墨尔本assignment代写:社会关系
ASSIGNMENT代写

墨尔本assignment代写:社会关系

2017-02-17 01:25

但建构耦合身份并非简单地留给两人参与。在一些研究的关系,新的现实的耦合,是通过“客观性”增强。每一个社会关系需要目标。它代表了一个过程,主观经验的意义成为客观的个人,在与他人的互动,成为共同的财产,从而大规模的目标。对客观性的程度将取决于数量和它的载体,是社会关系的强度。 浪漫的反面是“偶然的爱”。偶然不象浪漫的爱情。而浪漫,是永恒的观念,是这种观念缺乏应急。它关注的是爱和亲密是偶然的,而不是简单的永远。这种偶然性是非常接近吉登斯的(1992)“融汇之爱”。在这里,他认为,浪漫的爱情理想通常是支离破碎的女性增加的自主性。他融合爱年轻女性崛起的自主性源于平等或平等的高等教育机会的连接。因此,妇女的高等教育和浪漫的爱情之间的关系可以说明。至少,很明显,教育地位和年轻女性的爱情模式之间有着密切的联系,随之而来的产品也是Heath的论点,即高等教育与增加的多样性紧密联系在一起。她指的是多样性在亲密关系和家庭形成的时间,并出现了一种新型的亲密关系,直或同性恋的跨家庭关系,并认为人们不自由选择不同类型的亲密关系(希思,1999)。也就是说,而不是个人都只是在亲密的范围内进行“自由”选择,例如,选择同居,选择结婚,选择一起生活,以“测试”之前的婚姻关系,不同的选择与不同的情况。

墨尔本assignment代写:社会关系

But construction of the coupled identity is not simply left to the two people involved. In some research about the new reality of relationships, like coupling, is reinforced through “objectivities”. Every social relationship requires objectivities. It represents a process by which subjectively experienced meanings become objective to the individual and, in interaction with others, become common property and thereby massively objective. The degree of objectivities will depend on the number and the intensity of the social relationships that are its carriers.
The opposite side of romance is the “contingency love”. Contingency is not like romantic love. While romance involves the very notion of foreverness, contingency is lack of such notion. It concerned with love and intimacy being contingent, rather than being simply forever. Such contingency is very close to Giddens’s (1992) “confluent love”. Here he argues that romantic love ideals usually be fragmented under female’s increased autonomy. He connected the confluent love to young females’ rising autonomy which derived from equality or equal opportunities in high education. Thus, the relationship between women’s high education and romantic love could be illustrated. At least, it is obvious that there is a strong link between the education status and the love pattern of young women.The concomitant product here is also Heath’s argument that the higher education is strongly linked with the increased diversity within intimacy. She refers to diversity in the timing of the formation of intimate relationships and families and the emergence of a new type of intimate relationship, straight or gay cross-household relationships and argues that people do not freely choose different types of intimacy (Heath, 1999). That is, rather than individuals all simply exercising ‘free’ choice within the sphere of intimacy, for example, choosing to live together, choosing to marry, choosing to live together to ‘test’ a relationship prior to marriage, different choices are related to different circumstances.