滕尼斯与齐美尔:社会伦理同文化伦理的分流

作为德国社会学的两位奠基人,滕尼斯和齐美尔奠定了截然相反的两种现代伦理生活格局。伦理世界观的分流源于他们各自对时代处境的体验以及对思想史的独特解释。从近代自然法的角度出发,滕尼斯的社会伦理的核心是重建政治社会的秩序与风尚,一切价值最终都要融入社会;与此相反,齐美尔的社会学思考从一开始就以对社会伦理的批评作为前提,他将超越社会的个体生命视作伦理的目的,对他来说,生命不仅意味着身处社会之中的个体具有饱满个性,而且从自身孕育出客观的、适用于他自己的伦理责任。从帝制时期到魏玛时期,德国社会伦理同文化伦理的分流、交织与合流为我们提供了一条理解德国社会学史的清晰主线。     

Karl Marx's sociological theory of democracy: Civil society and political rights

This essay reconstructs Marx's relationship to democracy and liberalism through an examination of his early work which was directly concerned with the issues of understanding democracy as a kind of society. Only with an analysis of the dynamics of civil society—a political economic, sociological, and historical understanding—could the true nature of citizenship be discerned. In contradistinction to liberal political theory, he would argue that political theory could not stand on its own if it analyzed only the state. Marx came to understand the contradiction between the liberal state and civil society as what he called a sophistry because it undermined the possibility of the democratic agency of workers. This was a sophistry, not because he opposed political democracy, but because the development of capitalism undermined the possibility of democratic agency. Citizenship could be nothing but a “lion's skin” of politics concealing the nature of civil society beneath it. This contradiction would drive Marx's thought forward as he moved from liberalism to democratic socialism with his developing understanding of the structure and dynamics of capitalism from 1843 until the end of his life. The essay illustrates two closely related claims about Marx's thought regarding liberalism and democracy. First, I argue that Marx engaged in a democratic critique of liberalism; second, and as a response to his democratic critique of liberalism, Marx developed a more sociological understanding of democracy, and hence believed that political democracy was a necessary condition of freedom, though not a sufficient condition.     

Towards a critical realist epistemology?

When critical realists consider epistemology they typically start from “epistemological relativism.” We find this position necessary, but we also find it insufficient because it lacks a critique of the highly unequal social relations among observers themselves—relations that shape the very production of knowledge. While it is indeed the case that all knowledge is fallible, it is also the case that all knowledge is positioned, with a particular standpoint. What is more, the social power relations between standpoints organize the production of truth in ways that produce systematic distortions. In this paper, we propose a critical realist social epistemology. We introduce feminist standpoint theory and postcolonial theory as our suggested interventions into critical realism and we use two case studies of existing work to highlight i) the social production of truth and the real, and ii) what is at stake for radicalizing epistemology in critical realism. In so doing, our paper emphasizes the epistemic complexities that continuously shape ontology, a commitment to subaltern voices or experiences, and a thorough interrogation of the relations between positions of knowledge production.     

以“匠人精神”,写“社会学的诗”:米尔斯的社会学遗产之重估

在米尔斯诞辰百年之际,本文试图重估其社会学遗产。本文指出,米尔斯作为“智识匠人”的志业,即是从内外两个面向揭示美国文明自19世纪末以来的转型及其危机。就内部面向而言,本文聚焦于米尔斯及其同时代的批评者关于美国社会的不同判断及其分歧的实质;就外部面向而言,本文则以米尔斯关于古巴革命的晚期著述为核心,考察米尔斯对古巴问题的讨论在何种意义上构成了对美国民主的外部批评。但是,对米尔斯的社会学遗产的重估,并不止步于此。米尔斯关于社会学写作的文体和“风格”的想象,即其关于“社会学的诗”的论述,构成了其学术遗产的另一个重要部分。本文指出,“社会学的诗”所倡导的审美与人格意蕴,实则是对社会学写作的人文传统的回归。最后,本文讨论了在中文学界的语境下,米尔斯的社会学研究所具有的启发意义。     

生成图式与反思理性——解析布迪厄的知识社会学理论

知识社会学思想是布迪厄社会学理论的有机组成部分,也是理解他的整个社会学研究工作的重要线索。布迪厄借用现象学概念,对知识与社会的关系等问题进行重新诠释,并为当代知识社会学的解释模式注入了新的活力。本文认为,布迪厄对知识社会学理论的贡献主要体现在以下两个方面：第一,借鉴现象学认识论,将人类的思维原则述作“生成图式”或“信念”,用二重性表述替代了认知范畴与社会范畴的二元对立;第二,通过对“实践知识”与“科学（含社会学）知识”遵循的相异逻辑进行说明,探讨了客观真知的生成所倚赖的具体社会条件。     

