Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky最新文献

英文中文

Capital and the Urpraxis of Socialism 资本与社会主义的终极实践

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_018

引用次数: 0

The Unit of Analysis and Germ Cell in Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky 黑格尔、马克思和维果茨基的分析单元和生殖细胞

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_004

A. Blunden

“Psychology is in need of its own Das Kapital,” wrote Vygotsky in 1928, observing that “the whole of Das Kapital is written according to this method,” the method in which Marx identifies the ‘cell’ of bourgeois society ‒ an exchange of commodities ‒ and then unfolds the entire process of bourgeois society from an analysis of the contradictions within this single cell. Vygotsky was the first to grasp Das Kapital in this way, and his application of the method of ‘analysis by units’ is his most important legacy. What Vygotsky did was to produce one study which would function as an exemplar for research in psychology. That one study addressed the age-old problem of the relation between thinking and speech. By solving this one problem in an exemplary fashion, he created a paradigm for research in all domains of psychology, and as a matter of fact, in all the sciences. Vygotsky in fact left us as many as five different exemplars of analysis by units.

“心理学需要自己的《资本论》，”维果茨基在1928年写道，他观察到“整个《资本论》都是根据这种方法写成的”，马克思用这种方法确定资产阶级社会的“细胞”——商品交换——然后通过分析这个细胞内的矛盾来展开资产阶级社会的整个过程。维果茨基是第一个以这种方式理解《资本论》的人，他对“单位分析”方法的应用是他最重要的遗产。维果茨基所做的是进行一项研究，作为心理学研究的典范。那项研究解决了思考和语言之间关系的古老问题。通过以一种模范的方式解决这个问题，他为所有心理学领域的研究创造了一个范式，事实上，也是所有科学领域的研究范式。维果茨基实际上给我们留下了五个不同的单位分析的例子。

引用次数: 2

Anthony Giddens on Structuration 安东尼·吉登斯谈结构

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_025

A. Giddens

引用次数: 0

Perezhivanie as Human Self-Creation Perezhivanie作为人类的自我创造

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_006

引用次数: 0

Tool and Sign in Vygotsky’s Development 维果斯基发展中的工具和符号

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_008

A. Blunden

Vygotsky’s view on tools, signs and the spoken word are elaborated through a comparison of his early anthropological writings with his later works. It is argued that these relations underlie ideological tensions which persist across the human sciences to this day. There is a tension within Vygotsky’s writing, and in its interpretation, hinging around the relation of sign and tool, sometimes taken up under the heading of word and deed (or action). This contradiction turns out to be a microcosm of the tension between language and labour in the wider field of Marxist theory, which in turn evokes the class antagonisms underlying the original work of Marx and Engels, antagonisms which have continued to be reflected in the development of theory up to the present time. Vygotsky’s final position was expressed clearly enough on the last page of “Thinking and Speech” (1934), here taken up under the heading of word and deed: The connection between thought and word is not a primal connection that is given once and forever. It arises in development and itself develops. “In the beginning was the word.” Goethe answered this Biblical phrase through Faust: “In the beginning was the deed.” Through this statement, Goethe wished to counteract the word’s over-valuation. ... we can agree with Goethe that the word as such should not be overvalued and can concur in his transformation of the Biblical line to, “In the beginning was the deed.” Nonetheless, if we consider the history of development, we can still read this line with a different emphasis: “In the beginning was the deed. (1934, p. 284-5) Although Vygotsky does not here touch on the question of tool and sign, this is, as will be seen, a clear and succinct statement of the relation, leaving to the reader the work of unfolding from that relation the richness and complexity of the history of intertwined development alluded to. However, there are other statements of Vygotsky, at other times and in other terms, and interpretations of his writing by other writers which oblige us to look more deeply into this problem. Let us first review what Vygotsky himself said on the topic, which is variously expressed in terms of sign/symbol & tool, word & action/deed or psychological tool & technical tool. Vygotsky’s Early Writing on the Development of Tools The story begins with the book Vygotsky wrote in collaboration with Luria in 1929, Ape, Primitive Man, and Child: Essays in the History of Behaviour. Vygotsky wrote the first two chapters, mainly drawing on the reports of contemporary zoologists, anthropologists and ethnologists. Vygotsky’s ideas were later tested out by Luria in an expedition to * This article was first published on the web in 2015. Vygotsky uses the term “primitive man.” This expression is ‘unmentionable’ in the light of both postcolonial and feminist sensibilities. However, it would be dishonest to excise this and similar terms from Vygotsky’s writing, written at a time before these terms were problematis

