题目内容
The United States stands for freedom and democracy. There is a large gap between the rhetoric and the reality, but the United States does export its political ideals abroad. And it does not just rely on force to do so. It relies on government-funded foundations like the National Endowment for Democracy that distribute grants to pro-democracy organizations abroad. US-based NGOs like Freedom House rank countries according to their adherence to political freedom, the implication being that other countries should conform to the ideals espoused in the US Constitution. What does China stand for That question arose at a recent dialogue between Confucian and African thinkers in South Africa funded by the Confucius Institute. Such dialogues are relatively new: They are carried out on non-Western terms and funded by non-Western organizations. Now that China has more wealth, it can afford to fund dialogues that explore political alternatives to Western values. But which values does China stand for and how can they be promoted abroad Confucianism may be China’s main political tradition, but what are the key Confucian values that have the potential to make the world a better place Like liberals and Christians, Confucians believe that their values ought to have universal reach, but China hasn’t done a good job exporting its political values beyond the East Asian region. As China becomes a global political power, such questions are likely to become more salient. Confucianism The Confucian tradition is diverse and contested, but Confucians today typically defend two key values: political meritocracy and harmony. The value of political meritocracy is not hard to explain. Everybody should have the same opportunity to be educated so as to participate in politics, but not everybody will emerge from this process with the equal ability to make morally informed decisions. Hence, an important task of the political system is to select those with above average ability. The Chinese Communist Party, whatever the Marxist rhetoric, is becoming a more meritocratic organization. Top students are encouraged to join and the overall educational level of cadres is rapidly rising. To the extent that the party has successfully carried out economic modernization over the last three decades or so, much of the credit should go to cadres selected on merit—similar to other successful East Asian countries with a Confucian heritage. So far, however, China’s attempt to export political meritocracy to developing countries has been relatively ad hoc. Hence, there is a need for a government funded organization—let’s call it the National Endowment for Meritocracy—that would fund experiments with political meritocracy in other countries. Western powers may not be interested, but there will be takers in Africa and elsewhere. Such programs could help to improve governance in recipient countries and would earn their gratitude. The value of harmony is perhaps best promoted via NGOs, because official support is likely to arouse political suspicion. Hence, one might imagine an NGO—let’s call it Harmony House—that relies on rigorous empirical methods to determine the extent of harmony in the world. Countries could be ranked according to a "Social Harmony Index" that measures rates of crime, incarceration, divorce and gaps between the rich and the poor. Countries that do well on the index could set a model for other countries. It is time for China to engage in the global dialogue about political values on its own terms. Rather than, say, wasting time and money on research reports measuring the extent of human rights violations in the United States, China can do more good by promoting the political values that inspire Chinese people and can help to make the world a better place if they are taken more seriously abroad. This is not to deny that freedom, democracy and human rights have a place in China’s future. But indigenous values such as meritocracy and harmony may have an even greater place, and China should do its best to persuade the rest of the world of their value. Of course, it also needs to set the right model at home. (From NYTimes; 668 words) Meritocracy is a political ideal that features______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
何首乌断面有( )
Cindy Sherman is a strangely elusive artist. Her face has become famous through the photographs she takes of herself, but her work is not autobiographical. Coveted by collectors and extolled by critics, her images explore raw human emotion and common artifice—without revealing who she really is. A retrospective at the Museum of Modem Art (MoMA) in New York demonstrates that although the 58-year-old American may be her own model, she is not her own muse. Her ninth-floor Manhattan studio also offers clues. Pinned to the walls are magazine cuttings and computer printouts of people in what she calls "preposterous" positions: society ladies in ball gowns making breakfast, actresses who are completely naked except for a designer handbag and costume jewellery. She keeps her props in meticulously organised cupboards—multicoloured wigs, prosthetic noses, false boobs and funny clothes. An orange plastic chest of drawers holds loads of make-up; nearby is the giant track pad she uses to do her post-production digital work. It is here that Ms Sherman mutates into the