A Simmelian theory of structural loneliness

Whilst loneliness may be receiving greater media and political attention, the tendency to present the issue as a discrete individual problem separable from wider social concerns has led to some frustration amongst the sociologically minded. The purpose of this paper is to provide a sociological account of loneliness which is not as susceptible to individualist interpretations as other works in the genre have been. As such the paper focuses on how the structure of a society, rather than its culture, might lead to loneliness. To this end, the paper makes original use of the works of Georg Simmel (1858–1918). Specifically, Simmel's account of how we come to know other people through synthetic construction is applied to his better‐known theory of intersecting social circles. The author claims that when taken together these two aspects of Simmel's thought suggest that social structure can create a form of social isolation in which people find it very difficult to get to know one another, due to a lack of multiple‐context interactions with the same people during their day‐to‐day behavioural patterns. This clustering of interactions within narrow interlocuter‐contexts is hypothesised to account for a portion of the variability in loneliness across individuals, societies and historical time, and is provisionally named as structural loneliness.     

批判实在论有助于马克思主义发展的五条途径

机械马克思主义的问题在于机械的辩证唯物主义;西方马克思主义虽然避免了机械论,但是具有目的论的先验图式,即把历史作为主观知识或阶级意识的证实过程的先验图式。这两种方法都偏离了马克思主义作为科学的社会理论的本质。批判实在论对机械论马克思主义者和西方马克思主义者的方法进行的批判,在五个方面有助于马克思主义本质的恢复,从而使我们成为纯粹朴素的马克思主义者。     

新解释学:马克思哲学思想史的方法论辨识--评阿尔都塞的思想史论模式

在西方马克思主义哲学中,阿尔都塞是以科学方法论标识自己的哲学特征的.当他的这种准结构主义解释模型进入马克思主义哲学史研究领域时,的确给前苏东式思想史论以猛烈的冲击.其中令人耳目一新的观点,就是他对思想史目的论和起源论的批判.此外,阿尔都塞还对传统马克思哲学史研究中著名的"颠倒说"进行了反向审省.     

现代生命的“社会化”图景

齐美尔在与康德的对话中提出“社会何以可能”的问题,将社会学确立为对社会化形式的研究,探究现代个体如何与周遭世界产生联系并由此构建自我。齐美尔通过对比古今社会化形式,进而得出对现代生命内在困境的基本洞察。面对现代世界的外在化和碎片化的生活感受,他并未完全采取康德的思路--用认知的方式构建统一的世界来解决主客体冲突,而是参照歌德的生命观,提出一种介于康德与歌德之间的生命学说,使个体能从自身生命的根基生长出与世界的深刻关联,在生命直观之中达成自我与外在世界的和解。     

试析长安的生活经历对杜甫“诗史”风格的影响

伟大的现实主义诗人杜甫一生有近四分之一的时间是在唐朝都城长安度过,在长达十三年的长安生活中,成就了杜甫的现实主义诗人地位,形成了杜甫精神。今天研究杜甫在长安时期唐朝的政治变化与历史背景以及长安生活对杜甫思想与文学创作的影响仍然具有积极意义。     

齐美尔论个性

本文着重考察齐美尔个性观在其生命哲学中的展开。以个性观在德国思想史中的演变为线索,追溯了自文艺复兴经十八世纪启蒙时代,再到十九世纪浪漫主义兴起之后的一系列重要变化,集中讨论了尼采--作为生命哲学的最初阐发者--的贵族理论是如何影响齐美尔的。尼采笔下备受推崇的个体,在与世界整体相剥离之后,失去作为类存在的归宿感,这也是齐美尔探讨现代个性如何持存的起点。齐美尔在现代资本主义劳动分工、艺术创作之形式的转变以及个体生命时间的展开（尤其是死亡的意义）等不同的层次上,对以生命为立足点寻求个体自我的统一作了深入论述。文章最后回应了韦伯和卢卡奇对齐美尔的批评,笔者认为两者分别从理性主义和马克思的历史唯物主义传统反思了齐美尔的生命哲学。     

康德的实存问题与本体论批判——反驳当代几种典型的质疑

康德对上帝实存的本体论证明提出过一个著名的批判,他的一个主要论据是"实存"不是一个实在的谓词,因而从上帝的纯然概念中不能分析推导出他的实存.近50年来,以穆雷·凯特雷、J·威廉·福吉、艾伦·伍德为代表的许多学者,都对这个论据提出了质疑.但是,他们的理由和论证都包含着一些错误和混淆.同时,以塞西莉亚·魏与艾伦·伍德为代表的一些学者认为,康德的本体论批判不能一般地适用于任何形式的本体论证明,特别是笛卡尔与莱布尼茨的证明.这种观点割裂了康德的认识论批判和本体论批判,没有意识到前者构成了后者的一个基础,因此其结论也是完全不可靠的.     

