sociologist sociologist怎么记忆

为了帮助大家备考托福阅读，提高成绩，下面我给大家带来托福阅读TPO13(试题+答案+译文)第1篇:Types of Social Groups，希望大家喜欢!

sociologist sociologist怎么记忆

托福阅读原文

Life places us in a complex web of relationships with other people. Our humanness arises out of these relationships in the course of social interaction. Moreover, our humanness must be sustained through social interaction—and fairly constantly so. When an association continues long enough for two people to become linked together by a relatively stable set of expectations, it is called a relationship.

People are bound within relationships by two types of bonds: expressive ties and instrumental ties. Expressive ties are social links formed when we emotionally invest ourselves in and commit ourselves to other people. Through association with people who are meaningful to us, we achieve a sense of security, love, acceptance, companionship, and personal worth. Instrumental ties are social links formed when we cooperate with other people to achieve some goal. Occasionally, this may mean working with instead of against competitors. More often, we simply cooperate with others to reach some end without endowing the relationship with any larger significance.

Sociologists have built on the distinction between expressive and instrumental ties to distinguish between two types of groups: primary and secondary. A primary group involves two or more people who enjoy a direct, intimate, cohesive relationship with one another. Expressive ties predominate in primary groups; we view the people as ends in themselves and valuable in their own right. A secondary group entails two or more people who are involved in an impersonal relationship and have come together for a specific, practical purpose. Instrumental ties predominate in secondary groups; we perceive people as means to ends rather than as ends in their own right. Sometimes primary group relationships evolve out of secondary group relationships. This happens in many work settings. People on the job often develop close relationships with coworkers as they come to share gripes, jokes, gossip, and satisfactions.

A number of conditions enhance the likelihood that primary groups will arise. First, group size is important. We find it difficult to get to know people personally when they are milling about and dispersed in large groups. In small groups we have a better chance to initiate contact and establish rapport with them. Second, face-to-face contact allows us to size up others. Seeing and talking with one another in close physical proximity makes possible a subtle exchange of ideas and feelings. And third, the probability that we will develop primary group bonds increases as we have frequent and continuous contact. Our ties with people often deepen as we interact with them across time and gradually evolve interlocking habits and interests.

Primary groups are fundamental to us and to society. First, primary groups are critical to the socialization process. Within them, infants and children are introduced to the ways of their society. Such groups are the breeding grounds in which we acquire the norms and values that equip us for social life. Sociologists view primary groups as bridges between individuals and the larger society because they transmit, mediate, and interpret a society's cultural patterns and provide the sense of oneness so critical for social solidarity.

Second, primary groups are fundamental because they provide the settings in which we meet most of our personal needs. Within them, we experience companionship, love, security, and an overall sense of well-being. Not surprisingly, sociologists find that the strength of a group's primary ties has implications for the group's functioning. For example, the stronger the primary group ties of a sports team playing together, the better their record is.

Third, primary groups are fundamental because they serve as powerful instruments for social control. Their members command and dispense many of the rewards that are so vital to us and that make our lives seem worthwhile. Should the use of rewards fail, members can frequently win by rejecting or threatening to ostracize those who deviate from the primary group's norms. For instance, some social groups employ shunning (a person can remain in the community, but others are forbidden to interact with the person) as a device to bring into line individuals whose behavior goes beyond that allowed by the particular group. Even more important, primary groups define social reality for us by structuring our experiences. By providing us with definitions of situations, they elicit from our behavior that conforms to group-devised meanings. Primary groups, then, serve both as carriers of social norms and as enforcers of them.

托福阅读试题

1.The word “complex”(Paragraph 1)in the passage is closest in meaning to paragraph 1, which of the following is true of a relationship?

A. It is a structure of associations with many people.

B. It should be studied in the course of a social interaction.

C. It places great demands on people.

D. It develops gradually overtime.

3.The word endowing in the passage(Paragraph 2)is closest in meaning to

A.leaving

B.exposing

C. providing

D. understanding

4.Which of the following can be inferred about instrumental ties from the author's mention of working with competitors in paragraph 2?

A. Instrumental ties can develop even in situations in which people would normally not cooperate.

B.Instrumental ties require as much emotional investment as expressive ties.

C. Instrumental ties involve security, love, and acceptance.

D.Instrumental ties should be expected to be significant.

5.According to paragraph 3, what do sociologists see as the main difference between primary and secondary groups?

A.Primary groups consist of people working together, while secondary groups exist outside of work settings.

