“几乎没有”:女性社会学家与20世纪初中美女性犯罪研究

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Social Science History Pub Date : 2022-11-17 DOI:10.1017/ssh.2022.34
Stephanie M. Montgomery
{"title":"“几乎没有”:女性社会学家与20世纪初中美女性犯罪研究","authors":"Stephanie M. Montgomery","doi":"10.1017/ssh.2022.34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The question of how and why women committed crimes was a topic of hot debate in 1930s Republican China. Although men sociologists during this period largely framed the origins of both men’s and women’s crime as a social issue, they nonetheless still seriously considered biological and physiological factors in women’s motivation for crime. At the same time, women sociologists who authored the two most comprehensive 1930s studies on women’s crime – Zhou Shuzhao and research team Liu Qingyu and Xu Huifang – pushed back on the connections between biology and physiology in relation to crime for both women and men. Instead, they argued unconditionally for the social causes of all crime and particular social challenges for Chinese women. Their methodologies and frameworks were especially influenced by work from the Chicago school of sociology, a department which itself produced a number of prominent women social scientists. This article traces the transnational conversation on women’s crime in Republican China through the work of U.S. sociologists who were cited by Zhou, Liu, and Xu; research by Chinese men sociologists, especially prominent sociologist Yan Jingyue; and finally, Zhou, Liu, and Xu’s own rebuttals, conclusions, and contributions in developing a theory of Chinese women’s crime. By also comparing the work of Chinese and U.S. women social scientists, this article argues that both groups pushed back, with varying strategies, on their men colleagues’ inordinate focus on criminalized women’s biology and physiology. In this way, both Chinese and U.S. women social scientists spoke into a largely male-dominated conversation and provided novel theories of women’s crime as women themselves.","PeriodicalId":46528,"journal":{"name":"Social Science History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Almost None’: Women Sociologists and the Study of Women’s Crime in Early 20th-Century China and the U.S.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie M. Montgomery\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ssh.2022.34\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The question of how and why women committed crimes was a topic of hot debate in 1930s Republican China. Although men sociologists during this period largely framed the origins of both men’s and women’s crime as a social issue, they nonetheless still seriously considered biological and physiological factors in women’s motivation for crime. At the same time, women sociologists who authored the two most comprehensive 1930s studies on women’s crime – Zhou Shuzhao and research team Liu Qingyu and Xu Huifang – pushed back on the connections between biology and physiology in relation to crime for both women and men. Instead, they argued unconditionally for the social causes of all crime and particular social challenges for Chinese women. Their methodologies and frameworks were especially influenced by work from the Chicago school of sociology, a department which itself produced a number of prominent women social scientists. This article traces the transnational conversation on women’s crime in Republican China through the work of U.S. sociologists who were cited by Zhou, Liu, and Xu; research by Chinese men sociologists, especially prominent sociologist Yan Jingyue; and finally, Zhou, Liu, and Xu’s own rebuttals, conclusions, and contributions in developing a theory of Chinese women’s crime. By also comparing the work of Chinese and U.S. women social scientists, this article argues that both groups pushed back, with varying strategies, on their men colleagues’ inordinate focus on criminalized women’s biology and physiology. In this way, both Chinese and U.S. women social scientists spoke into a largely male-dominated conversation and provided novel theories of women’s crime as women themselves.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2022.34\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2022.34","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在20世纪30年代的民国时期,女性如何犯罪以及为什么犯罪是一个热门话题。尽管这一时期的男性社会学家在很大程度上将男性和女性犯罪的起源视为一个社会问题,但他们仍然认真考虑了女性犯罪动机中的生物学和生理因素。与此同时,撰写了20世纪30年代关于女性犯罪的两项最全面研究的女性社会学家——周树照和研究团队刘庆余和徐惠芳——反驳了生物学和生理学与女性和男性犯罪之间的联系。相反,他们无条件地为所有犯罪的社会原因和中国女性面临的特殊社会挑战辩护。他们的方法和框架尤其受到芝加哥社会学学院的影响,该学院本身培养了许多杰出的女性社会科学家。本文通过周、刘、徐引用的美国社会学家的著作,追溯民国时期关于女性犯罪的跨国对话;中国男性社会学家,特别是著名社会学家严景岳的研究;最后,周、刘、徐对中国妇女犯罪理论的反驳、结论和发展贡献。通过比较中国和美国女性社会科学家的工作,这篇文章认为,这两个群体都以不同的策略反驳了他们的男同事过度关注被定罪的女性生物学和生理学。通过这种方式,中国和美国的女性社会科学家都进入了一个以男性为主的对话,并提供了关于女性犯罪的新颖理论。
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
‘Almost None’: Women Sociologists and the Study of Women’s Crime in Early 20th-Century China and the U.S.
Abstract The question of how and why women committed crimes was a topic of hot debate in 1930s Republican China. Although men sociologists during this period largely framed the origins of both men’s and women’s crime as a social issue, they nonetheless still seriously considered biological and physiological factors in women’s motivation for crime. At the same time, women sociologists who authored the two most comprehensive 1930s studies on women’s crime – Zhou Shuzhao and research team Liu Qingyu and Xu Huifang – pushed back on the connections between biology and physiology in relation to crime for both women and men. Instead, they argued unconditionally for the social causes of all crime and particular social challenges for Chinese women. Their methodologies and frameworks were especially influenced by work from the Chicago school of sociology, a department which itself produced a number of prominent women social scientists. This article traces the transnational conversation on women’s crime in Republican China through the work of U.S. sociologists who were cited by Zhou, Liu, and Xu; research by Chinese men sociologists, especially prominent sociologist Yan Jingyue; and finally, Zhou, Liu, and Xu’s own rebuttals, conclusions, and contributions in developing a theory of Chinese women’s crime. By also comparing the work of Chinese and U.S. women social scientists, this article argues that both groups pushed back, with varying strategies, on their men colleagues’ inordinate focus on criminalized women’s biology and physiology. In this way, both Chinese and U.S. women social scientists spoke into a largely male-dominated conversation and provided novel theories of women’s crime as women themselves.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Social Science History seeks to advance the study of the past by publishing research that appeals to the journal"s interdisciplinary readership of historians, sociologists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, and geographers. The journal invites articles that blend empirical research with theoretical work, undertake comparisons across time and space, or contribute to the development of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. Online access to the current issue and all back issues of Social Science History is available to print subscribers through a combination of HighWire Press, Project Muse, and JSTOR via a single user name or password that can be accessed from any location (regardless of institutional affiliation).
期刊最新文献
Income Mobility before Industrialization: Evidence from South Africa’s Cape Colony Legal Boundaries, Organizational Fields, and Trade Union Politics: The Development of Railway Unions in the US and the UK Why so antisocial? Football ultras, crowd modalities, and atmospherics of discontent in public space The Cold War from the Global South: Maoism and the Future of Liberalism Mosaic Database: Consolidation, Innovation, and Challenges in the Comparative Family Demography of Historical Europe
×
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