维果茨基对工具、符号和口语的看法是通过他早期人类学著作与后期作品的比较来阐述的。有人认为，这些关系是贯穿人文科学至今的意识形态紧张的基础。维果茨基的作品中有一种张力，在它的解释中，围绕着符号和工具的关系，有时在言语和行为(或行动)的标题下进行。这一矛盾是马克思主义理论更广泛领域中语言和劳动之间紧张关系的一个缩影，这反过来又唤起了马克思和恩格斯原始著作中隐含的阶级对立，这种对立一直反映在理论的发展中，直到现在。维果茨基在1934年出版的《思考与言语》(Thinking and Speech)一书的最后一页，以“言语与行为”为标题，清晰地表达了他的最终立场:思想与言语之间的联系并不是一种一次性的、永远存在的原始联系。它在发展中产生，又在发展中发展。“太初有道。”歌德通过《浮士德》回答了圣经中的这句话:“一开始就有行动。”通过这一声明，歌德希望抵消这个词的高估. ...我们可以同意歌德的观点，即这个词本身不应该被高估，我们也可以同意他对《圣经》这句话的转换:“起初有作为。”然而，如果我们考虑发展的历史，我们仍然可以用不同的重点来理解这句话:“起初是行动。(1934，第284-5页)尽管维果茨基在这里没有触及工具和符号的问题，但正如我们将看到的，这是对这种关系的清晰而简洁的陈述，留给读者从这种关系中展开所暗示的交织发展历史的丰富性和复杂性的工作。然而，维果茨基在其他时间，以其他方式发表的其他陈述，以及其他作家对他的作品的解释，都迫使我们更深入地研究这个问题。让我们先回顾一下维果茨基本人在这个话题上所说的话，这些话的表达方式多种多样，有符号/符号&工具，有文字&行动/行为，也有心理工具&技术工具。故事从维果茨基与卢里亚于1929年合作撰写的《猿、原始人和儿童:行为史随笔》一书开始。维果茨基写了前两章，主要借鉴了当代动物学家、人类学家和民族学家的报告。维果茨基的想法后来在卢里亚的一次探险中得到了验证。本文于2015年首次发表在网上。维果茨基使用了“原始人”这个词。从后殖民主义和女权主义的角度来看，这种表达是“不可提及的”。然而，从维果茨基的作品中删去这些和类似的术语是不诚实的，这些术语是在这些术语被质疑之前写的。但要说清楚，这不是我的条件。我到处都在“原始人”后面加上了引号。这并不是这部作品的唯一问题，它被排除在维果茨基的作品集之外。然而，在这项工作的问题中，有一些非常重要的见解需要挖掘和保存。