B. In primary groups people are seen as means, while in secondary groups people are seen as ends.

C. Primary groups involve personal relationships, while secondary groups are mainly practical in purpose.

D.Primary groups are generally small, while secondary groups often contain more than two people.

6.Which of the following can be inferred from the author's claim in paragraph 3 that primary group relationships sometimes evolve out of secondary group relationships?

A.Secondary group relationships begin by being primary group relationships.

B.A secondary group relationship that is highly visible quickly becomes a primary group relationship.

C.Sociologists believe that only primary group relationships are important to society.

D. Even in secondary groups, frequent communication serves to bring people into close relationships.

7.The phrase “size up” in the passage(Paragraph 4)is closest in meaning to

A.enlarge

B.evaluate

C. impress

D. accept

8.Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence(Paragraph 5)in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

A.Sociologists think that cultural patterns establish connections between the individual and the larger society.

B.Sociologists believe that individuals with a sense of oneness bridge the gap between society and primary groups.

C.Sociologists think primary groups contribute to social solidarity because they help maintain a society's cultural patterns.

D.Sociologists believe that the cultural patterns that provide social solidarity arise as bridges from primary groups.

9.This passage is developed primarily by

A.drawing comparisons between theory and practice

B.presenting two opposing theories

C.defining important concepts and providing examples of them

D.discussing causes and their effects

10.The word “deviate” in the passage(Paragraph 7)is closest in meaning to

A.detract

B.advance

C.select

D.depart

11.According to paragraph 7, why would a social group use shunning?

A.To enforce practice of the kinds of behavior acceptable to the group

B.To discourage offending individuals from remaining in the group

C.To commend and reward the behavior of the other members of the group

D.To decide which behavioral norms should be passed on to the next generation

12. Look at the four squares [■] that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage. Where would the sentence best fit? Look at the four squares [■] that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage. People who do not live alone, for example, tend to make healthier life choices and develop fewer pathologies than people who live by themselves. Where would the sentence best fit?

Second, primary groups are fundamental because they provide the settings in which we meet most of our personal needs. ■【A】Within them, we experience companionship, love, security, and an overall sense of well-being. ■【B】Not surprisingly, sociologists find that the strength of a group's primary ties has implications for the group's functioning. ■【C】For example, the stronger the primary group ties of a sports team playing together, the better their record is. ■【D】

13.Directions: Complete the table below by selecting three answer choices that are characteristics of primary groups and two answer choices that are characteristics of secondary groups. This question is worth 3 points.

A.Developing socially acceptable behavior

B. Working together against competitors

C.Experiencing pressure from outside forces

D.Viewing people as a means to an end

E.Existing for practical purposes

F.Providing meaning for life situations

G.Involving close relationships

1 )

Primary Groups

A B C D E F G

2 )

Secondary Groups

A B C D E F G

托福 阅读答案复杂的，所以B的elaborate正确。原句说生活把我们放在什么样的与其他人的关系网中，因为很多人，所以关系网比较复杂正确。A的delicate脆弱的，纤细的，美味的;C的私人和D的普通都不靠谱

2.以relationship做关键词定位至最后一句，注意relationships不能做关键词，因为多次重复出现。原句说当这种association持续的时间足够长以至于两个人之间已经形成了稳定的expectation，就叫relationship，所以D说随时间develop正确。A的many people，B的study，C的demand都没说

3.endow赋予，捐助，所以provide提供，供给正确。原句说有时候我们与其他人合作只是做完某事，却没有任何significance，猜到这个词应该是有的意思，只有provide和leave表示有，但leave是剩下，所以不对。至于B暴露D理解完全不对

4.以competitor做关键词定位至倒数第二句，说偶尔这意味着与竞争对手合作而非竞争，而这个this意味着这句话跟前一句有联系。前一句说instrumental ties是我们在与别人合作达到某种目的的时候形成的，这与A说的通常不合作的人也有形成instrumental完全一样。B没说，C与原文的第三句说反，D与原文最后一句说反

5.分别以primary group和secondary group做关键词定位至第二句和第四句，分别说了两个group，primary的是比较亲密的，secondary是因为事先某种共同的目的才形成的，所以答案是C。A错，不是用work来区分这两个group的;两者同样不是以人数区分的，所以D错;C的end不end是原文在后面才说的，也不能区分这两个group

6.以evolve out of做关键词定位至倒数第三句，但这句话跟问题几乎是完全一样的，所以不是答案。往后看，this标示着上下句之间有联系。下句说这种evolve发生在工作背景下，接着说同事之间可以通过share各种东西变成非常亲密的朋友，也就是secondary变primary 的一个例子，所以正确答案是D。A说反;B和C均没说而且C有违常识

