文化民族主义的理论定位初探

要想全面地描述文化民族主义理论,除了廓清其时代背景、理论基础和基本主张以外,还必须研究它同其他重大思潮的关系,由此对其进行理论上的定位。毫无疑问,自由主义和保守主义是西方最重要的政治思潮。长期以来,受波普尔和艾恺等西方学者的影响,民族主义被看成是对自由主义的反动,文化民族主义则被直接等同于守成主义或保守主义。本文认为,这种在西方已经成为“常识”的观点是不正确的,是对文化民族主义的一种歪曲和误解。     

新文化保守主义思潮对发展创业文化的启发

20世纪80年代新文化保守主义思潮在我国重兴并发展起来。因其对现代化的反思和对民族文化的重视,新文化保守主义思潮在我国现代文化思潮中具有一定的地位和市场,与马克思主义、自由主义西化派一起成为主流文化思潮。学界对新文化保守主义的争论也从未停止,但笔者认为,应理性看待新文化保守主义思潮的重兴和发展,突破局限,使其从呼吁归于传统的理想走向促进社会主义文化建设发展的实践,从一味批判和激进反思走向为社会主义现代化服务。本文从创业文化发展的角度,重新理性审视新文化保守主义思潮的局限性和发展可能性,提出新文化保守主义思潮对发展创业文化的几点启发。     

自由主义和保守主义政治思潮及其对美国两党政治的影响

自由主义与保守主义是美国最重要的两个政治思潮。现代自由主义与新保守主义作为当下主流的自由、保守主义更是对美国社会产生了重大的影响。民主党具有现代自由主义的倾向,共和党有新保守主义的倾向。现代自由主义与新保守主义在经济、社会、外交等政策领域对两党产生了重要的作用。两种政治思潮相互交锋,某种程度上又在相互借鉴、相互融合,是未来美国政治思潮的发展趋势。     

孔教会与儒学近代化

民初是中国社团发展的高峰期,以尊孔为宗旨的社团名目繁多,其中最有影响的是孔教会。按学术界现在流行的说法,20世纪初形成了中国近代思想史上的三大思潮,即马克思主义派、自由主义的西化派以及文化保守主义派。孔教会可谓文化保守主义派的典型代表,其保存儒学的呼声,与其前的国粹派和其后的学衡派可谓同调。而较之国粹派与学衡派,学术界对孔教派的关注还不够,尤其是将孔教会作为一个宗教文化社团、将     

近三十年来社会思潮的演变及其发展趋势浅析

社会思潮是一定时期内时代主题的反映,当代社会思潮是人们对"如何实现现代化"这一时代课题在观念上的反映。本文认为改革开放以来主要社会思潮有:人道主义思潮、自由主义思潮、新左派思潮、民族主义思潮和民主社会主义思潮,并进一步分析它们的演变过程以及发展趋势。     

对影响大学生的当代社会思潮的社会学分析

每个时代都有各具特色的社会思潮产生和流行,新旧制度冲突改换的时期更是思潮泛滥。影响大学生的当代社会思潮主要包括自由主义、新左派和民族主义等,特别是实用主义、拜金主义,这些思潮相互竞争,相互影响,同时各自又有极端的表现。市场化改革和全面开放导致的社会流动、阶层分化和融入全球化的进程迅速而剧烈,市场经济体制还不够成熟,经济与社会政治的发展还不够协调,是各种社会思潮产生、流行和互动的原因。     

试论抗战时期两种非理性的民族主义思潮──保守主义与“战国策派”

试论抗战时期两种非理性的民族主义思潮──保守主义与“战国策派”黄岭峻美国哲学家怀特在《分析的时代》一书的开头写道：几乎二十世纪的每一种重要的哲学运动都是以攻击那位思想庞杂而声名赫赫的十九世纪的德国教授的观点开始的,这实际上就是对他加以特别显著的颂扬。...     

