The ideas of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois have long dominated discussions about Black political thought at the turn of the twentieth century. However, little attention has been paid to these thinkers’ implicit commitments to capitalism, which brings their apparently divergent perspectives into closer alignment. Black socialist preacher and former slave George Washington Woodbey’s internationally acclaimed booklet What to Do and How to Do It (1903), which was published the same year as Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk, brings a new perspective to the Du Bois–Washington debate. While the East Coast titans inadvertently recapitulated the capitalist order, Woodbey’s West Coast Christian socialist counterpoint to their secular pro-capitalist assumptions invites new discussions about the period known as both the Progressive Era and the nadir of American race relations, which has ongoing implications for contemporary debates about the intersection of race, religion, and capitalism in the United States.
布克·T·华盛顿和W·E·B·杜波依斯的思想长期以来一直主导着20世纪之交关于黑人政治思想的讨论。然而，很少有人关注这些思想家对资本主义的隐含承诺，这使他们明显不同的观点更加一致。黑人社会主义传教士、前奴隶乔治·华盛顿·伍德贝（George Washington Woodbey）的国际知名小册子《该做什么和如何做》（1903）与杜波依斯的《黑人的灵魂》（the Souls of Black Folk）同年出版，为杜波依斯·华盛顿的辩论带来了新的视角。虽然东海岸的巨人们无意中重述了资本主义秩序，但Woodbey的西海岸基督教社会主义与他们世俗的亲资本主义假设的对立，引发了关于进步时代和美国种族关系最低谷时期的新讨论，这对当代关于种族、宗教、，以及美国的资本主义。
{"title":"The Other Souls of Black Folk: George Washington Woodbey and the Spirit of Socialism","authors":"K. Roy","doi":"10.1086/725851","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725851","url":null,"abstract":"The ideas of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois have long dominated discussions about Black political thought at the turn of the twentieth century. However, little attention has been paid to these thinkers’ implicit commitments to capitalism, which brings their apparently divergent perspectives into closer alignment. Black socialist preacher and former slave George Washington Woodbey’s internationally acclaimed booklet What to Do and How to Do It (1903), which was published the same year as Du Bois’s The Souls of Black Folk, brings a new perspective to the Du Bois–Washington debate. While the East Coast titans inadvertently recapitulated the capitalist order, Woodbey’s West Coast Christian socialist counterpoint to their secular pro-capitalist assumptions invites new discussions about the period known as both the Progressive Era and the nadir of American race relations, which has ongoing implications for contemporary debates about the intersection of race, religion, and capitalism in the United States.","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"319 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42011526","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}
Political theory and related disciplines often carry the assumption that the small-town ideal of community is essentially homogenous and difference denying. Against this widely shared assumption, and by drawing on the work of Wendell Berry and bell hooks, this article argues instead that the small-town ideal of community, when fully adhered to, is one that respects difference, rather than necessitating homogeneity. The flourishing of small-town life requires a recognition of difference akin to Iris Marion Young’s description of “city life and difference.” To make this argument, the article examines both American political thought and recent ethnographic work before developing Berry’s and hooks’s difference-welcoming ideal of “beloved community.”