7.size up估量，估计，所以正确答案是B的evaluate。原句说面对面交流使得我们能够怎么样别人，评价别人是正确的。A的扩大别人明显是不对的。原文没说接受别人，也没说给别人留下印象，所以都不对

8.原文的结构是sociologist把primary group看成blabla，因为blabla。只有C表达了原因，A缺了原文的很多信息，错;B和D都缺失了原文很重要的because部分，所以都是错的

9.问本文的组织结构，问全文的题应该多关注各段的开头。原文首先提出了两个关系，然后又说expressive tie和instrumental tie，最后又说了primary group产生的条件。叙述两类关系用的笔墨明显不等，所以不是对比，所以B不对，A的理论和实践原文完全没说，而且也说到了对比，也不对;D的因果是原文完全没说的。作者定义了两个group和两个tie，所以C说定义概念是对的，而且作者在定义概念之后都有解释，所以C正确

10.deviate偏离，出轨，所以正确答案是D的depart偏离。原句说一旦奖励不行，group的成员可以威胁排斥那些怎么样规则的人，肯定是对规则不好的人，所以advance和中性的select不对;detract表示减损或者转移，跟depart所表示的离经叛道是两个意思，所以不对

11.以shunning做关键词定位至第四句，说人们会用shunning吧离经叛道的人弄回来，但没给出原因。这句中的for example说明是上句的例子，前面一句说如果奖励不行，我们就排斥那些不守规矩的人，所以一切都是为了强化规则，答案是A。B说不鼓励冒犯group当中的人，原文没说冒犯人;C的reward和D的next generation都没说

12.两个过渡点，分别是连词for example和名词healthier life choices，根据for example排除C和D，因为原文也有for example，而正常说话的时候两个for example是不连续使用的;而且根据healthier life choices跟原文中sense of well-being的同义替换也可以确定是A或者B，但A点后的them与前文衔接紧密，所以答案是B

13.此题不典型，因为作者用了 文章 的第四到七段较大篇幅讲primary，却只用了第二和第三段的部分讲到secondary，而且本文对于两个group的叙述存在交叉，交叉的部分主要在第二三两段，但这两段的叙述也是先primary后secondary，所以顺序性还是有的。第三段的四五两句分别对应existing和viewing两个答案，所以这两个答案属于secondary;第二段和第三段的第三句对应providing答案，第三段第二句对应involving答案，最后一段的第三句和第四句对应developing选项，结合11题的答案很容易选出这项

托福阅读译文

我们和他人一起生活在一个复杂的关系网中。我们的人性就产生于这种社会性的互动关系中，与此同时，我们的人性也必须通过经常性的社会互动才能得以维持。当两个人在比较稳定的期望值下的交流时间足够长并且形成一种联系时，这种联系就可以称为关系。

人与人之间的关系可以分为两种：情感纽带和工具纽带。情感纽带是当我们做情感投资并致力于他人的一种社会关系。通过和对我们来说十分重要的人交流从而得到安全感、爱情、认同、友谊以及个人价值等一系列情感。工具纽带是我们为达到某种目的而与他人进行合作时产生的社会联系方式。有些时候，这也许意味着变相与竞争者共事。更多的时候我们没有发展出任何更有意义的关系而只是简单的与他人合作达成目的。

社会学家基于情感纽带与工具纽带区别，将社会群体划分成两类：主要群体和次要群体。一个主要群体包含两个以上成员，他们彼此之间的关系是直接的,亲密的,聚合性的。情感纽带在主要社群中起主导作用，我们把人们自身看做目标和人们自己权利的价值。次要群体也是由两个以上成员组成，他们因非个人关系聚到一起都是为了一个特定的,实际的目标而努力。工具纽带在次要群体中起了重要的作用。我们把人自身看做是人目标的途径而不是人们自己权利的目标。有时主要群体的关系也会在次要群体中演化而来。这种现象在工作环境中时有发生。工作伙伴在共事过程中会彼此分享抱怨、玩笑、八卦以及满足感，由此也会发展出亲近的关系。

很多情况也会增加主要群体出现的可能性。首先，群体的规模非常重要。我们很难去了解那些散布在大群体中的某个人。而在小群体中我们有更多机会发起联系并与他人建立关系。第二，面对面的交流能让我们更好地了解彼此。与他人近距离接触和交谈可以更好地交流情感和思想。第三，频繁持续的交流也能增加我们发展主要群体的可能性。我们与他人的联系会随着我们与他人的互动时间而加深，并逐渐演化出连锁的习惯和兴趣。