近代中国文化保守主义述论

近代中国文化保守主义述论何晓明１８世纪以后,原生型资本主义现代化的扩张,在世界各地、尤其是在亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲地区,激起了普遍热烈的文化反响。保守主义便是在这一过程中,与自由主义、激进主义相伴生的文化思潮与派别。自由主义全面肯定资本主义现代化的价值...     

自由主义与民族主义的纠缠——以1930-40年代“战国策派”思潮为例

在近代中国社会发展中,拯救民族危机与向现代转型是发展的两条主线,由此形成了既要反对西方侵略、维护民族尊严,就要倡导中国文化独立性,反对西方文化传入;既要开放中国,学习西方以融入世界,就必须反对民族主义思潮,批判传统文化的相互矛盾的双线走向。在九一八事变后民族危机上升为中国社会主要矛盾,"战国策派"主要人物与追求自由主义信仰的众多知识界人士一样,在思想理念上发生了迎合民族主义思潮的转变,倡导"国家至上、民族至上",呼吁个人自由暂时让位于民族自由,为时势所迫主张集权政治,并将民主政治与民主主义硬性割裂。救亡与启蒙的两难,观念与现实的冲突,自由主义内核与民族主义外衣的交织,在战国策学人论述中表现十分突出,也是那个动荡时代知识群体中思潮繁杂现象的典型反映。     

西欧民族主义初探——从文艺复兴到德国统一

西欧民族主义是对世界历史产生过重大影响的思潮之一。弄清这个问题,不仅有助于深入探讨世界(特别是西欧)历史的演变规律,也有助于正确认识当前在不少国家和国际关系中起着重要作用的民族主义。民族主义是极其复杂的社会政治思潮,在不同的历史阶段、不同国家或地区,其内容、表现和作用都有所不同。本文拟着重从研究民族主义的重要内容和演变规律入手,对从文艺复兴到德国统一这段历史时期内西欧的民族主义作一初步探讨。     

The Rise of Vo¨lkisch-Nationalism and the Decline of German Liberalism: A Comparison of Liberal Political Cultures in Schleswig-Holstein and Silesia 1912-1924

Historians have tended to focus on political economic and political organisational factors in order to explain the rise of liberalism in the nineteenth century and the decline of liberalism in the twentieth. But these factors tell only part of the story, particularly in the German case. For the precipitous decline of German liberalism after 1890 cannot be understood without examining the rise of Austro-German völkisch (ethnic) nationalism in the same period. Comparing Germany's two most liberal regions, Schleswig-Holstein and Silesia, this article argues that liberalism became increasingly dependent for its political survival on an accomodation with ethnic nationalism. It is hoped that such a comparison will lead to a reexamination of the conventional ways in which German liberal success and failure are understood, and a re-evaluation of what it meant to be a liberal in Germany and Europe during the first third of the twentieth century.     

German modernity,barbarous Slavs and profit‐seeking Jews: the cultural racism of nationalist liberals

This paper examines emblematic texts by two important protagonists of post‐1848 liberalism in Germany, Gustav Freytag and Heinrich von Treitschke, focusing on their treatment of Jews and Poles. The paper analyses the social content of their statements and argues that the elements of anti‐Semitism and anti‐Slav racism that they contain were motivated by the specific kind of nationalist liberalism that frames their affirmation of the process of modernisation. This affirmation was directed against the Poles on the one hand, seen as backward Easterners who had to be pushed into civilisation by Prussian–German colonialism, and, on the other hand, the Jews, largely perceived as representing the wrong kind of modernity against which benign (supposedly German) modernity had to be protected. At the same time, the image of the Jew in Freytag and Treitschke also participates in that of the backward Easterner, permitting to see undesirable, allegedly Jewish aspects of modernity also as distortions resulting from an alien and ancient culture. This analysis has consequences for theorisations of both liberalism and nationalism: it suggests that the racism and anti‐Semitism of nationalist liberals were intrinsically related to core aspects of the liberal world‐view rather than being merely contingent opinions held by particular individuals. It also indicates that the nationalism of many German post‐1848 liberals was ethnic as well as liberal. In this way, the paper contributes to the growing body of literature discussing the illiberal aspects of liberalism as well as the shortcomings of the long‐established conceptual dichotomy of ethnic vs. liberal nationalism.     

