/221866892020120018004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892020120018004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Steven Pinker和Jared Diamond先後提出「現代社會較傳統社會和平」的觀點，並大量使用（演化）生物學與認知科學概念來建構理論，引發社會學、人類學界的許多批評。部分爭議來自於他們將一般被視為生物學範疇的演化思維運用於解釋人類社會。然而，近年來的許多研究已告訴我們：以變異、遺傳（複製）、選擇等抽象原則構成的「一般化達爾文主義」等理論架構，已能應用於生物現象「之外」的人文社會現象。據此，本文藉助「一般化達爾文主義」的架構，細緻地勾勒Pinker和Diamond如何將演化思維應用在暴力理論，並處理人文社會學界對他們的批評。此外，本文也嘗試提出演化思維可能如何啟發社會科學界對暴力與現代性等議題的思考。\u0000 Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond successively advanced the thesis that modern society is more peaceful than traditional society. They employed extensive arguments from evolutionary biology and cognitive science to develop their theories, which have received criticism from sociologists and anthropologists alike. Some believe that employing evolutionary theory to explain human society is highly controversial. Nevertheless, “generalized Darwinism,” a framework characterized by three abstract principles variation, inheritance, and selection has been applied to other disciplines. Thus, on the basis of a framework of generalized Darwinism, this study illustrates how Pinker and Diamond construct theories of violence through evolutionary thinking and how they are criticized by sociologists and anthropologists. Additionally, in this paper, evolutionary thinking is highlighted as an inspiration for reconsidering violence, modernity, and their interrelation.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134102293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"重讀涂爾幹：社會認識論與記憶社會學間的系譜學考察","authors":"黃敏原 黃敏原","doi":"10.53106/221866892020120018001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892020120018001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 本文旨趣有二，其一乃透過法國思考脈絡與法文閱讀來對涂爾幹進行重新耙梳。關於宗教研究的探討，筆者認為涂氏對之具有終身連續的「一貫關懷」，而與既有研究中指出的「中途轉向」說不同。另外，涂氏系列宗教研究中提出的核心命題如「神聖性之起源」及「群體之分類認識能力」，實乃導源於「社會」這個根源等見解，正是一種「知識社會學」的進路。此種特有的「集體思維」學說建立在「社會事實說」等基本預設上並開展出法式結構主義的思想風格。建立在上述對涂氏社會認識論的考察，本文欲探討涂爾幹與「涂爾幹學派」中阿部瓦克思(M. Halbwachs)之間的思想接續。作為「記憶社會學」的開創者，學界慣常指稱阿氏乃涂氏門生。但本文卻將兩人的「師徒關係」重新置疑：阿氏身上是否承襲涂氏思維的「學術DNA」？如果是，又是在那些點上有所關連？此應透過嚴謹的學術考據加以證成。透過兩人學術上核心概念的比對、基本假設的對照以及邏輯推演的相互參照，本文指出其在思想系譜上的繼承性。由此，不只反省涂氏與「涂派成員」間之關連，同時也回過頭重估涂氏學說對後世記憶研究與相關文化研究等開展之貢獻。\u0000 This article clarifies the specificity of Durkheim’s social epistemology, particularly his study of religion. Durkheim held that both “divine nature”and the collective capacity for classification are derived from “the Society.”This approach, as well as his research on “social facts” and “the dualism of human nature,” considerably influenced later sociologists. Specifically, Maurice Halbwachs inherited Durkheim’s ideas to develop his theory on the sociology of memory from a social psychology perspective. By comparing their core concepts, theoretical assumptions, and inferences, this article identifies the theoretical genealogy between Durkheim and Halbwachs. Additionally, it highlights the contributions of some Durkheimian perspectives to the development of cultural studies.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114733980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"印尼米納哈薩的國族建構","authors":"Vissia Ita Yulianto Vissia Ita Yulianto","doi":"10.53106/221866892020120018003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53106/221866892020120018003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 本米納哈薩是一個興旺的基督新教地區，在印尼北蘇拉威西省擁有為數不少的穆斯林人口和其他宗教少數族群。它以宗教寬容的宗旨而自豪。然而，由於距離爪哇島（Java Island）這個印尼地緣政治的中心很遠，而且相對於境內的穆斯林人口而言在人數上的遠遠不如；，米納哈桑的基督徒民眾教對印尼國家中心保持著謹慎的態度。探索米納哈桑人的國族概念並請做出研究提問，本項研究參照阿德里安·哈斯廷(Adrian Hasting)的論文，認為宗教和種族乃民族主義的基礎(1997年)。本研究採取質性方法，發現多種族、宗教和獨特的歷史和政治背景是國族建構的決定性因素，也是米納哈桑人對印尼大民族主義的歸屬感。\u0000 Minahasa is a prosperous Protestant region with a sizeable Muslim population, and other religious minorities in North Sulawesi province in Indonesia. It prides itself as the compass of religious tolerance. However, territorially distant from Java Island, as the center of Indonesian geopolitics, and vastly outnumbered by the majority Muslim population, the Christian Minahasans keep a guarded feeling toward Indonesian national center. Questioning and exploring the notion of nationhood by the Minahasans, this work engage with Adrian Hasting’s thesis in crediting religion and ethnicity to the foundation of nationalism (1997). Applying a qualitative approach, this study found that poly-ethnicity, religion and distinct historical and political background are the determining factors in the construction of nationhood as well as the sense of belonging of Minahasans to the larger Indonesian nationalism.\u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215816,"journal":{"name":"社會分析","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121027463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}