政治理论和相关学科经常假设小城镇理想的社区本质上是同质和否认差异的。与这一广为流传的假设相反，本文借鉴了温德尔·贝瑞和贝尔·胡克斯的研究成果，认为小镇理想的社区，在完全坚持的情况下，是尊重差异的，而不是必须同质化的。小镇生活的繁荣需要对差异的认识，就像Iris Marion Young对“城市生活和差异”的描述一样。为了论证这一观点，本文考察了美国的政治思想和最近的民族志工作，然后才提出了贝里和胡克斯的“受人爱戴的社区”这一欢迎差异的理想。
{"title":"Small-Town Life and Difference","authors":"Elly Long","doi":"10.1086/725852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725852","url":null,"abstract":"Political theory and related disciplines often carry the assumption that the small-town ideal of community is essentially homogenous and difference denying. Against this widely shared assumption, and by drawing on the work of Wendell Berry and bell hooks, this article argues instead that the small-town ideal of community, when fully adhered to, is one that respects difference, rather than necessitating homogeneity. The flourishing of small-town life requires a recognition of difference akin to Iris Marion Young’s description of “city life and difference.” To make this argument, the article examines both American political thought and recent ethnographic work before developing Berry’s and hooks’s difference-welcoming ideal of “beloved community.”","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"295 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42780531","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":":A Political Economy of Justice","authors":"Brandon Davis","doi":"10.1086/725845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725845","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45208700","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":":Lyman Trumbull and the Second Founding of the United States","authors":"I. Wurman","doi":"10.1086/725849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725849","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45558679","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":":The Death of Learning: How American Education Has Failed Our Students and What to Do about It","authors":"B. Taylor","doi":"10.1086/725854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725854","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60729956","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":":Cords of Affection: Constructing Constitutional Union in Early American History","authors":"Stuart A. Streichler","doi":"10.1086/725847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725847","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42516602","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}
Harry Jaffa is remembered, above all, as a morally earnest man who was alarmed by the specters of relativism, historicism, and nihilism, and who battled to defend the classical idea of natural right (see, e.g., Uhlman et al. 2015; Watson 2015; Fornieri 2016). His defense of classical natural right was anchored in the proposition, held to be self-evident by the American founders, that “all men are created equal.” This, as his interpreters have noted, creates a puzzle (Zuckert 2009). “The defining principle of classical natural right,” C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook write, “is inequality” (Thompson and Brook 2010, 115). Yet Jaffa championed equality and natural right, and he considered the American regime and Abraham Lincoln’s statesmanship in the service of that regime to be quintessential models for the modern recovery of classical natural right. Jaffa’s originality, as Robert Kraynak observed, was “to claim that theDeclaration of Independence, as understood by theAmerican founders and applied by Lincoln, was the best and noblest expression of natural right in themodernworld” (2015, 169). This is the central theme ofCrisis of the House Divided, Jaffa’s magnum opus, a theme he claimed to have developed with more intricacy and complexity in ANew Birth of Freedom, a sequel toCrisis separated in their publication by four decades (Jaffa 2009, viii). Starting with this puzzle—the connection between equality and classical natural right—I briefly retrace central aspects of Jaffa’s argument, in Crisis and New Birth, about the salutary role the idea of natural equality might play in the modern
最重要的是，哈里·雅法被人们铭记为一个道德高尚的人，他对相对主义、历史主义和虚无主义的幽灵感到震惊，并努力捍卫自然权利的经典理念（例如，见，乌尔曼等人2015；沃森2015；福涅里2016）。他对古典自然权利的辩护植根于一个命题，即“人人生而平等”，这一命题被美国创始人认为是不言自明的。正如他的口译员所指出的，这造成了一个难题（Zuckert，2009年）。C.Bradley Thompson和Yaron Brook写道：“古典自然权利的定义原则是不平等”（Thompson and Brook 2010115）。然而，雅法支持平等和自然权利，他认为美国政权和亚伯拉罕·林肯为该政权服务的政治家风度是现代恢复古典自然权利的典型典范。正如Robert Kraynak所观察到的，雅法的独创性是“声称美国建国者理解并由林肯应用的《独立宣言》是现代世界自然权利的最佳和最崇高的表达”（2015169）。这是雅法的代表作《分裂的房子的危机》的中心主题，他在《自由的新诞生》中声称这个主题发展得更加复杂和复杂，这是《危机》的续集，在他们的出版中相隔40年（雅法2009，viii）。从这个谜题开始——平等和古典自然权利之间的联系——我简要回顾了雅法在《危机与新生》中关于自然平等思想在现代社会中可能发挥的有益作用的论点的核心方面
{"title":"Harry Jaffa and the Idea That All Men Are Created Equal","authors":"J. Dyer","doi":"10.1086/724489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724489","url":null,"abstract":"Harry Jaffa is remembered, above all, as a morally earnest man who was alarmed by the specters of relativism, historicism, and nihilism, and who battled to defend the classical idea of natural right (see, e.g., Uhlman et al. 2015; Watson 2015; Fornieri 2016). His defense of classical natural right was anchored in the proposition, held to be self-evident by the American founders, that “all men are created equal.” This, as his interpreters have noted, creates a puzzle (Zuckert 2009). “The defining principle of classical natural right,” C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook write, “is inequality” (Thompson and Brook 2010, 115). Yet Jaffa championed equality and natural right, and he considered the American regime and Abraham Lincoln’s statesmanship in the service of that regime to be quintessential models for the modern recovery of classical natural right. Jaffa’s originality, as Robert Kraynak observed, was “to claim that theDeclaration of Independence, as understood by theAmerican founders and applied by Lincoln, was the best and noblest expression of natural right in themodernworld” (2015, 169). This is the central theme ofCrisis of the House Divided, Jaffa’s magnum opus, a theme he claimed to have developed with more intricacy and complexity in ANew Birth of Freedom, a sequel toCrisis separated in their publication by four decades (Jaffa 2009, viii). Starting with this puzzle—the connection between equality and classical natural right—I briefly retrace central aspects of Jaffa’s argument, in Crisis and New Birth, about the salutary role the idea of natural equality might play in the modern","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"209 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45303855","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}
