伯克、卢梭与法国大革命

在反对法国革命的过程中,伯克对卢梭的人格和政治哲学进行了严厉批评。他们的思想冲突根源于他们不同的个人命运、不同的政治和社会背景,特别是源自根本不同的社会历史观,从而导改革命和保守政治思想的歧异。卢梭崇尚自然状态,批判文明社会,否定现存的社会政治秩序,根据其社会契约论作出了乌托邦式的政治设计,在法国革命中引发了严重后果。伯克以维护英国光荣革命传统为使命,坚持有机的社会历史现,强调社会演进的连续性和稳定性,主张一种权力平衡的社会政治秩序,防止权力滥用。伯克和卢梭的思想冲突反映出深广的思想和时代内涵。他们对民主这类重大政治问题的阐发和批评在今天仍是值得我们深思的。     

我为“海外关系”正名上书中央

“海外关系是个好东西” 中国有几千万海外华侨华人,遍布于世界各地,这是一笔特殊的宝贵财富。广大海外中华儿女具有热爱祖国的光荣传统,在我国历次的重大社会变革和抵抗外来侵略的斗争中,他们都曾作出过重大的贡献。尤其在支持祖国的改革开放与和平统一大业中,广大海外华侨都发挥了巨大的作用。因此,邓小平曾经赞扬“海外关系是个好东西”。     

对志书记述改革开放的几点思考

改革开放是近30年来的主旋律,这不但是一场轰轰烈烈的社会变革,也是人们思想、观念、行为、方法等方面的改变,并已经广泛地深入到政治、经济、社会、文化等各个领域、各个层面,成为社会发展的基本动力。这一社会重大变革正是二轮志书所要记述的主要内容,如何客观真实地记录好这一段历史,修志工作者都在冥思苦想。     

梁漱溟、吴景超社会思想之比较

<正>梁漱溟、吴景超为民国时期的著名学者,20世纪30年代以来的"中国现代化道路"的争论成为彼此学术思想的关联点,开启了他们对一些社会重大焦点问题的深层次思考。本文从知识社会学视角分析和认识他们社会思想的分歧与共识,揭示近代社会改良思想的演变规律,进而反思工具理性和价值理性在社会发展过程中的是非得失。一、中国社会结构的分析社会结构是梁漱溟、吴景超研究中国现实问题的出发点。在关于社会阶级问题上,梁漱溟断定中国缺乏     

中国传统社会变革的主要特征

中华文明之所以几千年来一直保持其强大生命力,关键在于构成中华文明的思想内核中,有一个重要的元素——“变”,表现在历史发展进程中,就是社会的不断变革,从上古三代到今天的改革开放,中国传统社会经历多次重大变革,并鲜明表现为四个主要特征：商品经济是社会变革的主要推动力量;以“民”的演变为基础和发展主线,经历了部族社会、豪民社会、     

略论世界历史上的社会变革

人类进入文明社会以来,经历了农业文明和工业文明两大时代。期间贯穿了三次社会变革：第一次社会变革是在公元前4000年代末,由于社会生产力的发展和农业的进步,最终导致原始公社制的解体和奴隶制国家的建立。随之而来的是贯穿整个文明时代始终的脑力劳动和体力劳动的对立、农民和手工业劳动者的对立、城市与乡村的对立。第二次社会变革是由奴隶制向封建制过渡,马克思认为这两个社会阶段都是以人身依附关系为特征的。前者是完全处于人身依附状态,后者是部分处于人身依附状态,两者的差别不大。第三次社会变革是实现经济和社会的现代化。这是一次规模最大的经济和社会大转变,概括地说,就是要实现市场化、工业化和民主化,三者相辅相成,缺一不可。中国的现代化只能走有中国特色的社会主义道路。     

陈独秀、青年毛泽东文化政治思想之比较

陈独秀和毛泽东是中国近现代思想史上的两个重要人物。对他们的思想进行比较研究,无疑在研究中国近现代思想方面具有典型的意义。本文试图就伦理观、历史观、社会变革观三个方面,对陈独秀与青年毛泽东(限于1915年9月《新青年》创刊至1918年秋陈独秀、毛泽东于北京相识)的文化政治思想作一初步比较,并以此就教于学界方家。     