主要群体是人与人之间乃至整个社会的基础。首先，主要群体在社会化进程中至关重要。在主要群体里，婴儿与孩童可以学习处世方式。这种群体是我们社会生活必备规范和价值的培养地。社会学家将主要群体比作独立个体与整个社会之间的桥梁，因为它能传达,调解并解读一个社会的 文化 模式，提供一种归属感有助于社会团结。

其次，主要群体之所以是基础是因为它能提供满足我们大多数人需求的环境。在主要群体中，我们可以收获友情、爱情、安全感以及所有幸福的情感。社会学家发现一个群体的主要纽带的强弱往往暗示着这个群体的功能，这不足为奇。例如，一个体育团队的主要群体纽带越强，他们就越容易取得好成绩。

第三，主要群体之所以是基础还因为他们充当了强有力的社会调控工具。群体中的成员掌控并分配能够维持我们生存的极其重要的资源。如果奖励方式不当，群体内成员就会通过拒绝或威胁来摒弃那些背离群体规范的人，例如，一些社会群体采取规避 措施 (人可以留在群体中，但禁止其他成员与其交流)，从而将特定群体中逾矩的个体慢慢同化与他人一致。更重要的是，主要群体通过构筑我们的 经验 来定义社会现实。他们根据我们的行为来定义我们的处境，以遵循群体分配的意义。因此，主要群体既是社会规范的载体同时也是社会规范的实施者。

100多年前，美国社会学家W·E·B·杜波依斯担心种族正在被用来从生物学层面解释他所理解的不同人群之间的社会和文化差异。

More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for whathe understood to be social and cultural differences between differentpopulations of people.

他表示，文化差异曾令他震惊。但这位本科生现在通过Skype与他的前中国同事保持联系，并将这份工作视为我有生以来最棒的经历。

He says the cultural difference was a shock. But the undergraduate now keeps in touch with his former Chinese colleagues over Skype and sees it as the best experience I ever had.

诺贝尔文学奖评选结果反映的文化差异性分析

The Cultural Diversities That Reflected in the Nobel Prize of Literature

文化差异与高等教育评估中介机构的模式选择

Cultural Difference and the Modes of Higher Education Intermediary Evaluation Organizations

有时引文不了解文化差异会引起种种误解。

Sometimes misunderstanding arises owing to the ignorance of culturaldifferences.

Religion comes from either relegere (meaning to read or pursue together; the same root goes to legible and intelligent) or (much more likely and generally accepted) from relegare (to tie back, to bind fast); hence a religious man used to mean a monk tied by his vows; and the words ligament and ligature go back to the same root. For the Romans it meant being tied back, staying connected with ancestral customs and beliefs, a kind of loyalty; for the Christians the word would originally have meant being tied back, connected to God. However, the word used in Arabic and therefore in Islamic literature is ‘din’. In its literal usage, ‘din’ means obedience, being in debt, restoring one’s rights, adopting as a habit, forcing, calling to account, managing, rewarding or punishing, serving, lending and so on. Muslim theologians have described ‘din’ as the set of principles revealed by God through Prophets so that mankind should follow by free will in order to acquire happiness in both worlds.

The concept of religion may be viewed from two perspectives: the human or the Divine. The followers of the great world religions take religion to be God-revealed principles, values and commandments and therefore do not, in explaining the origin of religion, refer to man. By contrast, the modern Western imputes the origin of religion to man and then seeks to explain it away according to the different science of man — anthropology or sociology or psychology.

The reason why the modern Western way of thinking has developed in favor of a materialistic world-view

The still dominant attitudes among Westerners do not, unfortunately, allow them to regard Islam as a revealed religion and therefore what is understood by religion in the West is usually religion — the form into which it evolved in Christianity. The Qur’an (3.50) affirms that Jesus Christ came to restore the laws of the Torah, with the exception of making some unlawful things lawful: “And (I have come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me.” It is possible to find the same in the Gospels. For example, in Matthew 5.17, Jesus declares: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (of Moses — American Bible Society) and the teachings of the Prophets. I have come not to do abolish them but to fulfil them (Gideons International) — to make their teachings come true (American Bible Society); to complete or perfect them (Bible Society, Turkish edition).” However, St Paul promoted his mission by separating the message of Jesus from its relationships and its origins in the religion and the Law of the Jews — and the Law has the same shaping and containing function for religion as the skin of a man has for his body — and thereby paved the way to the wedding of Christianity with Roman laws and rites and its development as a religion focused on the Kingdom of God in the next world, relegating nature and this world to a lesser (eventually seen as a secular) domain. That is part of the reason why the modern Western way of thinking has developed in favor of a materialistic world-view, rejecting the Divine origin of religion.