In my view, Harry V. Jaffa’sCrisis of the House Divided is the most important work of scholarship published in the field of American political thought. The greatness of the book has to do, first, with its discovery of Abraham Lincoln as a serious political thinker and, second, with its positioning Lincoln as a founder superior to the founders of 1776, including even Thomas Jefferson. The latter project required a study of the principles of Jefferson and the other founders in their own right, and Jaffa’s book includes passages that add up to perhaps the best study in that regard too. Chapters 9 and 14 are the sections I have in mind. But the greatness of Jaffa’sCrisis also lies in two other less discussed qualities of the book. One is a mastery of historical context that is rare to find in what would otherwise be a book of political theory. Jaffa likely undertook the work to master the material because he saw this not as a work of political theory or political philosophy but rather as a study of statesmanship. In order to evaluate Lincoln’s statesmanship, Jaffa believed that his reader must be able to understand Lincoln’s choices as Lincoln saw them, which is to say that Jaffa had to make an otherwise obscure history available to his reader. But in order to make this history available, Jaffa had tomaster it. Perhaps historians of the periodwill disagree, but from my vantage point in 2022, the book is a humbling reminder ofwhat intellectual history can and should be. To put it differently, Jaffa’sCrisis demonstrates that scholars working in the history of political thought can do political theory and history at the same time.
{"title":"Jaffa’s Douglas","authors":"Jeremy D. Bailey","doi":"10.1086/724495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724495","url":null,"abstract":"In my view, Harry V. Jaffa’sCrisis of the House Divided is the most important work of scholarship published in the field of American political thought. The greatness of the book has to do, first, with its discovery of Abraham Lincoln as a serious political thinker and, second, with its positioning Lincoln as a founder superior to the founders of 1776, including even Thomas Jefferson. The latter project required a study of the principles of Jefferson and the other founders in their own right, and Jaffa’s book includes passages that add up to perhaps the best study in that regard too. Chapters 9 and 14 are the sections I have in mind. But the greatness of Jaffa’sCrisis also lies in two other less discussed qualities of the book. One is a mastery of historical context that is rare to find in what would otherwise be a book of political theory. Jaffa likely undertook the work to master the material because he saw this not as a work of political theory or political philosophy but rather as a study of statesmanship. In order to evaluate Lincoln’s statesmanship, Jaffa believed that his reader must be able to understand Lincoln’s choices as Lincoln saw them, which is to say that Jaffa had to make an otherwise obscure history available to his reader. But in order to make this history available, Jaffa had tomaster it. Perhaps historians of the periodwill disagree, but from my vantage point in 2022, the book is a humbling reminder ofwhat intellectual history can and should be. To put it differently, Jaffa’sCrisis demonstrates that scholars working in the history of political thought can do political theory and history at the same time.","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"182 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45946423","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}
to say the least. My interests had been—and to some degree still are—in the great tradition of European political philosophy, to which I condescendingly regarded the American contribution as something of an afterthought. This attitude began to change when I took Nathan Tarcov’s class on the American political founding, where we read the classic exchanges between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, as well as key documents of the revolutionary period. It was in this class where I was also introduced to Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic (1969), and Edmund Morgan’s The Birth of the Republic (1977), which for the first time opened my eyes to the philosophic sources of the American Revolution in radical English Whig political theory. At around the same time, I read John Pocock’s magisterial, albeit flawed, TheMachiavellian Moment (1975), which sought to put the American founding period in the long history of republican self-government going back to Machiavelli and before him to Polybius and Aristotle. Suddenly what had previously seemed to me something of an intellectual backwater had become a key moment in the revival of the great tradition of classical republicanism. Shortly thereafter, I was privileged to study with David Greenstone—of blessed memory—in whose class we read Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Here I learned that it was the philosophy of John Locke that formed the philosophic core of American history and that helped to explain why America—at least in the height of the Cold War—seemed uniquely immune to the radical ideologies of both the Left and the Right that had been the legacy of European politics. This to me was a powerful insight and one that