objects of her fascination. Why does the photographer appear in most of her work One reason is shyness. Disguises can be liberating and delegating can be arduous; she tried hiring models once, but found she hated it. Ms Sherman enjoys working alone and doing everything herself. She has also experimented with still lives in which she does not appear. These images appeal to her hard-core fans but they lack the life, literally, of her other work. They are also hard to sell. When collectors buy a Sherman photograph, they want her. Last year one of the 1981 "Centrefold" series (pictured) made $3.9m, then a record for a photograph at auction. Bemused by how much collectors want her in the frame, the artist mimics a male voice: "Is she behind that mask I only want it if she is in there!" Unlike many of her male peers who have jumped ship to bigger galleries, Ms Sherman has stayed loyal to her original dealers—Metro Pictures, the New York gallery that presented her first solo show in 1979, and Sprüth Magers, which has represented her in Europe since 1984. Neither gallery puts pressure on her; they let her get on with her work at her own pace. As a result, she does not overproduce or aimlessly repeat herself. Ms Sherman broke into the art world with "Untitled Film Stills", a series of 69 black-and-white images that were taken in the late 1970s. A fictional archive of publicity shots in which she poses as characters in films from the 1950s and 1960s, the work was an immediate hit. Its exploration of media culture took Pop Art beyond celebratory consumerism into a more critical vein. And its satire of female stereotypes was subtly feminist—so subtle, in fact, that a feminist art historian advised the young Ms Sherman to superimpose text on the works to bring out the irony. Ambiguity is a characteristic of Ms Sherman’s work. One is never quite sure where the artist stands in relation to her characters, and they in turn are often difficult to define. The "Centrefold" series of 12 colour photos in which the artist shot herself from above with fearful or pensive expressions added a layer of anxiety to the uncertainty. Among Ms Sherman’s most celebrated later works are her "Clowns", which were shot in 2003 and 2004. Eva Respini, who has curated the MoMA show, believes that the clown is a "stand-in" for the artist. In one picture, the name Cindy is embroidered on the jacket of a heavily made-up clown with prosthetic cheeks and nose. It is typical of Ms Sherman’s style that she would be disguised beyond all recognition, looking sad and ugly, in a work that flirts with self-portraiture. Indeed, looking over all the photographs, it is interesting to see how the artist has aged gracefully in real life but intriguingly badly in her fictions. In 2007 French Vogue commissioned her to do a series of six photographs in which she transformed herself into desperate middle-aged fashion victims dressed in Balenciaga. These pictures led to "The Socialites" in which she depicted herself as older women whose multimillionaire husbands, one suspects, have cast them off for younger versions. Their dignity in the face of faded glamour reveals both the empathy and brutality of the artist’s eye. Ms Sherman is a kind of actor-director of still pictures who delves into the representation of women—and occasionally men—in Western society. Back in the 1970s, when she first embarked on this artistic path, few would have predicted that she could make so many compelling bodies of work through depicting herself. But much like a character actor who takes pleasure in nailing a bit part, Ms Sherman takes a detailed interest in others while mastering the art of making it up. (From The Economist; 805 words) What is most probably the reason that Ms Sherman hasn’t changed dealers
Chris, I have something to tell you. Yesterday, a woman conducting a survey called the house. You know I usually don’t do those things—not unless I’m feeling especially guilty that day—but then she mentioned not having to commute. You see, this was the choice the survey offered me, as I understood it: I could continue to take a forty-seven-minute train ride (or a thirty-eight-minute ferry fide) and a twelve-minute subway ride to and from work every day while remaining your wife, or I could work from home and cease to be married to you. I have chosen the latter. You probably have a few questions, as I did. For example, will this home be our home, where you also live Given the fact that we will no longer be husband and wife, this is a complication. I asked the surveyor this question, but she had already moved on to "Would you give up manicures if it meant you didn’t have to commute" (No.) You may be confused, or perturbed. This I understand. I had my doubts, too. Not long after I said I would divorce you to work from home, I wondered if the surveyors would be providing me with some sort of alternate home or, ideally, divorce-litigation fees. On these matters, too, my surveyor was mute. And if you refuse to grant me a divorce I also queried the surveyor about whether a mere separation would be sufficient to guarantee me a commute-free existence, but by then, it seemed, I was taking up her time—her very important surveyor time—and she had to get off the phone. I am unsure if you will be allowed to remain in our house; the survey was murky on this