{"title":"Tool and Sign in Vygotsky’s Development","authors":"A. Blunden","doi":"10.1163/9789004470972_008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004470972_008","url":null,"abstract":"Vygotsky’s view on tools, signs and the spoken word are elaborated through a comparison of his early anthropological writings with his later works. It is argued that these relations underlie ideological tensions which persist across the human sciences to this day. There is a tension within Vygotsky’s writing, and in its interpretation, hinging around the relation of sign and tool, sometimes taken up under the heading of word and deed (or action). This contradiction turns out to be a microcosm of the tension between language and labour in the wider field of Marxist theory, which in turn evokes the class antagonisms underlying the original work of Marx and Engels, antagonisms which have continued to be reflected in the development of theory up to the present time. Vygotsky’s final position was expressed clearly enough on the last page of “Thinking and Speech” (1934), here taken up under the heading of word and deed: The connection between thought and word is not a primal connection that is given once and forever. It arises in development and itself develops. “In the beginning was the word.” Goethe answered this Biblical phrase through Faust: “In the beginning was the deed.” Through this statement, Goethe wished to counteract the word’s over-valuation. ... we can agree with Goethe that the word as such should not be overvalued and can concur in his transformation of the Biblical line to, “In the beginning was the deed.” Nonetheless, if we consider the history of development, we can still read this line with a different emphasis: “In the beginning was the deed. (1934, p. 284-5) Although Vygotsky does not here touch on the question of tool and sign, this is, as will be seen, a clear and succinct statement of the relation, leaving to the reader the work of unfolding from that relation the richness and complexity of the history of intertwined development alluded to. However, there are other statements of Vygotsky, at other times and in other terms, and interpretations of his writing by other writers which oblige us to look more deeply into this problem. Let us first review what Vygotsky himself said on the topic, which is variously expressed in terms of sign/symbol & tool, word & action/deed or psychological tool & technical tool. Vygotsky’s Early Writing on the Development of Tools The story begins with the book Vygotsky wrote in collaboration with Luria in 1929, Ape, Primitive Man, and Child: Essays in the History of Behaviour. Vygotsky wrote the first two chapters, mainly drawing on the reports of contemporary zoologists, anthropologists and ethnologists. Vygotsky’s ideas were later tested out by Luria in an expedition to * This article was first published on the web in 2015. Vygotsky uses the term “primitive man.” This expression is ‘unmentionable’ in the light of both postcolonial and feminist sensibilities. However, it would be dishonest to excise this and similar terms from Vygotsky’s writing, written at a time before these terms were problematis","PeriodicalId":320224,"journal":{"name":"Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130173621","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}

引用次数: 2

Amartya Sen on Critical Voice and Social Choice Theory 阿马蒂亚·森论批判声音与社会选择理论

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_022

引用次数: 0

The Origins of Collective Decision Making (Synopsis) 集体决策的起源(概要)

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_020

A. Blunden

Ever since participating in the S11 protests against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in 2000, I have been intrigued by processes of collective decision making and in particular by the antagonism between the two main paradigms used on the Left, viz., Majority and Consensus. Reading the literature arising from the Occupy Wall Street events in 2011 I became alarmed at the depth of this antagonism and in particular the way the problem was being aggravated by ‘histories’ of Consensus decision making based on hearsay and ill-informed speculation, and the apparent belief that Majority decision making does not have a history at all.

自从参加2000年在墨尔本举行的反对世界经济论坛的S11抗议活动以来，我一直对集体决策的过程很感兴趣，特别是对左派使用的两种主要范式(即多数和共识)之间的对抗。阅读有关2011年占领华尔街运动的文献，我对这种对抗的深度感到震惊，尤其是基于道听途说和不了解情况的猜测的共识决策的“历史”，以及多数人的决策根本没有历史的明显信念，使问题变得更加严重。

引用次数: 0

Bourdieu on Status, Class and Culture 布迪厄论地位、阶级和文化

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_026

If social class is defined by relation to the means of production, this still does not tell us how classes are constituted as classes, nor how the complex status hierarchies of capitalist societies are articulated and internalised by individuals or how other systems of status subordination are integrated within a class system of domination. On its own, possession of greater or lesser title to means of production (“economic capital”) in fact explains very little about the dynamics of bourgeois society.