{"title":"Harry, Lincoln, and Me","authors":"Steven R. B. Smith","doi":"10.1086/724493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724493","url":null,"abstract":"to say the least. My interests had been—and to some degree still are—in the great tradition of European political philosophy, to which I condescendingly regarded the American contribution as something of an afterthought. This attitude began to change when I took Nathan Tarcov’s class on the American political founding, where we read the classic exchanges between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, as well as key documents of the revolutionary period. It was in this class where I was also introduced to Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic (1969), and Edmund Morgan’s The Birth of the Republic (1977), which for the first time opened my eyes to the philosophic sources of the American Revolution in radical English Whig political theory. At around the same time, I read John Pocock’s magisterial, albeit flawed, TheMachiavellian Moment (1975), which sought to put the American founding period in the long history of republican self-government going back to Machiavelli and before him to Polybius and Aristotle. Suddenly what had previously seemed to me something of an intellectual backwater had become a key moment in the revival of the great tradition of classical republicanism. Shortly thereafter, I was privileged to study with David Greenstone—of blessed memory—in whose class we read Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Here I learned that it was the philosophy of John Locke that formed the philosophic core of American history and that helped to explain why America—at least in the height of the Cold War—seemed uniquely immune to the radical ideologies of both the Left and the Right that had been the legacy of European politics. This to me was a powerful insight and one that","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"244 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45280347","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}
Harry Jaffa was an intellectual leader of American conservatism, particularly as it developed in the second half of the twentieth century. In 2013, when Jaffa was 94 years old, theNational Review called him “the most important conservative political theorist of his generation” (Miller 2013, 34). When Jaffa died, two years later, his eulogists all echoed that judgment. Charles Kesler, for instance, told theLos Angeles Times that “Harry helped to reshape the American conservative movement” (Woo 2015, B8). Jaffa spoke about himself in similar terms; he described himself as a conservative and talked about his work in terms of building “the conservative movement” (Benson 2012, 23). Most such accounts of Jaffa’s career tie his influence on American conservatism to his reading of Abraham Lincoln, particularly in Crisis of the House Divided. Writing for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward (2015) puts it this way: “It is no exaggeration to say that [Jaffa] singlehandedly caused conservatives to embrace Lincoln after a long period of indifference or even hostility toward the Great Emancipator.” Joseph Fornieri writes that throughout Jaffa’s work, “Lincoln’s statesmanship figures prominently as the gold standard of measurement” for American conservatism (2016, 43). Generally speaking, I agree with these assessments. It would be hard to disagreewith them. Jaffa surely helped to shape the thinking of those calling themselves American conservatives during the second half of the twentieth century, and Jaffa’s reading of Lincoln was a core part of his teaching.
{"title":"Conservatism in Crisis","authors":"Susan McWilliams Barndt","doi":"10.1086/724492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724492","url":null,"abstract":"Harry Jaffa was an intellectual leader of American conservatism, particularly as it developed in the second half of the twentieth century. In 2013, when Jaffa was 94 years old, theNational Review called him “the most important conservative political theorist of his generation” (Miller 2013, 34). When Jaffa died, two years later, his eulogists all echoed that judgment. Charles Kesler, for instance, told theLos Angeles Times that “Harry helped to reshape the American conservative movement” (Woo 2015, B8). Jaffa spoke about himself in similar terms; he described himself as a conservative and talked about his work in terms of building “the conservative movement” (Benson 2012, 23). Most such accounts of Jaffa’s career tie his influence on American conservatism to his reading of Abraham Lincoln, particularly in Crisis of the House Divided. Writing for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward (2015) puts it this way: “It is no exaggeration to say that [Jaffa] singlehandedly caused conservatives to embrace Lincoln after a long period of indifference or even hostility toward the Great Emancipator.” Joseph Fornieri writes that throughout Jaffa’s work, “Lincoln’s statesmanship figures prominently as the gold standard of measurement” for American conservatism (2016, 43). Generally speaking, I agree with these assessments. It would be hard to disagreewith them. Jaffa surely helped to shape the thinking of those calling themselves American conservatives during the second half of the twentieth century, and Jaffa’s reading of Lincoln was a core part of his teaching.","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"233 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43105846","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：