《赵氏孤儿》与《中国孤儿》——论两剧创作倾向及思想主题

元人纪君祥的杂剧《赵氏孤儿》直接启发法国作家伏尔泰创作了《中国孤儿》,并将中国精神介绍到法国以及西方社会,在当时的西方社会引起了很大的轰动,成为中国文化走出去的先锋,但两剧无论是在思想主题还是在创作倾向层面都有很大的不同,值得去深入思考、研究。     

马基雅维利与孟子政治思想比较

马基雅维利与孟子都是世界上伟大的政治思想家,虽然他们的时代、地域不同,但都处在各自时代社会变革的转折点上,他们的思想都各在东西方产生了深远的影响。马基雅维利主张性恶论,孟子主张性善论;马基雅维利认为君主应当使人民畏惧,而不应当使人民憎恨,而孟子则提出"民贵君轻"思想;马基雅维利主张强国以武力与法律,孟子主张德法并重。本文拟从以上几个方面对二者的政治思想进行比较。     

法国空想社会主义社会建设思想的形成条件、特征和社会价值研究

自1615年莫尔发表《乌托邦》以来,空想社会主义已有五百年历史。法国空想社会主义是空想社会主义思想史上的浓墨重彩的一笔。法国空想社会主义社会建设思想是法国空想社会主义思想的重要组成部分。研究法国空想社会主义社会建设思想的形成条件、特征和社会价值,对于深化法国空想社会主义思想研究有一定的理论价值,对我国新常态下的社会建设实践具有一定的现实启示。     

曲折中艰难前行——辛亥后社会长期动乱的困惑与思考

辛亥革命以后中国社会长期军阀割据、国家分裂、战争频仍、社会动乱的现实。让人们对革命的成果和意义感到困惑。然而纵观英、法、关、日诸国政治近代化的进程,元一例外都经历过曲折与反复。中国的政治近代化进程亦然。政治近代化是一个不断进步、发展、完善的过程。不可能一蹴而就;它必须有一个起点、开端,然后才有可能继续前进。中国的民主革命,从辛亥算起,到1949年真正意义上的近代民主革命任务的完成,为时近40年,这较之荚、法、美、目政治近代化所经历的反复与曲折、所经历的时间,并不为过。辛亥革命是中国政治近代化过程的起点和开端,没有辛玄革命,就没有中国政治近代化的进程。     

Pratiques culturelles et circulation en Europe

In the present study the author examines the migratory practices of movement between France and Portugal of young French of Portuguese ancestry, as well as of young Portuguese living in France. The study of these practices from an ethnological point of view sheds light on the interaction of material resources and the multifaceted symbolic resources associated with them. Besides the economic and political dimension in which these practices are grounded, the identity — forming process of which they are a part raises a number of questions — especially in the context of the European Union. The author shows how, by using elements drawn from the family migratory history, natural history and Portuguese culture, the descendents of Europeans who migrated for economic reasons are now trying to go beyond the dilemma of an identity posed by their «double culture», as well as the social and cultural constraints imposed on them by their elders.     

五代时期的“中国”观

在五代十国时期,北方五朝相继,都以继承唐朝而自居于正统、代表中国,对其他各国都作现况的承认,但态度并不一致,视局势的不同而有所调整,或认为天下分裂,各有其国,或认为地方政权应在臣属的地位。而其他各国有的承认北方五代为正统,屈从于臣属地位,也有认为天下分裂,北方并不能是中国的必然代表,即各有其国,各有合法的地位。"中国"代表北方中原的朝代还是代表"天下"?在表述中并不一致,当时的情形是各自的认知并不一致之故,亦即没有共识的基础。     

社会转型是中国文化演进的社会基础

社会转型时期各种思想的激荡,各种经济利益的冲突,各种社会派别力量及阶级(层)的斗争,分别形成了中国文化不断演进的思想、经济及政治基础,它们共同构成中国文化不断演进的社会基础。     

Exemplary Cities in China: The Capitalist Aesthetic and the Loss of Space

ABSTRACT

Since the late twentieth century, the subject of China becoming urban has appeared in the scholarship across the disciplines while spectacular images of China’s cities, and narratives about their developmental achievements, have proliferated in global media. Simultaneously, the parallel “spatial turn” in social thought invigorated geographical approaches to cities and urban change. Yet at this promising meeting ground, between contemporary geographical thought and urban-industrial transformation in China, research has tended to demonstrate a “loss of space” through patterns of dependence on analog circulation of exemplar paradigms that derive from the history of the capitalist city and liberal political economy. What drives this condition and what do we know about its practices and proliferation? This inquiry challenges research design and the politics of theory to consider how routine adoption of capital-centric concepts for research on cities in China arguably reflects the priority of paradigms in the disciplines and their conjunctures with exemplarity in Chinese society and political philosophy. These interstices facilitate application of analog models, and selective adoption of empirical information to suit them, with the paradoxical result of portraying cities in China through multiple capitalist aesthetics including a relatively narrow range of empirics framed by market-based social thought.     