Western views of religion

According to the assumptions of modern Western thinking, humanity is in a continuous irresistible and irreversible flow or movement toward what is better. During this ‘progress’, it has gone through certain stages of intellectual and civilizational development. Among others also studying the origins of religion, anthropologists have concentrated on the theory of the evolution of religion and reached different conclusions. For Frazer (1854-1941) the origin was magic, for Taylor it was animism, for Schmidt it was original monotheism, and for others it was pre-animism, totemism, fetishism, or polytheism. Later anthropologists concentrated on rather the role of the religion in society than its origin. While social anthropologists saw religion as part of society and concentrated on field studies of particular tribes, or the analysis of myth, ritual and symbol, the cultural anthropologists saw it as a set of beliefs, rites and institutions.

In order to illustrate the differences of opinion that arise among those who, from within ignorance or other limitations, offer their definition of a matter, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi, a famous Muslim Sufi of the 13th century, made this analogy: some blind persons encounter an elephant and, on touching different parts of the animal’s body, offer their partial, inept and contradictory definitions of an elephant: one finds it to be a heavy, thick column, another a hard, flexible pipe, and so on. This is what those who try to explain the origin of religion have achieved in the West. Just as the anthropologists drew different conclusions, sociologists also put forward different opinions about the origin of religion.

The sociology of religion found its leading analysts in Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Max Weber (1864-1920). The former stressed the social functions of religion as a stabilizing factor created by society as a means of expressing its ideals and unifying itself. Weber, more dynamic and positive about religion, saw religion’s prophetic side as an instrument for shaping and changing society and tried to work out what aspect of Western religious attitudes or culture shaped the formation of capitalism. Other sociologists focused more on particular religious groups and institutions.

The psychology of religion centers upon the individual and his or her religious experience. One of the main exponents of the psychology of religion was William James (1842-1910). He described the religion of the healthy-minded and the sick soul, the religion of the once-born and the twice-born, and the psychological basis of prayer, meditation, mysticism, and conversion. Freud, whose research was based on theories of infantile sexuality and who, despite opposition from friends, patients and medical colleagues, continued to develop these theories, emphasized the importance of childhood sexual experiences and regarded religion as necessary illusions (delusions) and projections. He also argued that dreams, like neuroses, were disguised manifestations of repressed sexual desires. More recent work in the psychology of religion has centered upon questions about how different religious people or institutions are, and upon analysis of what mature religious faith is, what the spiritual potentialities of human nature are, and what the stages are of religious development in children and adults.

The common denominator Western analysis of religion is that religion was invented by man as a result of either projecting repressed desires or weaknesses or of individual or collective efforts to systematize the beliefs and rites of particular communities. The corollary is that, as science develops, man will no longer have any need for religion and religion, which is, according to Feuerbach, a dogma contradicted by fire and life insurance policies, by railways and steam-ships, by modern military and industrial schools, by the theatres and science museums of modern society, and, according to Marx (1818-1883), is the opiate of the masses, will inevitably become a thing of the past. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) divides human history into three eras. The first era is the period of religion, when man lived a primitive life, in fear of natural events and forces, and needed to believe in a supreme being. The second era is the period of metaphysics, when man reached a considerable level of intellectual maturity. And the last era is the period of science, when there is no room (or need) for religion, because reason and science will solve all the problems of man. Some people may well continue to follow a reduced religion, comprising very basic moral and spiritual principles, in order to satisfy their emotional and spiritual needs and lead an upright life. But religion should not transgress its limits, and must not interfere in the collective, especially political, life of society. According to Ferdinand Buisson, the 19th century-French thinker, the secular approach to life will not wipe out religion altogether but will considerably diminish it, and destroy the force of its dogmas and the basis of its doctrines.

