A world from brave to new: Talcott Parsons and the war effort at Harvard University.

This article argues that for Parsons and some of his colleagues at Harvard, the Second World War and the post-war period provided a context in which their work contributed to the transformation from totalitarianism to democracy in Central Europe (especially Germany) and Japan. The various agendas of Parsons' work are shown, supplemented by that of three of his colleagues with whom he collaborated (Gordon W. Allport, Carl J. Friedrich, Clyde Kluckhohn). The immediate effect of this work, for Parsons, however, meant frustration rather than fame, and his eventual reputation, I maintain, came unexpectedly with the third of his three attempts in the immediate post-war period to sum up what he believed were crucial insights that the Second World War had yielded concerning the ways in which sociology could contribute to the analytical understanding of democracy. The significance of this work is that it was both political and scientific. Because of the world situation of the 1940s, when the Holocaust in Germany was the nadir of civilization, Parsons believed that social science could contribute to the cause of making the world safe for future democracy. In the 1940s, this future depended on brave citizens, or such might have been Parsons' worldview. Targets envisaged for the 1950s, then, were community and citizenship in the newly democratic societies such as (West) Germany, the land that defeated Nazism.     

亚威信仰与古代以色列社会——歌德瓦与马克思主义社会学圣经批评

圣经社会学批评是当代影响最大的圣经批评学流派之一,源自现代圣经批评学,但将社会学理论系统地运用到圣经批评中形成圣经社会学批评,则始于上世纪六七十年代。歌德瓦是圣经社会学批评的奠基人之一。他成功地将马克思主义社会学理论引入到圣经批评学之中,重构了以亚威崇拜为中心的古代以色列社会。他从"反抗模式"出发,论述了亚威信仰和崇拜源于受压迫的乡村农牧民,他们平等的社会关系导致了亚威信仰的诞生;亚威崇拜对早期以色列社会的作用不仅产生一套"伦理规范",更是深入社会结构深层的权力象征,在以色列人的社会、经济和文化方面发挥着独特功能,是维系以色列共同体平等的社会关系和抵御外来侵略不可或缺的力量。     

From My Place: Teaching the Holocaust and Judaism at the University of Mississippi Fifty‐Three Years after James Meredith

This essay explores classroom dynamics when students identify and connect their own painful experiences to structural racism or ethnocentrism exhibited in the Holocaust or parts of Jewish history. The intrusion of this proximal knowledge can be an obstacle to student learning. If engaged by professors, however, I argue that proximal knowledge can be a catalyst that promotes learning. Social scientific theory provides a useful lens for helping students to better grasp and contextualize both their old experiences and the new materials that are being taught in the course within the larger structural frames of race, religion, and ethnicity that they have selected, but may not fully appreciate. Reflective guided journaling is an essential part of the learning experience.     

A search for predictive factors in institute supervised cases: a retrospective study of 183 cases from 1959-1966 at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute.

The purpose of this project was to determine if it is possible to predict from the information contained in the write-ups of the preliminary evaluations of patients accepted for Institute supervised analyses those patients who would successfully complete their analyses and those who would not. Three raters independently studied the write-ups of 183 cases treated at the Boston Institute during the period 1959-1966. Each rater filled out a questionnaire of 105 items which were thought to be of possible predictive value. Outcomes were sought from the analysts who treated the patients. 130 outcomes were obtained and revealed that the patients fell into 4 distinctly different outcome groups: (Group 1) those who completed analysis by mutual agreement between the analyst and patient; (Group 2) those who prematurely terminated their analyses against the advice of their analysts; (Group 3) those whose analyses were prematurely interrupted by their analysts; (Group 4) those whose analyses became interminable. Statistical analyses were done to see which of the 105 predictor items distinguished these four distinct outcome groups. Many of the predictor items were not useful because they either showed no variation among patients, or were too often left blank, or were rated with very low interrater agreement. Of the remaining items, we found ten items which did show a highly significant difference between Group 1 patients and those patients in at least one of the other three outcome groups. We found five other predictor items which showed large, although not quite statistically significant, differences between Group 1 and at least one of the other three groups. Of these 15 items, 7 dealt with family history. The others concerned the patient's past history (2), object relationships (2), patient's sex (1), symptomatic state (1), field of endeavour (1), and history of previous psychotherapy (1). We found it made no difference in terms of these 4 outcome groups what the patient's diagnosis was or whether he was a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th supervised case. Among the other negative findings were patient's age and the ability to experience and tolerate felt anxiety. These did not distinguish any of the outcome groups. These findings show that additional predictively useful information is present in the preliminary evaluations of patients already screened and accepted for Institute analysis by trained evaluators. These results suggest that one particularly important area on which to focus future attention is family history.