当代英国的亲属义务:是否存在规范性协议?

Janet Finch, Jennifer Mason
{"title":"当代英国的亲属义务:是否存在规范性协议?","authors":"Janet Finch, Jennifer Mason","doi":"10.2307/591185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the extent to which there is normative agreement in contemporary Britain about the 'proper thing to do' for relatives. Using quantitative survey data generated using the 'vignette technique', the authors assess how far certain policy and sociological assumptions about appropriate kinship obligations hold up to empirical scrutiny. They argue that there is not a straightforward consensus about a set of normative principles but that it is possible to identify patterns of normative agreement. These vary more in line with the circumstances specified in the vignettes than with the social characteristics of the respondents. There is more evidence of a consensus over procedures - that is what factors people should take into account in working out the proper thing to do for relatives - than over the substance of what should be done. The authors conclude that people do not carry around with them stable sets of values and meanings about obligations to kin, but construct them when they have to out of various materials available.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"106","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obligations of kinship in contemporary Britain: is there normative agreement?\",\"authors\":\"Janet Finch, Jennifer Mason\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/591185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the extent to which there is normative agreement in contemporary Britain about the 'proper thing to do' for relatives. Using quantitative survey data generated using the 'vignette technique', the authors assess how far certain policy and sociological assumptions about appropriate kinship obligations hold up to empirical scrutiny. They argue that there is not a straightforward consensus about a set of normative principles but that it is possible to identify patterns of normative agreement. These vary more in line with the circumstances specified in the vignettes than with the social characteristics of the respondents. There is more evidence of a consensus over procedures - that is what factors people should take into account in working out the proper thing to do for relatives - than over the substance of what should be done. The authors conclude that people do not carry around with them stable sets of values and meanings about obligations to kin, but construct them when they have to out of various materials available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of sociology\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"106\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/591185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/591185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 106

摘要

这篇文章探讨了在当代英国对亲属“适当的事情”的规范性协议的程度。通过使用“小插曲技术”生成的定量调查数据,作者评估了有关适当亲属义务的某些政策和社会学假设在多大程度上经得起实证审查。他们认为,对于一套规范原则并没有直接的共识,但有可能识别出规范一致的模式。这些变化更多地与小插曲中指定的情况一致,而不是与受访者的社会特征一致。有更多的证据表明,人们在程序上达成了共识——即人们在为亲属制定适当的事情时应该考虑哪些因素——而不是在应该做什么的实质问题上达成了共识。作者的结论是,人们对亲属的义务并没有固定的价值观和意义,而是在他们不得不用各种可用的材料来构建它们的时候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Obligations of kinship in contemporary Britain: is there normative agreement?
This article explores the extent to which there is normative agreement in contemporary Britain about the 'proper thing to do' for relatives. Using quantitative survey data generated using the 'vignette technique', the authors assess how far certain policy and sociological assumptions about appropriate kinship obligations hold up to empirical scrutiny. They argue that there is not a straightforward consensus about a set of normative principles but that it is possible to identify patterns of normative agreement. These vary more in line with the circumstances specified in the vignettes than with the social characteristics of the respondents. There is more evidence of a consensus over procedures - that is what factors people should take into account in working out the proper thing to do for relatives - than over the substance of what should be done. The authors conclude that people do not carry around with them stable sets of values and meanings about obligations to kin, but construct them when they have to out of various materials available.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Family Life in the Time of COVID: International Perspectives. By TwamleyK., IqbalH., FairclothC., 2023. London: UCL Press. 328 pages, ISBN: 9781800081741 Private spanner in public works? The corrosive effects of private insurance on public life. How moderates make boundaries after protracted conflict. Everyday universalists, agonists, transformists and cosmopolitans in contemporary Northern Ireland “If no one grieves, no one will remember”: Cultural palimpsests and the creation of social ties through rituals “There's just too many”: The construction of immigration as a social problem
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1