如果社会阶级是通过与生产资料的关系来定义的，这仍然没有告诉我们阶级是如何构成为阶级的，也没有告诉我们资本主义社会复杂的地位等级是如何被个人表达和内化的，也没有告诉我们其他地位从属制度是如何被整合到统治阶级制度中的。就其本身而言，对生产资料或多或少的所有权(“经济资本”)实际上并不能解释资产阶级社会的动态。

引用次数: 7

The Invention of Nicaraguan Sign Language 尼加拉瓜手语的发明

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_013

A. Blunden

Introduction In the 1980s, Nicaragua was a poor country, lacking in specialist resources and with low levels of literacy even amongst the hearing population, and was a country in which the deaf had no sign language. If a brand new sign language were to be created from scratch, it is hardly likely that children with no language capacity to begin with were going to be the ones to do it. So linguists and psychologists were shocked when it was reported that in the 1980s, in Nicaragua, without even the awareness let alone assistance of adults, deaf children themselves had invented a brand new sign-language, Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), linguistically distinct both from spoken Spanish and other sign languages ‒ a fully-fledged language with syntax and the capacity to reference abstract concepts and hypothetical or distant events. Since the children had no access to any language ‒ spoken Spanish or sign language, and mostly not even written Spanish ‒ it seemed impossible that they should have been able to acquire a language, let alone collectively invent one, unaided, from scratch – the only recorded case of the creation of an entirely new language, as opposed to a dialect or a creole of existing languages. “[Normal speech] development is achieved,” said Lev Vygotsky, “under particular conditions of interaction with the environment, where the final or ideal form [of speech] ... is not only already there in the environment and from the very start in contact with the child, but actually interacts and exerts a real influence on the primary form, on the first steps of the child’s development.” It follows from this that a deaf child will not

在20世纪80年代，尼加拉瓜是一个贫穷的国家，缺乏专业资源，即使在听力正常的人群中，识字率也很低，聋哑人也没有手语。如果要从零开始创造一种全新的手语，那么一开始就没有语言能力的孩子几乎不可能成为使用它的人。因此，当20世纪80年代有报道称，在尼加拉瓜，失聪儿童自己发明了一种全新的手语——尼加拉瓜手语(NSL)时，语言学家和心理学家都感到震惊，他们甚至没有意识到，更不用说成年人的帮助了。这种手语在语言上与西班牙语口语和其他手语截然不同，是一种完全成熟的语言，具有语法和引用抽象概念、假设或遥远事件的能力。由于孩子们没有接触任何语言的机会——西班牙语口语或手语，大多数人甚至没有西班牙语书面语——他们似乎不可能学会一门语言，更不用说集体从零开始、独立地发明一门语言了——这是唯一有记录的创造一门全新语言的案例，而不是现有语言的方言或克里奥尔语。“(正常语言)发展是在与环境相互作用的特定条件下实现的，”列夫·维果茨基说，“在这种条件下，最终的或理想的(语言)形式……不仅从一开始就存在于环境中，与孩子接触，而且实际上相互作用，对儿童发展的最初阶段产生真正的影响。”由此可见，一个聋哑的孩子不会

{"title":"The Invention of Nicaraguan Sign Language","authors":"A. Blunden","doi":"10.1163/9789004470972_013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004470972_013","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In the 1980s, Nicaragua was a poor country, lacking in specialist resources and with low levels of literacy even amongst the hearing population, and was a country in which the deaf had no sign language. If a brand new sign language were to be created from scratch, it is hardly likely that children with no language capacity to begin with were going to be the ones to do it. So linguists and psychologists were shocked when it was reported that in the 1980s, in Nicaragua, without even the awareness let alone assistance of adults, deaf children themselves had invented a brand new sign-language, Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), linguistically distinct both from spoken Spanish and other sign languages ‒ a fully-fledged language with syntax and the capacity to reference abstract concepts and hypothetical or distant events. Since the children had no access to any language ‒ spoken Spanish or sign language, and mostly not even written Spanish ‒ it seemed impossible that they should have been able to acquire a language, let alone collectively invent one, unaided, from scratch – the only recorded case of the creation of an entirely new language, as opposed to a dialect or a creole of existing languages. “[Normal speech] development is achieved,” said Lev Vygotsky, “under particular conditions of interaction with the environment, where the final or ideal form [of speech] ... is not only already there in the environment and from the very start in contact with the child, but actually interacts and exerts a real influence on the primary form, on the first steps of the child’s development.” It follows from this that a deaf child will not","PeriodicalId":320224,"journal":{"name":"Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky","volume":"299 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115868683","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}