Before proceeding to criticize Western views of religion, we should give a summary of some other definitions of religion by Western thinkers or philosophers:

According to Hegel (1770-1830), religion is a certain view of the universe. Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), one of the Italian followers of Hegel, defines religion as a philosophy that is incomplete. Kant (1724-1804) deals with religion from the viewpoint of social morality and thinks that religion in practice is seeing all of our responsibilities as if Divine ordinances. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) sees religion is no more than a feeling or excitement, an emotion or noble sentiment, felt for eternity. While rejecting the social and political role of religion, Schleiermacher describes the spirit or essence of religion as an intuitive knowledge of the highest values in life and of the metaphysical dimension of existence. According to Ralph Otto, a contemporary theologian, religion is a mysterious fear combined with awe which both causes man to tremble and yet attracts him to itself. The definition of Emile Boutroux is one of the most complete: Religion is that faith and feelings demand their right besides the scientific view.

How can we criticize modern Western views of religion?

The positivistic view of religion adhered to by modern Western attitudes, directed by the dogmas of science and technology, is highly questionable. The positivist line which regards the sociological, economic, military and political level of the West as the final level mankind can attain has been severely criticized by even Western thinkers. In addition to the existentialistic tension and anxiety, Auguste Comte’s attempt, toward the end of his life — despite his view of religion as a mode of thinking or being that belongs to the second (long past) era of human history — to establish a humanistic religion shows that religion is not something to be denied or dismissed as belonging to some long past phase of human development. Also, despite the huge recent advances in science and technology, the extreme sexual freedom, the high standard of living and the high levels of education, there is a growing interest in and turning towards religion throughout the world. We have seen the emergence of new, primitive religions such as devil worship, the seeking of contentment through authentic or false supernormal phenomena such as telepathy, necromancy, sorcery and fortune-telling. Moreover, as Erich Fromm puts it, we still see the pursuit of security and guarantees for the future through increased association with insurance companies, trade unions, mighty governments, holdings and pacts. We have seen the collapse of Communist systems and return to religion in once Communist countries. All these show that the theories that religion was the product or projection or delusion of primitive men or infantile sexuality or regressed sexual desires, that people first created primitive, polytheistic religions and then evolved them into monotheism, that religion has been replaced (or contradicted) by fire and life insurances, by the reliability of railways, steam-ships, etc., and expelled from the galleries of he modern arts and sciences, etc, and that there would no longer be any need for religion, and that religion is the opium of people — have been proved false. And these events and trends also demonstrate that, whether sociological or anthropological or psychological, the studies of religion in the West are based on wrong premises.

Whereas religion is a rising value in the world and more and more people turn to it everyday, modern Western civilization is severely questioned and shows signs of inward decay, while outwardly at the peak of its dominion. Having lived through the first quarter of the century, Oswald Spengler, a famous German sociologist, prophesied the collapse of this civilization with all its skyscrapers, huge metropolises and railways and foretold that it would be an ethnographic museum. ‘Refined’ Western intellectuals and scientists such as Rene Guenon, Alexis Carrel, Max Planck, Pasternak, James Jeans and Schwartz, have argued that by means of religion humanity would live another era of happiness. Also, as stated above, the re-emergence of missionary churches in increasing numbers in Christendom and the return to Islamic values all over the Muslim world despite the stern measures taken against Islam by native governments for several decades, demonstrate that it is almost impossible to defeat religion.

社会学家英文是sociologist。

费孝通从事社会学、人类学研究，写下了数百万字的著作。费孝通在其导师马林诺夫斯基指导下完成了博士论文《江村经济》，该书被誉为“人类学实地调查和理论工作发展中的一个里程碑”，成为国际人类学界的经典之作。费孝通先后对中国黄河三角洲、长江三角洲、珠江三角洲等进行实地调查，提出既符合当地实际，又具有全局意义的重要发展思路与具体策略。同时，开始进行一生学术工作的总结，提出并阐述了“文化自觉”的重大命题，并出版有《行行重行行》、《学术自述与反思》、《从实求知录》等著作，被誉为中国社会学和人类学的奠基人之一。

社会理论当中常常用一些抽象和甚至复杂理论框架来解释和分析社会样式和宏观社会结构。社会理论总跟经典的学科有一个令人不安的关系，就是大部分的重要社会学家从未担任大学职务。现今社会理论被认为社会学分支，涉足多个科学区域譬如人类学、经济、神学、历史等等。跟客观的自然科学不同，社会理论家很少使用科学方法及其他事证方式来证明论点。反而，他们面对非常大型的社会走势时候都使用一些假说。可是，这些假说需要很长的时间来证明。这正是反对者所批评的重点。对于解构主义者及后现代主义者，他们更质疑所有的研究及方法都是错误地承袭下来。很多时候，社会理论被认定为不可证明的。

