一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail

“hoho77”通过精心收集，向本站投稿了2篇一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail，这里小编给大家分享一些一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail，方便大家学习。

篇1：一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail

一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail

Dear Professor P,   I’m XXX. Recently I have read your book Shanghai on Strike: the Politics of Chinese Labor (Shanghai on Strike, the Chinese version translated by Liu Ping) as well as the one you and Professor Goldman edited, Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China (Grassroots).   The reading has prompted me to write this e-mail to share my thoughts and feelings over the books and also to raise questions regarding grassroots resistance in China as well as the necessity of democratic reforms from above.   The authors of the various chapters in Grassroots conducted extensive field work regarding village elections, homeowners’ groups, labor legal aid, media supervision, etc. I noticed that there is a common standard against which China’s performance in these areas is evaluated: whether the specific phenomenon (be it village election or the emergence of homeowner groups with autonomous powers of different levels) would facilitate growth of democracy in China, or put it in another way, whether it is helpful in driving China away from authoritarian state. Even the only one chapter that contends the relative effectiveness of informal institutions of accountability (village-wide lineage and temple groups) vis-à-vis formal democratic institutions in rural China, assumes that the democratic model (in modern time mostly referring to elections) should be a default and that China’s situation proves to be an exception to the rule.   My personal experience in China (I was born and bred in the city, but my parents have their roots in towns and villages in China) gives me the intuition that maybe it is not what the Chinese people actually think: in contrast to what liberal elites in China may have claimed, common people here don’t actually care that much about democracy or freedom; instead, Chinese people are practical, and are more concerned about rice and meat, housing and wages. One of the arguments for tendency of political change after the economic boom in China (a deeper assumption of the common standard the authors use, and they are anxious to look for signs of that change) is that violation of the basic needs of the enriched Chinese people would lead to demand for political change. However, Chinese people, whether they are from villages or urban areas, are savvy enough to understand that the real working system in China differs from what the official propaganda presents, and that their problems could be better solved by leaving alone the faade of the current regime or even by resorting to the abundant resources of the regime propaganda of “serving the people”. Perhaps that’s why Xi Chen characterized the protests in China as “opportunistic”.   Of course, I do not mean to erase the vast differences among various interest groups, as Professor Perry has impressively demonstrated to me in Shanghai on Strike how the internal differences between technical workers and non-technical workers affected their perspective alignment with the two dominant parties. But I do worry about the application of the universal standard of democracy when evaluating grassroots movement in China. As I view it, the pressing need rests more in social justice than in democracy or freedom. A Chinese wants a fair way out when facing inappropriate compensation for their homes, either by resorting to courts or to governmental officials or to media, so that he does not have to burn himself to death as a protest against unfairness and as a protection to those he loves and cares the most. Does this “fair way out” necessarily involve democratic reforms? Or put it in another way, is there any way (at least in theory) that the CCP regime could remain intact while the common people in China could be treated in a just way? If it is possible, would grassroots resistance (in an “opportunistic” way) be a more feasible force to rely on than the top-down reform? And by grassroots, which group(s) do you think would play the leading role? Would it be the diversified working force?   Thanks for your patience to go through such a lengthy e-mail, and I’m just one among the many young people in China who are concerned about China’s future and also its implications on the rest of the world, both practically and academically.   Best Regards,   XXX

篇2：《家中不同游戏情境中婴儿与父母交流行为的比较研究》读后感 55 骆梅

《家中不同游戏情境中婴儿与父母交流行为的比较研究》读后感 55 骆梅华

生活中的很多小朋友都会与妈妈亲近一点，而会害怕爸爸多一点，这也许是因为受到从小不同游戏情境中与父母交流的影响，因为木请的交流控制程度比父亲低，而且比父亲更关注与孩子交流内心的感受。本文发现，15-22个月的婴儿的父母根据活动情景选择交流行为，而儿童则根据产流对象选择适应行为，并且婴儿对母亲和对父亲交流行为的.差异并没有受到游戏情境的影响。   中国的父亲在自由游戏中更多的表现出对操作的评价，同时也兼顾孩子是否获得相关信息，这就使得孩子更多的表现出，个人认为这样的做法不利于孩子的成长，因为习惯顺从，就会失去主见，缺乏创新。我局的从小就应该培养孩子的独立性等。

【一封与作者交流的读后感e-mail】相关文章：

1.《老人与海》作者与内容简介

2.开放与交流说课稿

3.与长辈交流感想范文

4.交流与演讲社团计划书

5.沟通与交流初中英语作文

6.异地交流与民主法治

7.合作与交流自我评价

8.演讲交流与沟通5分钟

9.与父母交流的作文

10.三字经作者