Nationality in the open society: Popper versus Hayes and Kohn

Popper's attitude to nationalism can be analysed by comparison with the position taken by Hayes and Kohn, who distinguished between a communal, malevolent form of nationalism, and a civic and constitutional variant that could coexist with liberalism. By contrast, Popper welcomes communal affiliations whose diversity he perceives as essential to liberalism, while rejecting sovereignty, whether or not invested in a representative body, as a threat to the liberal open society. This perspective reverses the normative priorities that Hayes and Kohn attribute to liberalism. Its basis is Popper's adherence to a pluralist liberalism, which centres on protecting social ties rather than on representation and state organs. This denotation of liberalism competes with the legalist individualism that Hayes and Kohn identify with liberalism and therefore accommodates nationalism differently.     

民族主义内在的困境——陈独秀国家观从民族主义到自由主义的转变

在近代中国思想史上,陈独秀堪称思想历程最为曲折的人物之一.早年他服膺民族主义,后来转奉自由主义(民主主义),又转而信仰社会主义(共产主义),晚年他的思想走向社会主义、自由主义和民族主义的大综合.本文所考察的,是陈独秀从民族主义到自由主义的转变,以及这次转变所呈现的民族主义的内在困境.     

Jacob Talmon between Zionism and Cold War Liberalism

The paper focuses on the problematic relationship between Talmon's liberalism and Zionism. My argument is that Talmon's nationalism (Zionism included)—historicist, romantic, visionary—lived in permanent tension with his liberalism—empiricist, pluralist, pragmatic. His critique of totalitarian democracy, reflecting his British experience, emerged independently from his Zionism, grounded in Central European nationalism. The two represented different worlds. Talmon lived in both, serving as an ambassador in-between them, without ever bringing them together.

The essay's first section describes the political education of the young Jacob Talmon (née Flajszer) and the making of The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy. It demonstrates the independence of Talmon's Cold War liberal project from his Zionism. The second section places Talmon in the context of Cold War liberal discourse, showing how integral his critique of revolutionary politics was to contemporary liberalism. The third illustrates the tensions between Talmon's view of Jewish history and his liberalism, between his Zionism and his critique of revolutionary politics. Focusing on Talmon's analyses of nationalism, it highlights the ambiguity of his Zionism.     

Constantin Frantz and the intellectual history of Bonapartism and Caesarism: a reassessment

The conservative German publicist and political theorist, Constantin Frantz (1817–1891), occupies an ambiguous place in German intellectual history. Some, such as Friedrich Meinecke, located him within the rich intellectual tradition of German federalism, highlighting his hostility to the idea of the “nation-state” and the traditions of nationalism, Realpolitik and militarism. Others, by contrast, have situated him within a long genealogy of German fascism, identifying his remarkable 1852 work, Louis Napoleon, as a kind of precursor or antecedent of twentieth-century fascist ideology. This interpretation raises broader questions about the historiography on Bonapartism and Caesarism, which has often been motivated by an interest in the intellectual origins of modern fascism. The present article supplies a reinterpretation of Frantz’s thinking about Bonapartism (Napoleonismus) and Caesarism by focusing on a much broader range of his intellectual output and by tracking the development of his view of Bonapartism’s significance between 1851 and the early 1870s. The main outcome is not just to question Frantz’s place in the “prehistory” of fascism, but also to show how deeply nineteenth-century debates about Bonapartism were connected to concerns about liberalism, democracy, nationalism and imperialism.     

