Current feminist theory, in validating women's own stories of their experience, has encouraged scholars of women's history to view the use of women's oral narratives as the methodology, next to the use of women's written autobiography, that brings historians closest to the "reality" of women's lives. Such narratives, unlike most standard histories, represent experience from the perspective of women, affirm the importance of women's contributions, and furnish present-day women with historical continuity that is essential to their identity, individually and collectively.
Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories. Oral narratives are no more likely than are written narratives to provide a disinterested commentary on events or people. Moreover, the stories people tell to explain themselves are shaped by narrative devices and storytelling conventions, as well as by other cultural and historical factors, in ways that the storytellers may be unaware of. The political rhetoric of a particular era, for example, may influence women's interpretations of the significance of their experience. Thus a woman who views the Second World War as pivotal in increasing the social acceptance of women's paid work outside the home may reach that conclusion partly and unwittingly because of wartime rhetoric encouraging a positive view of women's participation in such work.
The passage is primarily concerned with
contrasting the benefits of one methodology with the benefits of another
describing the historical origins and inherent drawbacks of a particular methodology
discussing the appeal of a particular methodology and some concerns about its use
showing that some historians' adoption of a particular methodology has led to criticism of recent historical scholarship
analyzing the influence of current feminist views on women's interpretations of their experience
题目分析:
题目释义:
主旨题目
考点:
主旨(Main idea)
旨在考察我们对文章整体的把握程度,对文章的结构的分析能力和把控能力,以及对作者逻辑的判断。
这篇文章的主旨较为容易确定,文章一直在评论“口述”这样一个方法,后面也指出了这个方法需要注意些什么。总而言之,作者是想要去介绍这样一个方法的。
选项分析:
A选项:比较两个方法的获益程度。文中提及了两个方法---口述和笔述。但实际上来讲,作者在行文中没有比较过两者的优劣,而是着重介绍口述这个方法及其需要注意的问题。
B选项:介绍一个特定的方法的历史起源和一些内在的不足。这个选项后半句可以勉强算对,但前半句中作者并没有提及过这个方法的起源(貌似这个也没有什么起源,以前人不会写字的时候不啥都靠口传么…..汗…..)。
C选项:Correct。讨论一个方法吸引人的地方和用这个方法的一些担心。这个归纳的太好了。把文章的基本内容全包括了。
D选项:展示说有些历史学家采用的一个特定的方法引起了近来历史学术的批评。这个选项没有什么根据,作者第二段说的内容是说要小心些什么,并不是批评这个方法。
E选项:分析现代女权主义者的观点怎么影响女人们忆述她们的经历。作者提到了需要注意的一些可能会影响准确性的因素。但是这道题目问的是主旨,这个属于细节。所以该选项错误。
C讨论一个方法吸引人的地方和用这个方法的一些担心。这个归纳的太好了。把文章的基本内容全包括了。
文章比较简单的话,题目的坑就比较多
Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories.
A选项:本文只提到一个methodology
B选项:没提到historical origins;本文提到在使用过程中可能的问题,而不是 inherent drawbacks,(provide a disinterested commentary on events or people;are shaped by narrative devices and storytelling conventions, as well as by other cultural and historical factors, in ways that the storytellers may be unaware of. )
D选项:并未讨论criticism
E选项:并未提到女权主义的影响,主旨题不要关注这些细节
大意:针对女权主义理论鼓励人们口述的历史,因为是讲述自己的经历,可以突出女性的贡献和历史持续性对身份的重要作用;{而学者呼吁},相比书写的历史(最贴近真实的历史),要小心,原因一:口述的故事是通过讲故事的方式传达,不客观{的对他人或事进行评论};同时也受社会和历史因素的影响{而不自知},例如:二战时期{修辞影响女性对于他们经历的理解},女性被鼓励外出工作,战时用修辞鼓励女性工作。
主旨题,提出一个方法学新观点----指出不足