Negotiating Gender

This paper analyses the parliamentary debates over two key pieces of legislation on family law approved in Chile between 1994 and 2004. The aim is to identify the discursive representations on gender and family predominant in these debates. These representations and the way in which they were negotiated in Congress, it will be argued, were a key factor in determining the approval and final text of each of the bills examined. When women's demands for greater autonomy were in tension with prevalent ideas on the traditional, hetero-normative family, such tension was resolved in favour of the latter as the discursive category that allowed negotiations to progress. As a result, although the new legislation brought about positive change, it did retain the ideal of the traditional, sanctioned-by-marriage family at its basis, and as the one the State should protect. Methodologically, this paper is based on the qualitative analysis of 4000 pages of parliamentary debate and in-depth interviews with legislators and government officials directly involved in the debate on each of the laws examined here.     

德国与欧盟的社会标准:全球化及欧洲一体化的影响

本文一方面旨在探究全球化和欧洲一体化对民族国家社会标准以及社会政策行动空间和分配空间的潜在影响;另一方面概述发达民主国家在过去二十年里社会政策的核心发展趋势,并讨论这样一个问题,即改革结果到底是由全球化和欧洲一体化这些外部条件变化促成的、还是因社会经济现代化进程以及社会福利国家自己造成的问题状况等内因导致的,或是所有上述因素综合影响的结果。最后本文简要阐释在欧盟层面进行社会政策再规制的可能性。讨论这一问题之所以具有重要意义,是因为很多学者将国家间和超国家的社会标准看作是维持西欧福利国家成就的救命稻草,这尤其因为在经济全球化时代,民族国家已经无力提供有力支撑。     

Books in review

She has written widely on sociological and cultural aspects of psychoanalysis. Her most recent book, Feminists and Freudians: A Comparative Perspective,has just been published in German and is forthcoming in English.     

Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards

A criticism of the civil jury is that jurors' decisions about damages are capricious and arbitrary. In particular, critics point to the skyrocketing nature of punitive damage assessments as evidence of a system run amok. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence jurors' decisions about compensatory and punitive awards. We assess whether, as the law intends, jurors' decisions about compensation are influenced by the severity of the plaintiff's injury but not by the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, and whether assessments of punitive damages are related to the defendant's conduct but not to the plaintiff's injury. Across three cases, mock jurors generally utilized relevant information and ignored irrelevant factors in their decisions about damages. Results are discussed in terms of the extent to which juror decision making comports with legal doctrine.