Suchergebnisse

有關臺灣邊地的拓墾研究,往往傾向研究土地拓墾的過程與組織。其基本論述架構是漢墾戶向官方申請墾照後,官府將界外未墾的荒埔提供給漢人開墾,漢人如何自力或與官方合作經營的結果。這類的研究論述忽略了原來早已存在的非法拓墾行動一直沒有消失。拓墾的申請與其說是新的程序,不如說是一種合法化的過程。也正是這樣一種認知脈絡下,內山設隘開墾的組織就不是表面上所認識的是一批為官方守邊,或是因生番擾害而防番的一支武力組織。十九世紀初隘的設防已逐漸成為一種界外開墾的管道,清代官方檔案也提醒我們注意這些界外開墾的墾戶不僅沒有防番,可能還一直與生番有貿易來往關係。換言之,這些以防番為名的墾戶其實是假借防番為名,掩護越界開墾之實,其向官府強調「生番擾害」的原因只是為自己取得更大界外土地開墾的正當性。 ; 道光年間以前這類非法開墾早已經存在,官方也早已發現界外越墾的問題,因此如何控制界外開墾乃成為官方邊地控制的一大課題。為了處理這些問題,官府不斷調整其政策與設定邊界,從乾隆到道光年以後,這些邊界的浮動,與其說是官方主動規畫計議的結果,不如說是漢人與熟番通過各種途徑越界開墾,建構地權主張、操弄挪移既有的邊界後,官府最終追認的結果。臺灣邊界的變動以及隘墾區的拓墾顯示清代官方政策的實踐是不斷在向地方社會的現實妥協中逐漸調整的,而地方社會也在官方政策的模糊空間中,藉由官方的名義與權威,尋求自己利益的伸張與庇護。這便是臺灣邊地所顯現的一幅國家與地方互動的景象。臺灣作為清王朝帝國的邊疆,其邊地社會的建構,除了幫助我們把握臺灣整體歷史進程的理解外,也提供我們從一側面掌握清帝國擴張的內在軌跡與多元族群統治下的彈性策略。 ; Existing studies on land cultivation in Taiwan's frontier have the focus on its process and organizations. The most popular narrative is that the Han Chinese cultivators were granted the right to the waste land from the government. What is missed out in the narrative is the fact that illegal cultivation that had lasted for so long had never disappeared; therefore the application for license was little more than a move of self-legitimating. In light of this, the organizations which set up forts and managed land cultivation should not be taken on surface value that their purpose was to safeguard the border for the government or defend against the harassment of the aborigines. The forts became a system of land cultivation beyond the border, and the official documents evidenced the fact that cultivators did not defend against the aborigines, rather, they kept doing businesses with them. In other words, the cultivators in the name of self-defending were actually to cover their illegal activities and to grabbing more land, and for that purpose they emphasized the "harassment of the raw aborigines". ; Illegal activities had already existed before mid-Qing. The government was aware of this border control issues and had adjusted its cultivation and border policies. The line was not planned by the government; it was just government ...

Résumé Après avoir favorisé le développement de l'évaluation des politiques publiques, la sociologie est appelée à jouer un rôle actif dans les procédures d'évaluation scientifique que mettent en œuvre des instances spécialisées. Dans le domaine de la santé, des savoirs et des savoir-faire sociologiques sont sollicités par des agences spécialisées pour éclairer des problématiques non seulement techniques mais plus largement sociales et politiques. Cet article présente la manière dont la sociologie a été impliquée dans les travaux d'évaluation de la Haute Autorité de santé. Il présente les résultats d'un groupe de travail sur « l'évaluation des aspects sociaux en santé » dont l'objet était de formaliser un recours accru à la sociologie. Ces résultats se présentent sous la forme d'une « grille de questionnements sociologiques standardisés » susceptibles d'être utilisés par des experts non spécialisés de cette agence, en vue d'éventuels approfondissements.

Preliminaries; Contents; Acknowledgements; List of Figures; List of Tables; Notes on Contributors; 1 Up in the Air: The Anthropology of Weather and Climate; 2 Time, Talk, and the Weather in Eighteenth-Century Britain; 3 Weather Wise: Speaking Folklore to Science in Leukerbad; 4 Chesapeake Bay Watermen, Weather, and Blue Crabs; 5 (En)Gendering the Weather; 6 Nice Weather for the Time of Year The British Obsession with the Weather Trevor A Harley; 7 How People Name Seasons Ben Orlove; 8 Monet's 'London Series' and the Cultural Climate of London at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

Innovation - the process of obtaining, understanding, applying, transforming, managing and transferring knowledge - is a result of human collaboration, but it has become an increasingly complex process, with a growing number of interacting parties involved. Lack of innovation is not necessarily caused by lack of technology or lack of will to innovate, but often by social and cultural forces that jeopardize the cognitive processes and prevent potential innovation. This book focuses on the rule of social capital in the process of innovation: the social networks and the norms; values and attit.