A． production methods.B． ideological concepts.C． religi-找考题网

A． production methods.B． ideological concepts.C． religi……

Social change is more likely to occur in heterogeneous societies than in homogeneous ones, simply because there are more diverse points of view available in the former. There are more ideas, more conflicts of interest, and more groups and organizations of different persuasions. In addition, there is usually a greater worldly interest and tolerance in heterogeneous societies. All these factors tend to promote social change by opening more areas of life to decision rather than subjecting them to authority. In a quite homogeneous society, there are fewer occasions for people to perceive the need or the opportunity for change, because everything seems to be the same and, if not satisfactory, at least customary and undisputed. 　　Within a society, social change is also likely to occur more frequently and more readily (1) in the material aspects of the culture than in the non-material, for example, in technology rather than in values; (2) in what has been learned later in life rather than what was learned early; (3) in the less basic, less emotional, or less sacred aspects of society than in their opposites, like religion or a system of prestige; (4) in the simple elements rather than in the complex ones; (5) in form rather than in substance; and (6) in elements congenial to the culture rather than in strange elements. 　　Furthermore, social change is easier if it is gradual. For example, it comes more readily in human relations on a continuous scale rather than one with sharp dichotomies. This is one reason why change has not come more quickly to Black Americans as compared to other American minorities, because of the sharp difference in appearance between them and their white counterparts. The author would most probably agree that changes are more likely to be successful in

A． production methods.
B． ideological concepts.
C． religious beliefs.
D． social behaviour.

问答题Possession for its own sake or in competition with the rest of the neighborhood would have been Thoreau’’s idea of the low levels. The active discipline of heightening one’’s perception of what is enduring in nature would have been his idea of the high. What he saved from the low was time and effort he could spend on the high. Thoreau certainly disapproved of starvation, but he would put into feeding himself only as much effort as would keep him functioning for more important efforts.Effort is the gist of it. There is no happiness except as we take on life-engaging difficulties. Short of the impossible, as Yeats put it, the satisfaction we get from a lifetime depends on how high we choose our difficulties. Robert Frost was thinking in something like the same terms when he spoke of the pleasure of taking pains . The mortal flaw in the advertised version of happiness is in the fact that it purports to be effortless.We demand difficulty even in our games. We demand it because without diffculty there can be no game. A game is a way of making something hard for the fun of it. The rules of the game are an arbitrary imposition of difficulty. When someone ruins the fun, he always does so by refusing to play by the rules. It is easier to win at chess if you are free, at your pleasure, to change the wholly arbitrary rules, but the fun is in winning within the rules. No difficulty, no fun.