{"title":"熟悉主义的多重意义","authors":"Francesca Polletta","doi":"10.1111/lsi.12340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion that families should care for their own seems straightforward in its meaning. I suggest that it may not be. Building on the argument advanced in Sandra Levitsky's <i>Caring for Our Own</i>, and especially its focus on the discursive shaping of rights consciousness, I draw attention to three discourses that may be responsible for how the caregivers quoted in the book understand family responsibility. One is an American discourse about the limits of government; one is a therapeutic discourse that is enacted in the support groups from which the book's respondents mainly come; and one is a nativist discourse that pits the American-born against newcomers. I argue that these discourses inflect the meaning of family responsibility in distinctive ways.</p>","PeriodicalId":47418,"journal":{"name":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","volume":"43 1","pages":"230-237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lsi.12340","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Multiple Meanings of Familialism\",\"authors\":\"Francesca Polletta\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lsi.12340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The notion that families should care for their own seems straightforward in its meaning. I suggest that it may not be. Building on the argument advanced in Sandra Levitsky's <i>Caring for Our Own</i>, and especially its focus on the discursive shaping of rights consciousness, I draw attention to three discourses that may be responsible for how the caregivers quoted in the book understand family responsibility. One is an American discourse about the limits of government; one is a therapeutic discourse that is enacted in the support groups from which the book's respondents mainly come; and one is a nativist discourse that pits the American-born against newcomers. I argue that these discourses inflect the meaning of family responsibility in distinctive ways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"230-237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lsi.12340\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsi.12340\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsi.12340","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
家庭应该照顾自己的亲人,这一概念的含义似乎很简单。我认为它可能不是。基于桑德拉·莱维茨基(Sandra Levitsky)的《照顾我们自己》(Caring for Our Own)一书中提出的论点,尤其是该书对权利意识话语塑造的关注,我提请注意三种话语,它们可能对书中引用的照顾者如何理解家庭责任负责。一个是关于政府局限性的美国话语;一种是在支持团体中实施的治疗性话语,本书的受访者主要来自这些团体;一种是本土主义话语,将美国出生的人与新来者对立起来。我认为,这些话语以不同的方式反映了家庭责任的意义。
The notion that families should care for their own seems straightforward in its meaning. I suggest that it may not be. Building on the argument advanced in Sandra Levitsky's Caring for Our Own, and especially its focus on the discursive shaping of rights consciousness, I draw attention to three discourses that may be responsible for how the caregivers quoted in the book understand family responsibility. One is an American discourse about the limits of government; one is a therapeutic discourse that is enacted in the support groups from which the book's respondents mainly come; and one is a nativist discourse that pits the American-born against newcomers. I argue that these discourses inflect the meaning of family responsibility in distinctive ways.