论马克思的社会和谐观及其实践意义

本文论述了马克思社会和谐观的理论来源、主要内容,以及正确理解和把握马克思社会和谐观对于中国构建社会主义和谐社会的实践意义.     

马克思哲学的实践转向及其当代意义——马克思实现的哲学革命

实践问题是马克思哲学思想的核心问题,也是哲学史上的古老话题.早在古希腊时期的亚里士多德就曾多次使用"实践"一词;文艺复兴时期的思想家把实践作为与理论相对的范畴提了出来;德国古典哲学家针对实践做了很多有价值的论述,特别是把实践纳入认识论尤为难能可贵,这成为马克思实践主体性哲学创立的理论契机.马克思在对前人的批判继承基础之上,通过不同时期的著述逐渐完善了自己的实践观,从生存论的意义上可以看出,马克思的实践观所追寻的目标在于人是目的性的存在而不是作为手段出现.前马克思实践观导致了近代认知主体性哲学主客二元分裂的思维方式,并进而导致了工具理性与主体价值世界的分离,这是当代西方发达社会人类生存困境的根源所在.马克思的生存论实践观从根本上是对认知主体性哲学的超越,因为,实践哲学是以现实的人的现实活动为基础的回归生活世界的理论.马克思的实践哲学改变了以往哲学脱离现实的抽象性,能够使人在现实的实践活动中实现对世界的改造,从而实现哲学的批判的、革命的作用,实现了哲学史上的一次伟大的变革,这对当代中国具有极大地理论意义与现实意义.     

走出形而上学:马克思哲学当代理解的理论起点

可以将形而上学理解为从理念、主体出发来统摄社会历史生活的哲学思考,这是主体理性霸权的表现。马克思哲学变革的核心在于,通过哲学与社会历史生活之间的互文性关系,实现了哲学与社会生活之间的批判性互读,走出了传统形而上学的理论问题域。这是我们从马克思哲学出发,走向当代社会历史批判的理论起点。     

论人类学实践哲学--马克思实践哲学的性质

马克思的实践哲学继承和发展了哲学史实践哲学的宝贵资源,把实践哲学置于人类学的视野内,从而实现了哲学史上实践哲学的一场革命.马克思的实践哲学克服了实践的二元论,把实践看作是超验与经验的统一,看作是完整的生活世界,从而建立了一种总体性的实践观.因此,马克思的人类学实践哲学内涵着一种超验纬度,内涵着人类的终极关怀.这种超验性是一种积极的超验性;这种终极关怀消除了超验与经验的张力,在历史的进程中,具有了现实性的品格.     

现代人类学思维范式的创生--马克思实践哲学新探

在对马克思哲学本真精神的理解中 ,辩证唯物主义的提法不足以反映出马克思哲学的创新 ;而实践唯物主义只是马克思哲学的具体形态 ,其底蕴则是现代人类学思维范式。认清马克思实践哲学的这一底蕴具有重大的理论和现实意义     

马克思的现实观对我国国家治理的启示

文章基于马克思的现实观探讨如何切中中国社会现实,以及对中国特色"国家治理"的启示,即以马克思现实观的核心内涵——"实践的创造性"为出发点,突出马克思的现实观对中国实际情况的创造性变革和改造,这样才能突出国家治理的中国特色。首先,要把握中国社会现实,明确社会实存的本质,以及还原现实,对现实客体(中国社会的特殊性)进行研究;其次,国家治理要把握理论-现实-实践三者之间的关系;再次,还要运用马克思切中现实的方法——历史唯物主义和辩证的方法。     

“主体性”的三次转向——从黑格尔、费尔巴哈到马克思

理解马克思的"主体性"对于把握马克思的现代性批判思想有着重要意义。马克思主体性思想的生成受到黑格尔的理性主体与费尔巴哈的感性实践主体的双重影响。黑格尔主体性思想的理论依据是理性形而上学:主体的根基是绝对。费尔巴哈批判黑格尔主体的抽象性,把主体的基础立足为现实的、感性的实践。马克思批判费氏实践只是一种无对象的感性直观,并且综合二者的优缺点,提出主体是现实的具体的主体,是理性与实践的统一。然而,现实社会中的主体却受到理性形而上学与资本的控制而丧失了现实的具体性,这是马克思进行现代性批判的根本任务和旨趣。     

