2012 ◽  
Vol 174-177 ◽  
pp. 3527-3530
Author(s):  
Xiu Lian Zhu ◽  
Feng Chen ◽  
Bing Yue ◽  
Jie Wang ◽  
Yan Jun Cheng ◽  
...  

Constructing papermaking industry eco-industrial park is a importance way which can solve the dilemma of resource, environment, and economic development from enterprise group hierarchy. By ecological theories of “key specises” and eco-industrial chain, this paper analyses the feasibility of china’s papermaking industry constructing eco-industrial park. By way of case analysis, prove that constructing papermaking industry eco-industrial park is a feasible way of realizing sustainable development of china’s papermaking industry.


2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
Ejgil Jespersen

AbstractWhen reading the masterpiece about “The Agon Motif” by John W. Loy and W. Robert Morford (2019), I was struck by their recurrent reference to the pursuit of honor in agonal sport contests, as it has become common sense to replace honor with dignity in modernity. I take the German social-philosopher Axel Honneth (1995) as a prime example of spelling out the replacement of honor with dignity in what he names “the struggle for recognition”. In a historical perspective, however, it looks like, that dignity can be understood as a distribution of honor rather than as an oppositional concept of honor. Recognition should not only be conceptualized at the categorical level, but also understood in terms of ‘comparative recognition’, which sorts members of a group into an intra-group hierarchy based on their relative merits and, thereby, pave the way for self-esteem (Mark, 2014). Furthermore, Honneth (2008) develops his concept of recognition to a two-level one by including a primordial recognition in terms of mimesis based upon his former concept of basic self-confidence. It is a kind of elementary responsiveness, which always and necessarily contains an element of involuntary openness or devotedness in the bodily-affective sphere. Therefore, I suggest taking mimesis as the precondition of honor into account and understanding dignity as a distribution of honor in the institution of modern sport.


1982 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
David O. Remington ◽  
Shavaun M. Wall ◽  
Sarah M. Pickert ◽  
Mary Louise Foltz

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Abad-Merino ◽  
John F. Dovidio ◽  
Carmen Tabernero ◽  
Ignacio González

AbstractThe present research, drawing on the Intergroup Helping as Power Relations Model (Nadler, 2002), investigated the ways in which different forms of helping behavior can strategically affect responses to women and men who display socially valued or devalued characteristics. Participants read scenarios about concrete problems faced by a woman or man in need, who displayed positive (i.e., prosocial) or negative (i.e., antisocial) characteristics, and indicated the extent to which they would be willing to support small tax increases if that money were used to help address the target’s issues. The predicted Target Gender × Target History × Type of Support interaction, controlling for political orientation, was obtained, F(1, 149) = 6.49, p = .012, ηp2 = .04. Participants tended to give less autonomy-oriented (i.e., empowering) help to a man displaying antisocial (vs. prosocial) characteristics, F(1, 36) = 3.39, p = .074, ηp2 = .09.; they also tended to off more dependency-oriented (i.e., disempowering) help to a woman women exhibiting prosocial (vs. antisocial) qualities, F(1, 38) = 3.42, p = .072, ηp2 = .08. The role of seemingly positive forms of social behavior as a mechanism for social control and the relation of helping to processes of group-hierarchy and system-justifying processes are considered.


1984 ◽  
Vol 65 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 433-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ture Damhus ◽  
Sven E. Harnung ◽  
Claus E. Sch�ffer

Journalism ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 711-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew W Ragas ◽  
Hai L Tran

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 1481-1491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Nespolo ◽  
Mois Ilia Aroyo ◽  
Bernd Souvignier

Space groups are classified, according to different criteria, into types, classes, systems and families. Depending on the specific research topic, some of these concepts will be more relevant to the everyday crystallographer than others. Unfortunately, incorrect use of the classification terms often leads to misunderstandings. This article presents the rationale behind the different classification levels.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document