2. 职称英语
  3. In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their tw

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their tw

游客2023-12-16  9
问题   In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contribution to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three year old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $750,0O0.
  The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child. During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the "useful" child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the "useless" child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally "priceless." Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws predicated in pan on the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo.
  For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex, The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality, and the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet "expulsion of children from the ’cash nexus,’ ... although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures," Zelizer maintains, "was also pan of a cultural process ’of sacralization’ of children’s lives." Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.
  In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new "sociological economics," who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual "preferences," these sociologists tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their "exchange" or "surrender" value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater. [br] It can be inferred from the passage that accidental-death damage awards in America during the nineteenth century tended to be based principally on the ______.
选项 A、earnings of the person at titan of death
B、wealth of the party causing the death
C、degree of guilt of the party causing the death
D、amount of suffering endured by the family of the person killed
答案 A
解析 推理题，问从文中推断，19世纪时，意外死亡保险在美国一般建立在什么基础上。文中并没有直接提到这方面的内容，但开篇介绍的事例就是一个反例，在这个例子中一个小孩未被赔偿，因为他不能给家里挣钱(since the child had made no real economic contribution to the family, there was no liability for damages.)。所以由此反推，就可以知道当时意外死亡保险的赔付依据是其挣钱的能力。答案A“收入”与此相符。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3277042.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)