从实践唯物主义到实践人类学——对马克思主义哲学的新探索

本文从哲学功能的历史变革中重新考察马克思主义哲学的本质内涵,认为马克思主义的哲单晶核是实践的唯物主义,而从实践唯物主义到实践人类学,则是马克思主义哲学思维活动的内在逻辑与发展轨迹。实践唯物主义哲学的功能是有机整合着抽象描述功能与思维规范功能在内的价值性功能,即具体表现为批判性评价、创造性建构和指导历史活动的实践改造功能,哲学功能的转换归根到底取决于哲学的结构及其合理化。从感觉的社会性到实践的社会结构,标志着马克思的实践唯物主义的日臻成熟,而作为实践主体与实践对象的中介体系,社会关系体系的具体结构成为马克思日后研究的焦点。由此,导致实践基础上的哲学人类学革命,而马克思的实践唯物主义为实践人类学的研究方向奠定了坚实的理论基础。     

海德格尔晚期讲座中的马克思问题

海德格尔在其后期的“四个讲座”( Vier Seminare)中较多地评论起马克思。1966年海德格尔将马克思视作黑格尔辩证法的一个影子；1968年海德格尔部分地承认了马克思的生产概念不同于黑格尔；1969年海德格尔通过对实践与理论之关系的比较再次将马克思还原为黑格尔主义者；最后，在1973年，海德格尔阐明自己解读马克思的非政治方向，并把马克思定性为遗忘存在的形而上学家和虚无主义者。海德格尔的马克思解读有其开新的一面，但总体而言误解大于创见。     

浅谈毛泽东知行统一观对马克思早期实践观的切中

毛泽东的知行统一观是毛泽东用中国哲学范畴对认识和实践统一理论的概括,是基于马克思主义哲学的实践观而提出的科学的认识论思想。马克思的早期实践观是针对近代理性行而上学而提出的,它认为＂实践＂是一种对象性的活动,包含着＂感性是活动的,活动是感性的＂两层含义。毛泽东的知行统一观与马克思早期实践观存在诸多契合点。     

论构建新实学之路

当今时代是和平与发展的新时代,新时代需要新哲学,新实学就是人类在新时代需要的新哲学。构建新实学有四个维度,即中国和东亚的实学思想优秀传统;现代西方哲学解构形而上学关注现实的新努力;马克思主义的实践唯物主义新世界观;人类当前现实的历史的伟大社会实践。这四个维度在本质上是一条理论与实践相结合的道路,沿着这条大道努力奋斗,我们就一定能成功构建当代人类需要的新实学。     

The Historical Forms of Materialism and the Philosophical Domain of Historical Materialism

Natural materialism, humanistic materialism and historical materialism are the three historical forms of materialism. The “material” in historical materialism is a social thing which is “perceptible and imperceptible by the senses” and connotes social relations; and the “history” in historical materialism is the realm in which contradictions between man and nature and between man and society are able to unfold, so historical materialism is “actually a critical view of the world” that inherently contains dialectics in a “rational form.” The formulation of historical materialism opened a new path for the development of materialism and even philosophy as a whole. In the course of its critique of capitalist society, which unfolds with capital as a core category, historical materialism sublates abstract existence and discovers real social existence, thus putting an end to metaphysics, which is grounded in abstract ontology.     

Developing the NICE/SCIE Guidelines for Dementia Care: The Challenges of Enhancing the Evidence Base for Social and Health Care

Internationally, interest is developing in the challenges ofdeveloping evidence-based guidelines for social work practice.The paper reports on the process of establishing the UK’sfirst joint health and social care evidence-based practice guideline,which is in dementia care. The paper addresses the methodologicaland procedural challenges of reviewing, meta-analysing and synthesizingknowledge for health and social care given the contrasting historiesof the two sectors in relation to the emergence of evidence-basedpractice. Dementia care is a complex domain within which socialand clinical perspectives intersect, reinforcing the desirabilityof producing ‘joined up’ health and social carepractice guidelines that are relevant to integrated services.It is suggested that the exemplar of producing a joint healthand social care guideline for dementia may be a model for futuredevelopment of practice guidelines. Some of the main recommendationsare presented to illustrate the character of the joint guideline,lessons are drawn for future guideline development, and implicationsfor policy and practice implementation are considered.     

