In earlier time periods, the absence of dramatic transition to adult life allowed a more intensive interaction among different age groups within the family and the community, thus providing a greater sense of continuity and interdependence among people at various stages of life. But, as greater differentiation in stages of life began to develop, social and economic functions became more closely related to age, and the ages of family members became more streamlined, a greater segregation between age groups emerged.
The major changes that have led to the isolation of older people in society today were rooted not so much in changes in family structure or residential arrangements, as has generally been argued, as in the transformation and redefinition of family functions and values. Under the impact of industrialization, the family surrendered many of the functions previously concentrated within the household to other social institutions. The retreat and growing privatism of the modern middle-class family led to the drawing of sharper boundaries between family and community and intensified the segregation of different age groups within the family, leading to the elimination of older people from visible family roles. The transfer of social-welfare functions, one concentrated in the family, to institutions in the larger society further contributed to the segregation of older people. The care of dependent, sick, delinquent, and elderly members of the community, which had been considered part of the family’s obligation in the pre-industrial period, was gradually transferred to specialized institution such as asylums and reformatories. The family ceased to be the only available source of support for its dependent members, and the community ceased to rely on the family as the major agency of welfare and social control.
In earlier time periods, the absence of dramatic transition to adult life allowed a more intensive interaction among different age groups within the family and the community, thus providing a greater sense of continuity and interdependence among people at various stages of life. But, as greater differentiation in stages of life began to develop, social and economic functions became more closely related to age, and the ages of family members became more streamlined, a greater segregation between age groups emerged.
The major changes that have led to the isolation of older people in society today were rooted not so much in changes in family structure or residential arrangements, as has generally been argued, as in the transformation and redefinition of family functions and values. Under the impact of industrialization, the family surrendered many of the functions previously concentrated within the household to other social institutions. The retreat and growing privatism of the modern middle-class family led to the drawing of sharper boundaries between family and community and intensified the segregation of different age groups within the family, leading to the elimination of older people from visible family roles. The transfer of social-welfare functions, one concentrated in the family, to institutions in the larger society further contributed to the segregation of older people. The care of dependent, sick, delinquent, and elderly members of the community, which had been considered part of the family’s obligation in the pre-industrial period, was gradually transferred to specialized institution such as asylums and reformatories. The family ceased to be the only available source of support for its dependent members, and the community ceased to rely on the family as the major agency of welfare and social control.
In earlier time periods, the absence of dramatic transition to adult life allowed a more intensive interaction among different age groups within the family and the community, thus providing a greater sense of continuity and interdependence among people at various stages of life. But, as greater differentiation in stages of life began to develop, social and economic functions became more closely related to age, and the ages of family members became more streamlined, a greater segregation between age groups emerged.
The major changes that have led to the isolation of older people in society today were rooted not so much in changes in family structure or residential arrangements, as has generally been argued, as in the transformation and redefinition of family functions and values. Under the impact of industrialization, the family surrendered many of the functions previously concentrated within the household to other social institutions. The retreat and growing privatism of the modern middle-class family led to the drawing of sharper boundaries between family and community and intensified the segregation of different age groups within the family, leading to the elimination of older people from visible family roles. The transfer of social-welfare functions, one concentrated in the family, to institutions in the larger society further contributed to the segregation of older people. The care of dependent, sick, delinquent, and elderly members of the community, which had been considered part of the family’s obligation in the pre-industrial period, was gradually transferred to specialized institution such as asylums and reformatories. The family ceased to be the only available source of support for its dependent members, and the community ceased to rely on the family as the major agency of welfare and social control.
In earlier time periods, the absence of dramatic transition to adult life allowed a more intensive interaction among different age groups within the family and the community, thus providing a greater sense of continuity and interdependence among people at various stages of life. But, as greater differentiation in stages of life began to develop, social and economic functions became more closely related to age, and the ages of family members became more streamlined, a greater segregation between age groups emerged.
The major changes that have led to the isolation of older people in society today were rooted not so much in changes in family structure or residential arrangements, as has generally been argued, as in the transformation and redefinition of family functions and values. Under the impact of industrialization, the family surrendered many of the functions previously concentrated within the household to other social institutions. The retreat and growing privatism of the modern middle-class family led to the drawing of sharper boundaries between family and community and intensified the segregation of different age groups within the family, leading to the elimination of older people from visible family roles. The transfer of social-welfare functions, one concentrated in the family, to institutions in the larger society further contributed to the segregation of older people. The care of dependent, sick, delinquent, and elderly members of the community, which had been considered part of the family’s obligation in the pre-industrial period, was gradually transferred to specialized institution such as asylums and reformatories. The family ceased to be the only available source of support for its dependent members, and the community ceased to rely on the family as the major agency of welfare and social control.
