Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics
Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0094306113491549n
复制
发表时间：
2013-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paul T. Munroe
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paul T. Munroe
官员，并将他们。我们深入了解中国官僚机构的运作方式，包括普遍使用的贪污，以及基于血缘的亲属关系和民族关系维斯基于纸张的民族和国家成员资格的竞争逻辑。讽刺的是，那些编造亲属关系的人，正是因为他们编造文件来阐明官僚主义的定义和指导方针，比那些不需要这样做的人更有可能成功，因此缺乏官僚主义所要求的准备和准确性。作者让我们看到了朝鲜族、汉族和政府官员的所有方面，以及他们独特的逻辑和做法。除了移民本身，弗里曼不仅描绘了移民留下的城镇和村庄的社会世界，而且描绘了他们发现自己的假定家园。这里有一幅令人心酸的朝鲜夫妇的肖像，他们的配偶是以婚姻或劳工移民的身份移民到韩国的，他们在霍尔斯里自我安慰。灵活的家庭和灵活的婚姻成为一个运动中的社区的命运。韩国也在她的分析目光之下。在一个种族单一的国家里，种族团结的简单假设被无可争议的同种族（以及“假"韩国人）打破了，他们在文化上甚至语言上都不是单一的。随之而来的幻想破灭导致了对同种族移民的限制性甚至惩罚性政策。弗里曼写了一本精彩的书，不仅阐明了韩国和东北亚的复杂动态，而且还阐明了涉及种族认同和国家政策的移民，以及移民，留下和重新建立的家庭，声称和争议的亲属关系，伪造的婚姻，破裂，他们航行的更大的世界。在全球化的时代，对于一个运动中的世界，她正确地在一大片土地上的许多地方进行了实地考察，使用韩国和中国的语言，并在此过程中制作了一本堪称典范的民族志。它很容易是最好的民族志在韩国研究出现在一些年，因此是必不可少的阅读任何人寻求熟悉东北亚，移民，亲属关系，性别，家庭和全球化。它挑战了对这些主题的不自觉的理解--亚洲主义者和人类学家以外的社会科学家也会从阅读和思考中受益。
vince officials and to garner them. We gain insights into the workings of the Chinese bureaucracy, including the prevalent use of graft, as well as the competing logics of blood-based kinship and ethnic ties vis-àvis paper-based ethnic and state membership. Paradoxically, those who fabricate kinship ties, precisely because they manufacture documents to articulate with bureaucratic definitions and guidelines, are more likely to succeed than those who do not need to do so—and hence lack the preparation and the exactitude demanded by bureaucrats. The author allows us to see all sides— Chosŏjok, Han Chinese, and government officials—and their idiosyncratic logics and practices. Beyond the migrants themselves, Freeman delineates the social world not only of the towns and villages the migrants left behind but also the putative homeland in which they find themselves. There is a poignant portrait of Chosŏnjok husband and wives, whose spouses had migrated to South Korea as marriage or labor migrants, consoling themselves in dance halls. Flexible families and flexible marriages become the fate of a community in motion. South Korea too, comes under her analytical gaze. The facile assumption of ethnic solidarity in an ethnically homogeneous country is shattered by the indisputable co-ethnics (as well as ‘‘fake’’ Koreans) who are anything but culturally or even linguistically homogeneous. The consequent disillusionment informs the restrictive and even punitive policy toward co-ethnic migration. Freeman has written a brilliant book that illuminates the complex dynamics not only of South Korea and Northeast Asia but of migration involving ethnic identification and state policy, as well as migrants, families left behind and forged anew, kinship ties claimed and disputed, marriages faked, broken, and made, and the larger world they navigate. For a world in movement, in an age of globalization, she has rightfully conducted fieldwork in many sites over a large landmass, wielding both Korean and Chinese, and in so doing has crafted an exemplary ethnography. It is easily the best ethnography in Korean Studies to appear in some years and is therefore essential reading for anyone seeking to be conversant in Northeast Asia, migration, kinship, gender, family, and globalization. It challenges an unreflexive understanding of these topics—social scientists beyond Asianists and anthropologists would also benefit from reading and pondering it.