On the margins of the child protection system: creating space for relational social work practice

In the UK, a threshold divides between two categories of children, child protection (CP) and child in need. Each category tends to be treated as a homogeneous entity, despite containing heterogeneous levels and forms of risk and need. CP practice, accompanied by regulation, protocols and procedures, aspires to achieve a coordinated multi‐agency response to identified concerns with available resources targeted towards this category. However, it is well known that those children assessed as falling just below the CP threshold can still have high levels of need and risk, requiring a level of social work involvement beyond the low‐resource and low‐oversight model that generally accompanies a child in need categorisation. This paper probes an approach to practice, which divides levels of risk within the child in need category enabling adequate, coordinated support and oversight to be provided for children and families with complex needs. Evidence from our study evaluating this approach suggests that a simple protocol provided a clear process within, which social workers and agency partners felt confident and safe to practice outside of the formal CP framework. The protocol prevented drift and helped to create a space within, which relational social work practice flourished.     

The Moral Arc as a Pretzel: Social Justice in the Trenches

This article explores how social justice has been defined in social work practice and contests the claim of some in our profession that direct practice and social welfare programs are incompatible with social justice, drawing on Foucault’s work on the inextricable link between power and knowledge. This article proposes that social justice “in the trenches” needs further theorizing. Literature supporting a view that direct practice is congruent with a social justice perspective is reviewed. Theory of recognition is introduced as a possible overarching theory to ground direct practice within a social justice framework.     

实践的紧迫性

紧迫性是实践的本质属性之一,实践紧迫性在思想史上却遭到长期遮蔽。布迪厄虽然曾多次提到这一议题,但从未有过专题论述。本文对实践紧迫性做了现象学社会学深描,澄清了它的三重必不可少的意蕴。通过考察人们对以独具时代特征的样式现身的实践紧迫性的体验,阐明了其所包含的三层意涵,同时揭示它对被诸事缠身的现代人的社会性情与心灵习性造成的影响。从实践紧迫性的意蕴,尤其是现代性情境下的实践紧迫性体验及其后果出发,本文重构了"实践紧迫性"这个具有生产性的概念,从而揭示了实践紧迫性及其体验之于理解与解释社会的可能性,至于实践紧迫性概念的其他理论意义则有待未来的探索。     

The Concept of Legal Practice in the Chinese Context

Legal practice comprises the normative activities of constructing and maintaining social order with the aim of achieving equity and justice. In terms of content, it can be divided into three categories: intellectual legal practice, normative legal practice, and applied legal practice. As an important factor supporting legal practice, legal theory has a complex interactive relationship with legal practice. The effect of legal theory on legal practice is realized through the intermediary, carrier and bridging functions of the rationality, wisdom and ideas of legal practice. Developing the concept of the ideal legal life is the inherent mission and method of legal practice thought.     

Advancing Hospice and Palliative Care Social Work Leadership in Interprofessional Education and Practice

The importance of interprofessional collaboration in achieving high quality outcomes, improving patient quality of life, and decreasing costs has been growing significantly in health care. Palliative care has been viewed as an exemplary model of interprofessional care delivery, yet best practices in both interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP) in the field are still developing. So, too, is the leadership of hospice and palliative care social workers within IPE and IPP. Generating evidence regarding best practices that can prepare social work professionals for collaborative practice is essential. Lessons learned from practice experiences of social workers working in hospice and palliative care can inform educational efforts of all professionals. The emergence of interprofessional education and competencies is a development that is relevant to social work practice in this field. Opportunities for hospice and palliative social workers to demonstrate leadership in IPE and IPP are presented in this article.     

A review of the research priorities of practitioners working with children in social care

It has been argued both that research in social care is insufficiently relevant to practice, and that a clearer steer is needed from the social work community in shaping national research priorities. The work reported here systematically searched for and analysed findings from studies that asked practitioners working with children for their suggestions for research. Eight studies were found, and authors gave us access to the primary data from four of these, to which we added responses from the What Works for Children? website survey of practitioners’ research priorities. Responses were analysed in terms of both topic and type of research. Family support, parenting and child protection research were among the most frequently requested child‐focused topics. In terms of question type, almost half the research suggestions concerned the effectiveness of interventions. These findings suggest that a commitment to outcomes, and to robustly researched interventions to attain those outcomes, are increasingly important to practitioners. These views from the front line may well be useful in assisting decision‐makers in social work, and research funders, to set priorities.