PSYCHOLOGY RECONSTRUCTS THE FEMALE 1968–1988

Recent work on the psychology of gender is pluralistic, stemming from varied specialty areas within psychology, grounded in several intellectual frameworks, and reflecting a spectrum of feminist perspectives. This article is a critical appraisal of diverse approaches to the study of women and gender. It first describes prefeminist or womanless psychology, then analyzes four co-existing frameworks that have generated recent research. The four frameworks are: Exceptional Women , in which empirical research focuses on the correlates of high achievement for women, and women's history in the discipline is re-evaluated; Women as Problem (or Anomaly ), in which research emphasizes explanations for female deficiencies (e.g., fear of success); the Psychology of Gender , in which the focus of inquiry shifts from women to gender, conceived as a principle of social organization that structures relations between women and men; and a (currently relatively undeveloped) Transformation framework that reflexively challenges the values, assumptions, and normative practices of the discipline. Examples of research programs within each approach are described, and the strengths and limitations of each approach are critically examined.     

五月风暴与哲学沉思

1968年“五月风暴”不仅早已成为历史（包括思想史）的徽章与历史学的记载对象,而且体现了一种时代精神。可见,回答“什么是五月风暴？”这个问题当然是哲学沉思的一项任务。如果说,启蒙运动的一份珍贵遗产是促使人们对现代性的深刻反思和强力推动,那么,五月风暴则把后现代性推向了一个前所未有的高度,并且秉承启蒙运动发展起来的自由与民主传统。与“启蒙运动”一样,五月风暴能促使一大批法国公共知识分子思考“今日”,激活哲学问题以给出关于哲学的崭新定义,与结构主义思潮产生错综复杂的关系。因此,通过对五月风暴的哲学沉思,我们学会如何理解“我们自身”的现实性和当前危机。     

Federal District Court Decision Making in Public Forum and Religious Speech Cases, 1973–2001

This article investigates federal district court decision making in First Amendment lawsuits concerning religious expression and public forums. As trial courts, district courts are the first to adjudicate claims concerning religious speech in public places and thus they determine whether a public forum is open to expression in general, as well as grant or deny access to that forum for a religious speaker. With a comprehensive database of all district court cases concerning religious expression and public forum doctrine, we use logistic regression to measure the significance of several legal and extra-legal variables in order to explain district court outcomes.