美国留学生作业代写:爱情问题

2017-02-17 01:35

另一方面，也有丰富的理论来解释“爱情问题”。女性主义对现代爱情的塑造有着巨大的影响。女性主义追求的两性平等在过去的几十年中提出了新的爱情模式。在世界的大部分地区，女性主义已经显示出其巨大的影响力，并取得了彻底的社会变革，如爱情和婚姻。这不仅表现在西方社会，而且在亚洲和非洲。在新中国电影第一百零一提出，后拒绝主人公提出了一百次，女主角开始后悔，但她坚定地抓住机会和权利提出相反的男主人公，最终，她成功了。这里的情节明显证明了女权运动的果实。通过它相对保守的社会逐渐赋予妇女权利索取爱情。为了解释这一现象，我们应该挖掘由女性主义引起的其他事件的相同影响。它实际上与现代化进程相吻合。像进入有偿工作的女性，生育控制的医学的进步，新的工作形式和消费，这些都是女权主义等同于所获得的对爱的解释妇女的螺旋桨。如果这种女性主义被现代化因素所强化，两个人的亲密关系也无法摆脱社会的这种根本影响。吉登斯在亲密关系的转变中提出了许多主题（吉登斯，1992）。在亲密关系的转变中，吉登斯描述了一个概念，纯粹的关系。吉登斯作品中的这个重要概念与现代世界有关。它描述了“一个社会关系进入到自身的利益，什么可以由每个人来自一个持续与另一个；并继续就双方认为每一个人呆在它“提供足够的满足。（吉登斯，1992）。在许多亲密的情境中，一种“纯粹的关系”，特别是以自我为基础的交往，特别是在性或情感质量方面，都是以“纯关系”为标志的。此外，人际关系的民主和宏观的制度秩序都将有利于亲密关系的民主化。伴随着亲密关系的变化，随着亲密关系的不断变化，女性已率先。但人相对落后。吉登斯在另一部作品中解释说：“情感革命者”（吉登斯，1992）。他试图描述女性往往是情感革命的先驱，并给出了社会整体。在现代社会中，亲密关系和性已被隔离。在传统社会中，这种隔离似乎在不同意义上解放。它也可以被归类为一种压制。将从更大的伦理和道德问题情境进行自反的努力为了创造这种“纯净的亲密关系”。这种现代的安排来自于一个试图以自反的方式建构自己和他人的人的尝试。因此，吉登斯的逻辑原因给了我们一个方法来思考爱，它不知何故，不仅是个人的“亲密”，它的亲密，带来了彻底的改变社会。由吉登斯主要表达的齿轮，我们无需等待任何一种形式和社会政治革命来拯救或帮助我们。微妙的革命已经开始在日常生活中，或者说，在个人生活。和那些变换的亲密按物理以及社会变革能够改变社会研究所。因此，作为一个社会的性解放，吉登斯思想可以作为社会生活中更广泛的情感重组的媒介。