The Analysis of the Borders of the Social World: A Challenge for Sociological Theory

ABSTRACT: In order to delimit the realm of social phenomena, sociologists refer implicitly or explicitly to a distinction between living human beings and other entities, that is, sociologists equate the social world with the world of living humans. This consensus has been questioned by only a few authors, such as Luckmann, and some scholars of science studies. According to these approaches, it would be ethnocentric to treat as self-evident the premise that only living human beings can be social actors. The methodological consequence of such critique is a radical deanthropologization of sociological research. It must be considered an open question whether or not only living human can be social actors. The paper starts with a discussion of the methodological problems posed by such an analysis of the borders of the social world, and presents the results of an empirical analysis of these borders in the fields of intensive care and neurological rehabilitation. Within these fields it must be determined whether a body is a living human body or a symbol using human body. The analysis of these elementary border phenomena challenges basic sociological concepts. The relevant contemporary sociological theories refer to a dyadic constellation as the systematic starting point of their concept of sociality. The complex relationship between at least two entities is understood as the basis of the development of a novel order that functions as a mediating structure between the involved parties. Based upon empirical data, I argue that it is necessary to change this foundational assumption. Not the dyad but the triad must be understood as the foundational constellation. This implies a new understanding of the third actor, which is distinct from the concepts developed by Simmel and Berger and Luckmann.     

马克思意识形态批判的三重向度与文化微观视域的历史性介入——从马尔库什的角度谈起

挖掘并梳理散见于马克思诸经典论断中的意识形态理论,是马尔库什后期一项重要的学术任务。借此,他大致归纳出马克思意识形态批判范式的三重特质:其一,通过抨击先前各种思想幻象所彰显出的论战-揭露性;其二,凭借分析这些幻象由以产生的社会根源而突显出的解释-功能性;其三,立足更为广泛的文化视角进而生发出的批判-哲学性。由此可见,针对马克思的意识形态批判体系,马尔库什旨在建构一种"思想-日常生活-文化"三位一体的解读模式,从而真正实现马克思意识形态批判范式从宏观维度向微观视域的历史性转向。值得一提的是,该转向在完善马克思意识形态理论的同时,又成为日后马尔库什进行现代文化批判的实践生长点。     

Formalism, Behavioral Realism and the Interdisciplinary Challenge in Sociological Theory

In this paper, I argue that recent sociological theory has become increasingly bifurcated into two mutually incompatible styles of theorizing that I label formalist and behavioral-realist. Formalism favors mathematization and proposes an instrumentalist ontology of abstract processes while behavioral-realist theory takes at its basis the "real" physical individual endowed with concrete biological, cognitive and neurophysiological capacities and constraints and attempts to derive the proper conceptualization of social behavior from that basis. Formalism tends to lead toward a conceptually independent sociology that in principle requires only minimal reference to the empirical and ontological storehouse of other disciplines, while behavioral-realist theory leads to an interdisciplinary sociology that can be located within a hierarchy of behavioral sciences, leading to questions regarding the relationship between sociology and other disciplines as well as issues of transdisciplinary unification and possible interdisciplinary reduction. I explore the consequences of this split for the project of explanatory sociological theory within the context of how it has manifested itself in sociological network theory and social psychology. I close with a critique and assessment of formalist tendencies in sociological theorizing.     

A sociological formalization of Searle's social ontology

John Searle's theory of social reality is among the most influential accounts in the history of philosophy. His theory also implicates concepts and issues of foundational interest to sociologists, including social structure, institutional differentiation and the relationship between linguistic performativity and institutional reality. Despite this overlap with sociological theory, and despite some sustained attention from sociologists (e.g., Lukes, 2007 ), no formal theoretical model of Searle's work exists within sociology. This paper reviews the core concepts of Searle's theory before concisely describing and then formally modelling their propositional structure. Though the overlap of Searle's approach with classical and contemporary sociological theory is discussed throughout, the paper concludes with a specific argument about his proper assimilation into sociological theory vis‐à‐vis Durkheim, Bourdieu and Giddens.     

