当代景观建筑学与传统风水理论辨析

本文试介绍并比较分析当代西方景观建筑学和中国古代的风水理论,通过它们的具体内涵及设计运用,指出它们在自然观、环境观和对自然环境审美意象方面的异同。这样,从人类文化历史脉络上,寻找人类未来发展的共识。     

历史理性的重建——奥特迦·伽赛特历史体系观散论

奥特迦·伽赛特在当代西方知识界是很有影响的思想家,但国内的有关研究至今尚不多见。本文旨在阐发和评论奥特迦史学理论的某些方面,特别是有关他重建历史理性的理论。本文在一系列基本论点上,不同意他的见解,但认为其中有些是值得我们研究和思考的,它们有助于扩展和深化我们的历史思维。     

乌拉王城与辉发王城建制的比较研究

文章论述了乌拉王城与辉发王城在建制上所具有的相同和不同点,相同点主要从两部王城在选址方面、王城的数量方面、城郭之制等方面进行比较,得出它们所具有的共同性;不同点主要从选址方面、王城发展沿革、筑城方法、都城布局等方面进行比较,找出它们的不同点。通过对它们相同点与不同点的比较,得出结论:两部王城是它们各自政治、经济、军事、文化的反映,可以说,女真人的智慧是它们存在的基础。     

区域科学、区域经济学与理论地理学

英美区域发展理论来源于五十年代后期在北美和英国最先盛行的三门交叉学科——区域科学、区域经济学和理论地理学。当时,这些学科都被各自当成新的和重要的研究领域而得到推广,分歧在于确定它们在社会科学中所应有的独特地位上。无论那一种情况、其特点据说在于通过运用统计方法和数学模型去研究社会生活的空间方面、解决实际问题、进行科学研究。为了了解英美区域发展理论的知识结构、有必要了解这三门学科的特征。     

明南京城和西安城建城比较

明南京城和西安城都是中国古代城垣建筑史上的典范之作,它们综合利用了历史上城墙构建的特点,有许多相同之处,但是由于它们在建城地理环境、指导思想等方面的差异,导致二者又具有各自的独特性。     

古陶瓷研究中的地理学视角

探讨文化地理学、区域观察方法在古陶瓷研究中的运用。文化地理学中的景观理论、文化的时间与过程、技术传播理论适用于古代瓷器手工业地理研究。区域的地理特性可以分为自然和人文两个方面,它们与区域瓷业特色的形成和兴衰有着密切的关联性。     

试谈中国美术考古学 --兼与《中国艺术考古学的奠基》作者商榷

艺术考古学的提出是艺术学科与考古学各自发展到一定阶段而相互渗透的必然,但不能因此而模糊艺术考古学与美术考古学的界限和实质。它们应该不仅仅只是在名称上的差异,更在学科理论与方法实践上各有归属。     

中国北方早期智人与直立人对环境适应性比较研究——L2时期的环境变化对人类演化的影响

直立人与早期智人在石器类型上的相似性反映了它们所处的相似的地质背景为他们提供了相似的石料;而在打片技术、用火等方面的差异可能反映了它们在适应环境能力上有一定的区别;和早期智人相比,直立人采用的适应方式可能要消耗更多的资源。L2时期恶劣的气候变化可能是直立人演化为早期智人的原因之一。     

尺度重组与地域重构:城市与区域重构的政治经济学分析

尺度重组和地域重构理论是当前从政治经济学视角研究全球化时代城市与区域空间重构和治理重构的热点理论。本文运用马克思主义地理学的研究方法,结合对当代资本主义运行方式的分析,对尺度重组和地域重构理论进行了深入的解析,并阐明了它们之间内在的、本质的联系。研究认为,尺度重组和地域重构是一个一体两面的过程,当资本为了克服危机而在地域组织上进行去地域化与再地域化时,地域组织(城市和国家)也同时发生了尺度重组,它们描述的是同一个资本转型的过程。     

博物馆藏品分类法理论思索及“双轨制”构想

一、对于当今藏品分类的理论思索思索之一:中国博物馆藏品分类(与编目)120年的历史是手工作业的历史;它们的发展已达到手工作业这一历史背景下的最大限度;当今研制博物馆藏品分类法,在思想理论上一定要自觉地超越手工作业历史阶段.     