美国留学生作业代写:爱情问题

A microscopic perspective of “love issue” may find its advanced explanation in those researches about sociology of emotion. Since the beginning of the emotional sociology, the dichotomy of social and personal has always been controversial and highly discussed (Lupton, 1998). One group scholar may view emotion as inherent, tended to resort to strongly biological explanation, the others always try to reach the answer in a more sociological explanation. This personal origin of emotion gives the microscopic perspective. Thus the emergence of love is the same. Love will consider as the bio-psycho-social junction but not merely just the social construction (Lupton, 1998). The opinion of Lupton try to avoid the separation of the biological and social factors. In the “love issue”, the key concept linked with it is the ‘self’ (Layder, 2004). And the discussion of self here could divide into two dimensions. One dimension of the self issue is the self image that faced by women when they come out the households, namely community, and went into the city or civil society to seek and join the work. The other part self here is about gender. The first part of this self issue formed in the changing similar to the community-to-civil society shifting expounded by Ferdinand Tonnies (Tonnies, 1881). Thus ‘Self’ can be sensed through community or civil society, then this sense could be used to have a effect on the love and intimacy in the social life. This changing is the macro-perspective. But the changing of individual’s self brought by it is quite a micro-perspective. In the society, in the opposite side of the traditional community, people know each other face to face, individual tend to have more odds to deal with the contingency love. As diversity in the sphere of intimacy is now widely recognized and explored (Holstein, 2003). Individualization has become a central concept in theories of social change in late modernity and is one way in which such diversity has been explained (Beck & Gernsheim, 1995). This explanation involves individuals exercising ‘free’ choice within the sphere of intimacy, for example, choosing to live together, choosing to marry, choosing to live together to ‘test’ a relationship prior to marriage. Young women are held by theorists such as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2003) to be at the forefront of the shift towards such choice and subsequent diversity within intimate relationships, due to the increased educational and subsequent occupational opportunities available to them, which free them from traditional gender roles within intimate relationships with men. Young women are not, however, a unitary category, but rather share differences and inequalities, including in terms of their education and employment opportunities, thus raising questions concerning whether and how young women differentiated in this way might ‘do’ such intimate relationships differently. Sociologists thus conducted an empirical study based on interviews with 30 young women, designed to address such questions. Willmot (2007) argued that their different routes through education and employment position. The young women in different settings will provide a conducive and diverse discourse of romance and an opposing discourse of contingency. The other part focus on the gender, mostly try to explain the self image of women influenced by the “social-constructed love”. Women move at least partly outside the household as a aftermath of radical changes in education, occupation, law and family notion and so on. They can no longer rely on men. Very different from the traditional society such like it in the anthropology, women shows no treat as goods swapped between different communities at all. Instead, when women walked out of home a pursuit of autonomy and self-sufficiency is carried by most individuals. Women joined the working start to establish their own career, life expectations and wishes (Beck & Gernsheim, 2002). Women also start to own their right to link with the people they choose be themselves, not just the family members in the past. This individualization absolutely has a strong influence on the coupled identity and the love construction and love perception of daily life. For this issue, Willmot (2007) set out one research to explore the specific interplay between female’s education, career and their intimate relationships with male. She found there are differences. With different routes through education and employment, this issue of love or intimacy may effected by the different settings associated. In Helen’s research, leaving full-time education by the age of 18 tended to mean that intimate relationships were conducted within a special setting. It is a setting which characterized by many factors such as living with parents, geographical stability and so on. All these factors have positive effects on romance. A higher educational situation, however, maybe means that intimate relationships were achieved in a situation that include more geographical mobility, or the tendency for this quality. Willmot (2007) used a discourse in a foucauldian sense, to represent not only the ways of talking about, but also include ways of thinking. This intimacy or love should be practiced. This is illustrated by such intimate practices as ‘testing’ relationships via living together or living with a partner only once married to them. But construction of the coupled identity is not simply left to the two people involved. In some research about the new reality of relationships, like coupling, is reinforced through “objectivities”. Every social relationship requires objectivities. It represents a process by which subjectively experienced meanings become objective to the individual and, in interaction with others, become common property and thereby massively objective. The degree of objectivities will depend on the number and the intensity of the social relationships that are its carriers. The opposite side of romance is the “contingency love”. Contingency is not like romantic love. While romance involves the very notion of foreverness, contingency is lack of such notion. It concerned with love and intimacy being contingent, rather than being simply forever. Such contingency is very close to Giddens’s (1992) “confluent love”. Here he argues that romantic love ideals usually be fragmented under female’s increased autonomy. He connected the confluent love to young females’ rising autonomy which derived from equality or equal opportunities in high education. Thus, the relationship between women’s high education and romantic love could be illustrated. At least, it is obvious that there is a strong link between the education status and the love pattern of young women.The concomitant product here is also Heath’s argument that the higher education is strongly linked with the increased diversity within intimacy. She refers to diversity in the timing of the formation of intimate relationships and families and the emergence of a new type of intimate relationship, straight or gay cross-household relationships and argues that people do not freely choose different types of intimacy (Heath, 1999). That is, rather than individuals all simply exercising ‘free’ choice within the sphere of intimacy, for example, choosing to live together, choosing to marry, choosing to live together to ‘test’ a relationship prior to marriage, different choices are related to different circumstances.