引用次数: 2

Power, Activity and Human Flourishing 权力、活动与人类繁荣

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI: 10.1163/9789004470972_015

A. Blunden

Activity theory is a theory of human flourishing. ‘Human flourishing’ is the usual English translation of the Greek word eudemonia, the central concept of Aristotle’s ethics. As a current of scientific thinking, activity theory has the great merit that its central concept – ‘collaborative project’, also often referred to as ‘an activity’ – is equally a descriptive, explanatory and normative concept. ‘Human flourishing’ refers to the enjoyment of a good life, something which bears little relation to the consumption of material goods, is little concerned with rights, but rather with the expansion of a person’s capacity for enjoyment. As Aristotle showed, human flourishing is meaningful only in the context of the collaborative creation of a good life for all human beings. So activity theory is a scientific theory which is simultaneously an ethical theory. We not only see the world as made up of collaborative projects, and use collaborative projects to promote human flourishing, but we also advocate collaboration as the norm for secular life. The way all people ought to deal with one another is to collaborate with each other in projects. What I would like to reflect on in this essay is the question of how we see situations where the norm of collaboration goes wrong, and people find themselves trapped in projects toxic to their own health and that of others. In particular I want to tackle the problem of abuse of power, a topic which cannot even be clearly framed so long as ethical and analytical concepts are at odds with one another.

活动理论是人类繁荣的理论。“人类繁荣”通常是希腊语eudemonia的英文翻译，是亚里士多德伦理学的核心概念。作为一种科学思维，活动理论有一个巨大的优点，它的中心概念——“合作项目”，也经常被称为“一项活动”——同样是一个描述性、解释性和规范性的概念。“人类繁荣”指的是享受美好生活，这与物质财富的消费关系不大，与权利关系不大，而是与一个人享受能力的扩大有关。正如亚里士多德所说，人类的繁荣只有在为所有人共同创造美好生活的背景下才有意义。所以活动理论是一种科学理论同时也是一种伦理理论。我们不仅认为世界是由协作项目组成的，并利用协作项目促进人类繁荣，而且我们还提倡将协作作为世俗生活的规范。所有人相处的方式应该是在项目中相互合作。我想在这篇文章中反思的问题是，我们如何看待合作规范出错的情况，以及人们发现自己陷入对自己和他人健康有害的项目中。我特别想谈谈滥用权力的问题，只要伦理和分析的概念彼此不一致，这个问题就无法明确界定。

{"title":"Power, Activity and Human Flourishing","authors":"A. Blunden","doi":"10.1163/9789004470972_015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004470972_015","url":null,"abstract":"Activity theory is a theory of human flourishing. ‘Human flourishing’ is the usual English translation of the Greek word eudemonia, the central concept of Aristotle’s ethics. As a current of scientific thinking, activity theory has the great merit that its central concept – ‘collaborative project’, also often referred to as ‘an activity’ – is equally a descriptive, explanatory and normative concept. ‘Human flourishing’ refers to the enjoyment of a good life, something which bears little relation to the consumption of material goods, is little concerned with rights, but rather with the expansion of a person’s capacity for enjoyment. As Aristotle showed, human flourishing is meaningful only in the context of the collaborative creation of a good life for all human beings. So activity theory is a scientific theory which is simultaneously an ethical theory. We not only see the world as made up of collaborative projects, and use collaborative projects to promote human flourishing, but we also advocate collaboration as the norm for secular life. The way all people ought to deal with one another is to collaborate with each other in projects. What I would like to reflect on in this essay is the question of how we see situations where the norm of collaboration goes wrong, and people find themselves trapped in projects toxic to their own health and that of others. In particular I want to tackle the problem of abuse of power, a topic which cannot even be clearly framed so long as ethical and analytical concepts are at odds with one another.","PeriodicalId":320224,"journal":{"name":"Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124024631","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}

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