INTERPRETATION AND EXPLANATION IN CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY

Continuing debates over the role of interpretation in history and social science have recently been linked to a program to develop a cultural sociology, as distinct from a sociology of culture. Apart from a defense of the importance of culture and meaning, this effort aims to develop a form of “interpretive explanation,” though not simply by following Max Weber's similar project from nearly one hundred years ago. The book under review looks at different “epistemic modes” that aim to produce social knowledge, in order to show how interpretive explanation can combine the best of all the modes. Unfortunately, the book is beset by numerous theoretical problems, including a problematical understanding of the relations of fact and theory, hasty criticisms of examples of the different modes, and a reliance on metaphors that makes it impossible to do justice to the issues. The project of what I would call a “thick explanation” is worthwhile, but will have to be pursued in a more nuanced and careful way.     

Printing,Publishing, and Book Culture in Premodern China

Abstract

After a lull in scholarship on the history of the Chinese book during the mid-twentieth century, there has been a reemerging surge of scholarly interest since the 1980s. This article accesses the expanding field of Chinese book history by focusing on two recently published volumes, which represent the newest approaches to the study of Chinese printing in the first significant phase of its development from the tenth to the fourteenth century and its long-term role in Chinese social and intellectual history after 1800, respectively. Placing them in the broader historical context, it further seeks to flesh out recent research trends and future prospects in the field, in particular the changing social and intellectual engagement with printed texts, the increasing impact of printing and publishing on cultural production, and the dynamic interaction between print and other media.     

把当代社会史提上研究日程

改革开放新时期以来,史学研究繁荣和发展的标志之一是社会史研究的复兴和高潮迭起。然而,迄今为止,全国还没有一部权威性的当代社会史或包括当代社会史在内的中国社会通史问世。无论从中国通史的一个断代史(中华人民共和国史)的角度审视,还是从中国正在经历并将长期经历的一个社会形态史(社会主义史)的角度审视,当代社会史都是一个亟待填补的空白。中华人民共和国史研究者要以学习和贯彻中共十六届六中全会精神为契机,加大力度研究与中国特色社会主义事业四位一体总体布局中社会建设相对应的当代社会史,把当代社会史提上研究日程,为构建社会主义和谐社会提供历史依据和理论支撑。     

"近五百年来中国社会结构变迁"国际学术讨论会综述

近500年特别是19世纪以来,中国社会结构处于急遽的历史变动进程之中,探寻转型与变动中的中国社会结构及其内在奥秘自然成为社会史学研究的重要课题与方向。由南开大学中国社会史研究中心暨历史学院共同主办的“近五百年来中国社会结构变迁”国际学术讨论会即围绕近500年来中国社会结构的历史变动主题,在社会结构的特征及其变迁、经济发展与社会结构变动、社会阶级阶层结构、社会流动与社会分层、城市社会结构、国家与社会结构变动等方面进行了深入研讨,力图再现500年来中国社会结构变迁的历史图景,并为当代中国社会结构转型提供历史借鉴。     

A Response to Clayton Crockett and Jeffrey Robbins,Religion, Politics and the Earth: The New Materialism1

Crockett's and Robbins' significant and groundbreaking book falls short of a genuinely liberating future, one that can put in place alternative social and institutional forms to sustain a comprehensive freedom from structural domination. This major claim is sustained by tracing four deficiencies in the book: (a) its sanguine trust to a developmentalist sensibility that underestimates political antagonism; (b) another neglect of political antagonism in its trust to transformative powers of a “multitude” and its cooperative activity, (c) its failure to build social and political formation into its theory of emergent complexity, and (4) its failure in reflexivity, to interrogate the “we” discourse that proliferates in authors' senses of crisis and calls for transformation.     