社会学家英文是sociologist

社会学家是一种观察和分析社会的方式，他是一个研究者，进行一些研究来理解并解释他所生存的这个社会，或其他社会。

这要求他进行多年的社会学研究。社会学家是一种职业，就像Bourdieu, Passeron et Chamboredon所描述的那样，他描写、思考社会而且进行思考和分析工作。

代表

编辑 播报

奥古斯特·孔德（Auguste Comte）

埃米尔·涂尔干

赫伯特·斯宾塞

卡尔·马克思

马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)

滕尼斯

齐美尔

卡尔·曼海姆(Karl Mannheim)

帕累托

马林诺夫斯基

斯金纳

威廉·萨姆纳(William Sumner)

威廉·托马斯(William Thomas)

弗洛里安·兹南尼基(F

lorian Zrannecki)

塔尔科特·帕森斯(Talcott Parsons)

默顿(Robert King Merton)

斯梅尔瑟

甘斯

米尔斯

米德

刘易斯·科塞

霍曼斯

布劳

爱默生

欧文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)

舒茨

哈罗德·加芬克尔

阿多诺

埃里希·弗洛姆

赫伯特·马尔库塞(Herbert Marcuse)

于尔根·哈贝玛斯(Jurgen Habermas)

米歇尔·福柯

利奥塔

吕西安·斯费兹

布迪厄

安东尼·吉登斯

埃利亚斯

克利福德·格尔茨（文化人类学者，Clifford Geertz）

费孝通等

好多年前，上“社会－文化人类学概论”的时候，曾经就同一个问题把老师从三楼追到了一楼。 ：） 当时觉得“社会”、“文化”、“人类学”这几个概念搁在一起实在是暧昧得很。这东西到底要干嘛？而且更为暧昧的是，教那么课的老师是位知名的sociologist。现在想来，之所以让那位老师当纲那门课的原因，是因为她也教方法课，又主要做定性。在当年anthropologist匮乏以及种种制度非制度的限制下，倒也确实是最合适的人选了。从这一点也能悄悄看出其实社会学定性研究与社会－文化人类学实在是很亲近，大约比跟定量研究要亲近得多得多。

当时老师在课上给的解释大约跟楼上说的差不多。1）传统地来说，人类学关注异文化，社会学关注本文化。这也就是为什么当年马老爷爷在给费孝通先生《江村经济》英文版的序言里说这是人类学研究本文化的里程碑。：） 2）传统地说来，由于人类学研究的是西方的异文化，所以研究主题大多是关于部落、部族这类的非现代，或曰传统，而社会学关注的是现代社会。不过这样的区分毫无疑问是不解答问题的。看经典研究确实如此，比如Geertz对巴厘岛的研究可以完全对号入座。可是Geertz也研究民族国家，主要是印尼的。这可不是什么原始部族。再说异文化。且不说书店里一把一把的 anthropologist们做的中国的乡村研究，一大堆的经典也是关注本文化啊。比如Sahlins研究的食物，可是生活于西方现代社会人们的食物，而不是巴厘人的食物，甚至不是中国人的食物。所以这两点当时实在是不解我之惑。

这个问题的最终在实践中得以解答。曾有机会跟两位anthropologist一起做田野，一起做访谈。呵呵，第一天过去我大约就摸到点学科差异的道道了。田野的大题目是近五十年农村社会变迁。人类学的师长详细地与被访者讨论某一宗教仪式的细节，过去怎么做，现在又是如何，一步一步的，细致入微，把我听傻了。人类学关注的是symbol，透过每一物事看到的主要是意义。而透过同样的物事社会学看到的关键是关系，或曰结构。

打比方说，如果一个sociologist上巴厘去观察斗鸡，他看到的跟Geertz有什么不一样么？

当然我们主要讨论做定性研究的。做定量研究的观察结果也是可预测的，估计可以做个模型告诉我们：性别、宗教信仰、受教育程度、职业、收入、兄弟姐妹人数、兄弟姐妹的序列等等是如何影响一个人对斗鸡的参与的。（呵呵，估计前4个变量都不significiant，后两个也得改为只讨论兄弟。呵呵呵。）

那么一个做定性的，当然我们假定他跟Geertz水平不相上下，那么他也会看到斗鸡的集体整合以及权力结构再生产，那么一个sociologist的特质会体现在什么地方？

我想首先这个sociologist不会专门为斗鸡写一篇论文，斗鸡只会是他关于巴厘岛社会分层与权力结构大讨论中的一个例子。一个不打破常规的事件（斗鸡在巴厘应该算是一个常规事件）在社会学研究中只能作为许多例证中的一个，而不能作为唯一的分析主题。