We crave chills. It’s why we get a rush when we see Jason take his axe to some unsuspecting teen in “Friday the 13th” or why we can’t seem to look away when Carrie, dripping with pig’s blood, sets her high-school class on fire. The real question is: why do we pay for the pleasure of being scared? On this, there are various schools of thought. Some believe that fans of horror (be it movies or books) don’t actually experience fear, but are excited instead, while others believe that people are willing to endure the terror because they know there is no real threat, that they are essentially safe. Still others feel that moviegoers are willing to be scared in order to feel a sense of relief at the end. Whatever the reason, movie studios like Seven Arts Pictures, a Los Angeles-based indie movie production company, are counting on customers who are willing to pay to be frightened, by releasing a horror movie like “Night of the Demons. ” In the movie, three friends attend a party held in a mansion where, years prior, six people disappeared and the owner hung herself. “We think that people have a fascination with the dark side, ” said Peter Hoffman, CEO of Seven Arts. “So even though a horror movie might be illogical on an intellectual level, people still like to be uncomfortable on an emotional level. It’s about people facing their fears,” he added. This explanation makes sense and explains why we keep creepy haunted houses busy at Halloween, why we tell ghost stories around the campfire and why we turn out for horror movies like they were giving away free popcorn. It’s because we like it.
We crave chills. It’s why we get a rush when we see Jason take his axe to some unsuspecting teen in “Friday the 13th” or why we can’t seem to look away when Carrie, dripping with pig’s blood, sets her high-school class on fire. The real question is: why do we pay for the pleasure of being scared? On this, there are various schools of thought. Some believe that fans of horror (be it movies or books) don’t actually experience fear, but are excited instead, while others believe that people are willing to endure the terror because they know there is no real threat, that they are essentially safe. Still others feel that moviegoers are willing to be scared in order to feel a sense of relief at the end. Whatever the reason, movie studios like Seven Arts Pictures, a Los Angeles-based indie movie production company, are counting on customers who are willing to pay to be frightened, by releasing a horror movie like “Night of the Demons. ” In the movie, three friends attend a party held in a mansion where, years prior, six people disappeared and the owner hung herself. “We think that people have a fascination with the dark side, ” said Peter Hoffman, CEO of Seven Arts. “So even though a horror movie might be illogical on an intellectual level, people still like to be uncomfortable on an emotional level. It’s about people facing their fears,” he added. This explanation makes sense and explains why we keep creepy haunted houses busy at Halloween, why we tell ghost stories around the campfire and why we turn out for horror movies like they were giving away free popcorn. It’s because we like it.
We crave chills. It’s why we get a rush when we see Jason take his axe to some unsuspecting teen in “Friday the 13th” or why we can’t seem to look away when Carrie, dripping with pig’s blood, sets her high-school class on fire. The real question is: why do we pay for the pleasure of being scared? On this, there are various schools of thought. Some believe that fans of horror (be it movies or books) don’t actually experience fear, but are excited instead, while others believe that people are willing to endure the terror because they know there is no real threat, that they are essentially safe. Still others feel that moviegoers are willing to be scared in order to feel a sense of relief at the end. Whatever the reason, movie studios like Seven Arts Pictures, a Los Angeles-based indie movie production company, are counting on customers who are willing to pay to be frightened, by releasing a horror movie like “Night of the Demons. ” In the movie, three friends attend a party held in a mansion where, years prior, six people disappeared and the owner hung herself. “We think that people have a fascination with the dark side, ” said Peter Hoffman, CEO of Seven Arts. “So even though a horror movie might be illogical on an intellectual level, people still like to be uncomfortable on an emotional level. It’s about people facing their fears,” he added. This explanation makes sense and explains why we keep creepy haunted houses busy at Halloween, why we tell ghost stories around the campfire and why we turn out for horror movies like they were giving away free popcorn. It’s because we like it.
We crave chills. It’s why we get a rush when we see Jason take his axe to some unsuspecting teen in “Friday the 13th” or why we can’t seem to look away when Carrie, dripping with pig’s blood, sets her high-school class on fire. The real question is: why do we pay for the pleasure of being scared? On this, there are various schools of thought. Some believe that fans of horror (be it movies or books) don’t actually experience fear, but are excited instead, while others believe that people are willing to endure the terror because they know there is no real threat, that they are essentially safe. Still others feel that moviegoers are willing to be scared in order to feel a sense of relief at the end. Whatever the reason, movie studios like Seven Arts Pictures, a Los Angeles-based indie movie production company, are counting on customers who are willing to pay to be frightened, by releasing a horror movie like “Night of the Demons. ” In the movie, three friends attend a party held in a mansion where, years prior, six people disappeared and the owner hung herself. “We think that people have a fascination with the dark side, ” said Peter Hoffman, CEO of Seven Arts. “So even though a horror movie might be illogical on an intellectual level, people still like to be uncomfortable on an emotional level. It’s about people facing their fears,” he added. This explanation makes sense and explains why we keep creepy haunted houses busy at Halloween, why we tell ghost stories around the campfire and why we turn out for horror movies like they were giving away free popcorn. It’s because we like it.
可觀看題目詳解,並提供模擬測驗!(免費會員無法觀看研究所試題解答)