WHAT IS HISTORY? WHAT IS LITERATURE?

Ivan Jablonka seeks something other than a mere combination of history, social science, and literature. He would like history, itself understood as a social science, to be a literature of the real world. He is also interested in literature informed not only by the results but, more important, by the forms of reasoning and inquiry of history and related social sciences (notably anthropology and sociology). Jablonka's own positioning within the Annales seems obvious, notably in his stress on cognition, problem‐oriented research, and the status of history as a social science. But the attention and research devoted in the work of scholars in and around the Annales to the relations among history, literature, and fiction have not been pronounced, and in this context Jablonka inflects the understanding of history in relatively underdeveloped directions. Despite possible disagreements one may have over specific issues, Jablonka's thought‐provoking book raises very important questions, opens many significant avenues of inquiry, and seeks a desirable interaction between historical and literary approaches.     

中国"儒家社会主义"论析

“儒家社会主义”在中国思想史上占有重要一席,与西欧和俄国的空想社会主义相比,诞生时间早、经历时间长,对古今中国的影响恒久深远。儒家社会主义理论包括其高端纲领——大同社会论,及其低端纲领——小康社会论。“儒家社会主义”是宝贵的民族精神遗产,既有其理想的光辉,又有其空想的色彩。历史证明,惟有科学社会主义与和谐进步的科学发展理论方为当代中国践行必胜的思想道路。     

对马克思分工-阶级理论的再解读

长期以来,人们把马克思主义的阶级理论归结为“生产资料所有制决定阶级的划分;阶级斗争推动社会发展”这样一种理论模式。现在,人们发现运用这种理论模式解释历史和现实都遇到众多的困难,于是出现了要求用西方社会学的社会分层理论代替阶级分析理论的呼声。这是对马克思阶级理论作教条式误读引起的不良后果。实际上,马克思主义的阶级理论本是一种“分工—阶级理论”,按照这样的理论,就应把阶级视为在一定生产力发展水平决定的分工体系中处在不同的地位、发挥不同的作用、因而对生产资料和生产成果拥有不同的占有或支配权利、并因而具有不同的思想和行为取向的社会集团。运用这样的分工—阶级理论分析历史和现实社会的阶级、阶层及其相互关系和与之相应的社会变迁,才能看清社会历史演进的规律性和必然趋势。     

The history of ‘Social Technology’, 1898–1930

Since the term was first coined, in the late nineteenth century, ‘social technology’ has had a mixed fate. Whereas ‘technology’ has become one of the keywords of the twentieth century, ‘social technology’ never quite seemed to settle in the vocabulary of social theory. In this article, we focus on the early history of ‘social technology’, tracing its spread from its origin in the sociology department at the University of Chicago, and describing the increasing competition from the term ‘social engineering’ starting in the 1920s. We argue that this shift in terminology is significant, because it is an index of changing ideas about the demarcation of sociology, about the application of science in the betterment of society and about the nature of technology.     

Mortuary practices: Their social,philosophical-religious,circumstantial, and physical determinants

Recent, mainstream, American mortuary archaeology, in its paradigmatic outlook, middle-range theory, analytic methodology, and case studies, has emphasized social organization as the primary factor that determines mortuary practices. Broader anthropological and social science traditions have recognized philosophical-religious beliefs as additional, important determinants. The historical roots of mortuary archaeology's focus on the social, and the consequence of this on theory development, is reviewed. Then, through a Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) cross-cultural survey, the kinds of philosophical-religious, social organizational, circumstantial, and physical factors that affect specific kinds of mortuary practices, and the relative importance of these factors, are documented. The data are also used to test basic premises that mortuary archaeologists routinely use today to reconstruct social organization. A balanced, more holistic, and multidisciplinary approach, which considers many kinds of causes beyond social ones, is found necessary to interpret mortuary remains and to reconstruct the past from them.