再则，在这个社会学家笔下，我们大约会丧失许多细节，比如人们的姿态，即便这个sociologist也偏爱“厚描”或曰“深描”。这个sociologist或者会记录下人们的言论，但姿态——嗯，社会学家没有受过专门的训练，大约不能驾驭，而且，嗯，这东西在社会学看来也不甚重要。：）

那么会多什么呢？呵呵，我想这个社会学家大约会给我们提供更多的关于若干斗鸡参与者的个人，主要是指这个人在非斗鸡场景中所处的位置。对于人类学来说，每个人都只是文化系统中的无数symbol的综合，日常的社会结构只是symbol的一个注吧。

呵呵，以上是我对社会学以及人类学区分的一点体验。两个学科的交叉实在是很强，做定性的大约没有不读Geertz的，甚至奉其为经典，而且学科的分野很多原本就是constructed的。 ：） 不过天长日久，大家各自都有自个的一套toolkits了，所以说起话来，看起事来，还是很不一样的。即使做同一个东西，还是有分野的。二者写出来的东西一读，大约是立刻能读出来作者是否有人类学背景的。呵呵。这要体会。或者说我有体会，可估计没说清楚。 =_=b 一个办法是把一本人类学的经典和定性研究的经典放在一起读，区别立现，最好是主题相近的。比如林耀华的《金翼》和杨庆堃的 A Chinese Village In Early Communist Transition.

文化人类学与社会学

社会学几乎是与人类同时诞生的。1836年，法国学者孔德领导创立了社会学。然而，关于社会学的定义，至今也没有一个定论。一般地说，社会学是研究社会和社会问题的学科。因此，社会学与文化人类学的关系是十分密切的。

关于文化人类学与社会学的区别，有些人类学家从对象和方法上来驾区分。在内容上，文化人类学倾向于研究其他民族的文化，并做比较研究社会学一般研究本民族的东西。在方法上，社会学有一整套社会调查方法，而人类学则要到一个民族那里去住一段时间。即人类学的实地调查法与社会学的社会调查存在着差异。

然而，从两方面来区分文化人类学与社会学则未免太简单了。事实上，这两大学科群的从那时起病根体现在文化与社会这两个概念的差异上。社会学研究更侧重于研究人与人、群体与群体、个人与群体之间的关系。文化人类学则侧重于研究人与群体的行为。当然，这两大学科研究内容和方法的差别越来越小，现代社会学的发展日益重视文化问题的研究，而文化人类学则开始更多地研究社会问题。不言而喻，社会人类学同社会学的研究更加相近，以至于许多社会人类学家干脆称自己的理论是“比较社会学”。

文化人类学与历史学

文化人类学在某种意义上是人类文化史的研究，它追溯人类起源及其发展的整个历史，因此文化人类学与历史学有着千丝万缕的联系。文化人类学与历史学的主要区别可以概括为：

1、历史学的对象往往偏重特殊性；而文化人类学是关于全人类生活形式的比较研究，侧重于普遍性。

2、历史学注重事件和人物的记载，其研究有时极为详尽和具体；主义传统注重的文化规范研究，视野很少局限于某件事或某个人，比较抽象。

3、历史学涉及的领域极广，甚至细到某个显赫人物的浪漫史；而文化人类学则研究史前社会和当代文化，试图探寻社会间文化差异的根源。

然而，从研究内容上看，历史学和文化人类学的相同点远多于不同点。而且从发展趋势上看，历史学正愈来愈从局部事件的研究向政治史、经济史、思想史及至更为综合的文化史方向发展。历史学的文化意识逐渐增强使之与文化人类学愈来愈接近。

因此，在近期内，历史学与文化人类学之间最显著的差异恐怕仍在研究方法上。历史学工作者研究历史，主要是靠历史记载和文献资料，他们对于时间先后顺序和卸货问题，非常重视。而文化人类学的研究方法则主要是文化人类学家亲自到所硬件 地方去观察、访问和直接参与各种文化活动。根据现有的活的事实、情况和情节，尽可能地记录、保存下来，然后再用各种方法和技术，进行分析、比较和研究，并得出理论评价。简言之，历史学是研究“文化化石”，文化人类学是研究“活的文化化石”。

1 什么是认识论，本体论？ 两者的不同以及什么情况下两者可以合用什么情况下使用必须加以区分 请至少明确举出一名哲学家的观点来支撑你的论证

2 简要概括克拉克关于上帝存在的论证以及休姆的批评论证

philosophy