Power and Ethnicity History and Anthropology

This essay reflects on the relationship between anthropological and historical scholarship of ethnicity, picking up on themes explored by Andre Gingrich, by considering the epistemological and evidentiary limitations of social scientific and historical analysis and reconstruction. Beginning with the consideration of the pioneering transdisciplinary efforts of Robert Darnton and Clifford Geertz, it argues that many of the weaknesses ascribed to such efforts are actually part of the nature of social scientific investigation which, in the terms of Peter Winch, must take into account two sets of relationships: that of the relationship between the scientist and the phenomena that he or she observes and the symbolic system that he or she shares with other scientists, which can only be understood from the social context of common activity. How these two relationships challenge social scientific analysis of ethnicity are examined through a consideration of the difficulties of applying Anthony Smith's definition of an ethnie to either Fredrik Barth's classic essay on “Pathan Identity and its Maintenance” or Helmut Reimitz's study of Frankish identity. It concludes that neither anthropologists nor historians are simply describing societies as they are or as they were but rather attempt to describe societies as witnesses within them thought they should be, and we do this for our own society, not for those of the participants, past or present.     

A critical perspective on socially embedded cultural policy in France

This paper aims to show how in France, the synthesis of cultural policy and social concerns throws up a number of tensions and pitfalls. These tensions are perhaps most acute because these sorts of cultural policies are not merely about socio‐economic issues but are actually tied to France’s colonial legacy and the presence of a large and often marginalised population of migrants and their descendents. The pitfalls stem from the universalist starting point of French cultural policy, which, although designed to integrate “new” and migrant/postmigrant publics, emergent artists and cultural practices, seems to simultaneously marginalise them since it is already premised on a binary that opposes art as aesthetic expression and art as an expression of cultural (anthropological) identity or social cohesion.     

再造“西北”:民国时期旅外学人对西北形象的重塑

民国时期,西北在国人的眼里具有双重性,部分论者包括在西北任事的一些外省籍人士认为西北是一蛮荒之区,这种负面评价在当时颇有市场,西北的旅外学人对此甚为反感,撰文驳斥。由于旅外学人处于建言地位,且某些言论和行为触及了统治者的利益,不被当权者重视甚至被封杀。不过旅外学子信守知识分子的弘毅使命,勇敢揭露故乡黑暗统治,向外界告知西北真实情境,不遗余力为桑梓献言献策等举止,为民国时期乃至后来西北形象的重塑和构建起到了重要作用。     

傅斯年、陈寅恪与兰克史学

傅斯年与陈寅恪两位史学大师关系甚密,他们对现代中国史学都产生了深刻的影响.本文阐明近世西方兰克史学治史之旨趣,揭示了兰克给后世留下的两种印象,并侧重通过傅斯年、陈寅恪与兰克史学的比较,以说明他们两人所受西方吏学特别是兰克的影响.作者认为,傅斯年与陈寅恪史学思想的形成均有其共同的西学支撑,那就是兰克文学.     

Heritage Ethics for a Present Imperfect

Lynn identifies three critical discussion that framed the Stanford workshop. First, the language of the code, which she feels should reflect our acknowledgement that archaeologists are not the primary stakeholders for most situations and using core values instead of codification as a starting point. Second, the recognition of particular histories and the consequences of colonial encounters, with the acknowledgment that colonialist relations continue to exist in many places. Third is the issue of how WAC positions itself in relation to issues of social justice. Lynn points out that while WAC could be an active vehicle for attaining social justice on a global scale, the ethical implications of taking any kind of interventionist stance need to be fully thought through, lest they be seen as telling people what to do—a stance that would only serve to mirror imperialist and colonialist practices. We need to ask people what they want in regard to their heritage and be prepared to listen, even if archaeology is not immediately important for them or they suggest directions that we find challenging.