point. Can we still speak to each other Will I still make roasted veggie-meatie for the Franks on Thursdays I know this is difficult for everyone. Will you be working from home, too With regard to that last one—c’mon, Chris, it’s important to be realistic here. Perhaps you are wondering what will happen to our children. Will they be able to remain in their childhood home, likely my new office Again, I’m still pretty unclear on this whole thing, but I’d guess no. If we have to separate physically, it’s better that they move in with you—you make the mac and cheese they like. Having the entire house to myself does bring up some annoying considerations, such as choosing which room I will work in. I suspect I’ll alternate. If you like, Chris, I will use our lovely master bedroom only for the most important of conference calls. Our daughter’s room will be for Mondays; the light will cheer me. I became a bit concerned when Todd called this morning asking why I wasn’t at the office. Apparently, the surveyors have yet to make arrangements with my employers for me to work from home, but perhaps they are waiting for the divorce papers to be signed. It does make me question the binding nature of my answer, though. Maybe we don’t have to end our marriage, simply because I answered "Yes" on a survey conducted by a company called TeamVision But of course we do. Don’t be silly, Chris. You may find comfort, in this unfortunate circumstance, in the fact that TeamVision is a popular company that provides software for remote and online meetings, and that by participating in its survey I have helped confirm the strong future of telecommuting. Darling, I really did love you. When the survey asked if I would bike to work in exchange for you, I said, "What kind of bike" And then, "Absolutely not." I’ll see you at the office. (From New Yorker; 619 words) What can be inferred from the passage
Chris, I have something to tell you. Yesterday, a woman conducting a survey called the house. You know I usually don’t do those things—not unless I’m feeling especially guilty that day—but then she mentioned not having to commute. You see, this was the choice the survey offered me, as I understood it: I could continue to take a forty-seven-minute train ride (or a thirty-eight-minute ferry fide) and a twelve-minute subway ride to and from work every day while remaining your wife, or I could work from home and cease to be married to you. I have chosen the latter. You probably have a few questions, as I did. For example, will this home be our home, where you also live Given the fact that we will no longer be husband and wife, this is a complication. I asked the surveyor this question, but she had already moved on to "Would you give up manicures if it meant you didn’t have to commute" (No.) You may be confused, or perturbed. This I understand. I had my doubts, too. Not long after I said I would divorce you to work from home, I wondered if the surveyors would be providing me with some sort of alternate home or, ideally, divorce-litigation fees. On these matters, too, my surveyor was mute. And if you refuse to grant me a divorce I also queried the surveyor about whether a mere separation would be sufficient to guarantee me a commute-free existence, but by then, it seemed, I was taking up her time—her very important surveyor time—and she had to get off the phone. I am unsure if you will be allowed to remain in our house; the survey was murky on this point. Can we still speak to each other Will I still make roasted veggie-meatie for the Franks on Thursdays I know this is difficult for everyone. Will you be working from home, too With regard to that last one—c’mon, Chris, it’s important to be realistic here. Perhaps you are wondering what will happen to our children. Will they be able to remain in their childhood home, likely my new office Again, I’m still pretty unclear on this whole thing, but I’d guess no. If we have to separate physically, it’s better that they move in with you—you make the mac and cheese they like. Having the entire house to myself does bring up some annoying considerations, such as choosing which room I will work in. I suspect I’ll alternate. If you like, Chris, I will use our lovely master bedroom only for the most important of conference calls. Our daughter’s room will be for Mondays; the light will cheer me. I became a bit concerned when Todd called this morning asking why I wasn’t at the office. Apparently, the surveyors have yet to make arrangements with my employers for me to work from home, but perhaps they are waiting for the divorce papers to be signed. It does make me question the binding nature of my answer, though. Maybe we don’t have to end our marriage, simply because I answered "Yes" on a survey conducted by a company called TeamVision But of course we do. Don’t be silly, Chris. You may find comfort, in this unfortunate circumstance, in the fact that TeamVision is a popular company that provides software for remote and online meetings, and that by participating in its survey I have helped confirm the strong future of telecommuting. Darling, I really did love you. When the survey asked if I would bike to work in exchange for you, I said, "What kind of bike" And then, "Absolutely not." I’ll see you at the office. (From New Yorker; 619 words) Which is true of the surveyor
微信支付 
支付宝支付