Epistemological problems and the personality and social system in social psychology

If we understand social psychology to be an area where sociology and psychology overlap, or more precisely where we try to explain interaction on the basis of psychological and sociological propositions and concepts, we have singled out a field that should be quite challenging not only in theory and method but in the fundamental questions it raises for both sociology and psychology. Actually, the discipline is not that well integrated and is constituted by such disparate approaches as reinforcement theory, field theory, role theory, small group theory, game theory and psychoanalysis. Many sociologists have abandoned the field altogether. Nor have the proponents of these sub-fields made much effort to consolidate, integrate or reconcile their methodologies. Epistemological questions have been notably absent and only now have arguments from the philosophy of science point of view reemerged to revive the critical and potentially fruitful methodological discussions of earlier theorists (F. Allport; Lewin; Mead; Simmel) and their more recent followers (Homans; Malewski). After considering epistemological problems dealing with the generality of theory and explanation, behavioristic vs. action approaches, operational and model structural implications, we want to argue for a better understanding of social system variables besides those of the personality system and of system theory in general. In our discussion we use examples from the area of sport because it composes a complex system, that is not too difficult to observe at the same time that it shows in relative clarity all of the different levels of an action system. It has, furthermore, many features of an almost experimental design in a natural field. In so far it is a model area to allow due consideration for our demand that social psychology rediscover the method of field studies. This will help to reverse the trend characterized by a general neglect of theory that has resulted from behavioral dogmatism and the expedience of research pragmatism based mostly on two-variable linear models. This is not to say that we disfavor rigorous research design and data analysis - to the contrary. We just want it to be done in the context of broader theoretical concerns and in clear recognition of the pitfalls of operationalism and the merits of action theory.     

The Social as Heaven and Hell: Pierre Bourdieu's Philosophical Anthropology

Many authors have argued that all studies of socially specific modalities of human action and experience depend on some form of “philosophical anthropology”, i.e. on a set of general assumptions about what human beings are like, assumptions without which the very diagnoses of the cultural and historical variability of concrete agents' practices would become impossible. Bourdieu was sensitive to that argument and, especially in the later phase of his career, attempted to make explicit how his historical‐sociological investigations presupposed and, at the same time, contributed to the elaboration of an “idea of the human being”. The article reconstructs Bourdieu's philosophical anthropology, starting with his genetic sociology of symbolic power, conceived as a form of critical theory (latu sensu), and concluding with an account of the conditio humana in which recognition (“symbolic capital”) appears as both the fundamental existential goal through which human agents strive to confer meaning on their lives and the source of the endless symbolic competition that keeps society moving. The agonistic vision of the social universe that grounds his sociological studies returns in his philosophical anthropology under the guise of a singular synthesis between Durkheim's thesis that “Society is God” and Sartre's idea that “hell is other people”.     

马克思学说整体性研究中的一个重要问题(英文)

马克思的哲学革命与经济学革命的内在逻辑联系,是关于马克思学说整体性研究中的一个关键性问题。马克思的哲学革命与经济学革命的内在逻辑联系是在马克思超越政治经济学领域的政治经济学批判和超越哲学领域的哲学批判的过程中展现出来的,即:在超越哲学领域的哲学批判中构建政治经济学的方法论系统,同时在超越政治经济学领域的政治经济学批判中丰富和发展初步完成的哲学革命的成果,最后在这两种互动的批判中基本完成经济学革命并使哲学革命的内容和形式趋于完善。马克思的哲学革命与经济学革命的内在逻辑联系对当代中国马克思主义哲学研究的重要方法论启示是:作为马克思主义创始人的马克思(和恩格斯),其学说的整体性实际上包含着对后人研究和发展其哲学的一个最为根本的方法论要求——从其学说的整体性出发来研究和发展其哲学。为此,就必须形成由批判理念、问题理念和时代理念构筑而成的跨学科意识。     

张荫麟的通史理论和实践

张荫麟是近代著名学者 ,在史学方法论和历史哲学上均有建树 ,对于中国通史的编撰提出了独到的理论和认识 ,对通史撰述的意义、笔削的标准、用以组织史料的范畴等问题作出阐发 ,其通史理论的实践———《中国史纲》在体裁形式、历史见解及历史文学方面都取得了高度成就