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,
(5) 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 $750,000.
The transformation in social values implicit in juxta-
posing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana
(10) 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
(15) 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 through-
out society in the iate-nineteenth and early-twentieth
(20) centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations
and compulsory education laws predicated in part on the
assumption that a child’s emotional value made child
labor taboo.
For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were
(25) 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
(30) 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
(35) maintains. “was also part of a cultural process ‘of sacral-
ization’ 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
(40) 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 tradi-
(45) tionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, educa-
tion, and health solely in terms of their economic deter-
minants. 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
(50) 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 “ sur-
(55) render” value on the market, that is, the conversion of
their intangible worth into cash terms, became much
greater.
39. Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?
(A) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the upbringing of their children.
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
(C) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale reappraisal of the worth of an individual
(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.
(E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental-death cases
答 案 D为 什 么 不 对 ？
39.
B is the best answer.
According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological
phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human
behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98) . This
choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash
value of children.
A paraphrases Zelizer’s own explanation, which is at odds with that of the sociological economists.
C uses social values and emotional factors to explain an even broader revaluation of individual
worth. D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work
are the result of a change. E provides a legal explanation for the change.
红 色 部 分 为 什 么 不 行 ？
多 谢 。 比 较 罗 嗦 。 
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-2 21:56:29编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-7-30 09:50:00
楼主