Liberal intolerance in European education debates

The reaction against non‐western immigrants and especially Muslims has been analysed both in terms of an exclusionary civic nationalism and in terms of an assertive liberalism. Similar to exclusionary civic nationalism, assertive liberalism purports to defend liberal democratic principles and society against illiberal principles and forces predominantly represented by Muslims. This article argues that nationalism and liberalism are analytically distinguishable but difficult to disentangle empirically. It contends that a more detailed analysis of assertive liberalism can be obtained by subdividing it into four categories of liberal intolerance and demonstrates this by analysing six national debates on the accommodation of cultural and religious diversity in education. The analysis indicates that the nature of liberal intolerance understood as the combination of the four categories of liberal intolerance varies with the state tradition regarding religious neutrality of public institutions and the type of welfare state, but also that many liberal arguments for and against accommodation repeat themselves across national contexts.     

Nationalism,liberalism and liberal nationalism in post-war Croatia*

This article analyses ethnic nationalism and liberalism as expressed in the views of Croatians in the aftermath of the 1991–5 war – a war during which ethnic-nationalist rhetoric played a large role. Because the war was part of systemic change in the nation, including the adoption of more democratic and capitalist social formation, we also anticipated economic and political liberalism to be present among a sizeable portion of the population. We provide an analysis of the structural conditions fostering these sentiments, an analysis potentially applicable to a range of societies presently in transition. Based on 1996 survey interviews (N=2,202) conducted throughout Croatia, we show that ethnic nationalism in the Croatian context is more widely shared than is liberalism. The effect of religious fundamentalism, educational attainment and media exposure are as predicted, based on theories of liberalism and nationalism. Wartime experiences and position in the occupational system have a weaker and more mixed influence than hypothesised. Perhaps most importantly, we find that three out of five Croatians embrace both ethnic-national views and views that are distinctly liberal, suggesting that liberal nationalism is now dominant in Croatia. The characteristics of groups holding differing views suggest that recent events and current changes in Croatia bode positively for continued growth of liberal sentiments, but this will not necessarily be at the expense of ethnic nationalism.     

Anti‐cosmopolitan liberalism: Isaiah Berlin,Jacob Talmon and the dilemma of national identity

ABSTRACT. The debate between contemporary cosmopolitans and advocates of nationalism is hardly new. Nevertheless, much of it is based on the erroneous assumption that cosmopolitanism should be seen as an outgrowth of liberalism, and that both should be considered as the complete conceptual opposites of nationalism. In this article I focus on two of the post‐war Jewish anglophile intellectuals who took part in this debate during the Cold War years: the Oxonian liberal philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909–97) and the Israeli historian Jacob L. Talmon (1916–80). I use their examples to argue that the dividing line between cosmopolitans and advocates of nationalism should not be regarded as signifying the distinction between liberals and anti‐liberals; in fact, this debate also took place within the camp of the liberal thinkers themselves. I divide my discussion into three parts. Firstly, I examine Berlin's and Talmon's positions within the post‐war anti‐totalitarian discourse, which came to be known as ‘liberalism of fear’. Secondly, I show how a sense of Jewish identity, combined with deep Zionist convictions, induced both thinkers to divorce anti‐nationalist cosmopolitanism – which they regarded as a hollow, illusionary ideal associated with impossible assimilationist yearnings – from the liberal idea. I conclude by suggesting that, although neither man had ever developed a systematic theoretical framework to deal with the complex interactions between ethno‐nationalism, liberal individualism and multiculturalism, Berlin's vision of pluralism provides the foundations for building such a theory, in which liberalism and nationalism become complementary rather than conflicting notions.     

Liberalism and nationalism in Russia. Boris Chicherin as a modernist nationalist

This article investigates the link between nationalism and liberalism in Russia by looking at the way the leading spokesman of early Russian liberalism, Boris Chicherin, combined liberal ideas with notions of nation‐building and the idea of the nation as a modernising phenomenon. The article argues that the young Chicherin, at least in the formative years of the 1850s, had an instrumental approach to liberalism. Liberalism served a specific purpose – to integrate the people and shape a community of active citizens so that Russia could modernise. Chicherin was concerned with the formation of a modern nation‐state rather than the establishment of popular rule or political rights. In this sense, his thinking fits well into what, in the context of the Ottoman Empire, has been called modernist nationalism.