The Family Novel in the Emerging Nation-State: A Comparative Study of Ba Jin’s Jia and Lev Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina

The theme of family in literature and in popular discourse occurs at times when the family as an institution is under attack. Attacks against the family coupled with defence of the family are viewed as the barometer of people’s satisfaction with the society in which they live. This outpouring of emotion, whether it is in defence of or attacking the family, is the result of the family’s position on the bridge between nature and society – a fortunate (or a detrimental) link between an individual and the units that make up a society. Across the United States and much of the western world, the battle for gay marriage and inclusive civil unions has revealed the fissures in our collective moral view of the family. The conservative concern about the absence of ‘family values’ is magnified by our situation in a world of flux. Inflation, war, terrorist threats, and the depletion of natural resources are but a few examples. When so much is unknown, how do we position ourselves? What anchors us to the past, gives us comfort in the present, and supports us in the future if not the family? Alternatively, what coddles us more in the past, shackles us more to the present, and lulls us more into a fixed conception of the future than the family? My research is not a sociological survey into the family nor does it stake any claims to understanding the present state of the family in society. The study seeks, however, to shed light on the rhetorical uses of the family by analysing two novels that are inextricably concerned with the theory of the family in times of heightened social change. In particular, my research focuses upon the social role and political meaning of the family in Anna Karenina and Jia.

The development of a Defense System against Coxsackievirus B5 Infection in Suckling Mice

There are many viruses that are able to infect the alimentary tract of man. Little is known, however, about the mechanism of infection itself or the pathophysiology of the gut during infection. 'The research reported here is concerned with the differences in susceptibility among suckling mice of various ages inoculated by the intraperitoneal and intragastric routes. Since the normal mode of entry of many viruses to the gut is via the oral route, Coxsackievirus B5, a human enterovirus which does attack this way, was utilized. It is a non-tumor producing RNA virus that has been shown to act similarly in the mouse and human. The virus was pooled in HeLa cell cultures and titered by a plaquing assay in the same cell cultures. CD-l mice, 10, 14, 18, and 22 days old , were infected either orally or intraperitoneally with 5.0 x 10^10 (10 day old animals) and 1.0 x10^9 plaque forming units per animal. Dissections were done at 1 and 3 days post infection with samples of the blood, heart, liver, and gut being taken from each animal. Each sample was titered individually and the data presented as an average of six samples. As a result of previous work, it is known that the gut of a newborn mouse isn't able to decrease the concentration of the infecting dose and therefore provides no defense against an enteric infection with Coxsackievirus B5. In contrat, mature mice are able to reduce the amount of viral dissemination across the gut as well as inhibit replication after absorption has occurred. The results of this study indicate that there is a double barrier system developing in suckling mice that is involved with and directly related to the gastrointestinal tract The first part of this defense is the inhibition of penetration of virus across the gut when the primary site of' infection is the intestinal mucosa. This mechanism develops sometime around 20 to 22 days after birth. At about 16-18 days of age, suckling mice that were challenged intragastrically are able to stop active replication and initiate clearance of virus from the systemic circulation. There are many factors that might contribute to the marked decrease in susceptibility with age of suckling mice. Some of these or possibly a combination of these factors might explain the defense mechanisms described above, but to date, the chemistry or mechanical functioning of the gastrointestinal barrier to enteric viral infection is unknown.