马克思主义哲学观研究的前瞻性反思与建设性批判

马克思主义哲学观是马克思主义哲学的自我认识,涉及马克思主义哲学的本质,关乎马克思主义哲学的存在与发展。 已有的马克思主义哲学观研究主要存在三方面的缺陷:在研究内容上,忽视了对哲学观本身的一些深层理论问题的进一步追 究;在研究方法上,往往缺乏哲学自身的论证方式,忽视了从"没有分歧的方面"入手、从上位问题入手、从形式化标准入手、从语 言实践入手来研究讨论,往往只是在同一层次上各自陈述各自的看法,缺乏真正的实质性对话;在研究成果上,还没能实现哲学 观的研究与哲学理论本身的研究在逻辑上的衔接。因此,"根据马克思主义哲学的基本原则来建构马克思主义的哲学观",曾经 是而且至今仍然是中国马克思主义哲学工作者所面临的一项重要任务。     

走向“元文论”——当下文艺学思想条件与思想语境的“元理论”反思

文艺学的存在方式、问题方式和思维方式,离不开更大的思想条件和思想语境。“反本质主义”的文艺学、历史主义的文艺学、自主性文化概念下的文艺学,代表了当今中国文艺学领域的几种重要的观念和思维取向。这些理论取向,涉及到文艺学确立自身的一些根本性和前提性的理论和思想条件,对于这些理论取向进行反思,不仅是当下文艺学反思的应有之义,而且也可能会对当今文艺学的展开与建构方式有所启示。     

The beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? the theory construction movement revisited

Using book publication dates as markers, I divide the movement of (formal) theory construction into two periods. The first period started in 1954 and lasted for about a decade; the second period started in 1965 and ended in 1972. I argue in this paper that the publication of a dozen more books on how to construct scientific theories in the seven years after 1965 marked the beginning of the end of, rather than the end of the beginning of, the theory construction movement in sociology. Although the formal mode of theory construction is dead now, efforts toward theory construction will never end. I conclude by delineating the major features of a new approach to theory construction that has been emerging in sociology.     

Adding the “Symbolic” to Interactionist Practice: A Theoretical Elaboration of William Schwartz' Legacy to Group Workers

Symbolic interactionism is one of the premier theoretical perspectives on group life, but group work theorists have neglected it. This article provides metatheoretical reflections on the legacy of William Schwartz and the stalled project of theorizing about the communicative foundation of groups. Exemplars in the interactionist tradition are profiled, and their conceptual and practical contributions to a “symbolic” interactionist group theory are highlighted. The structure of interactionist theory is mapped, and a set of distinctive concepts and assumptions organized around the construct of symbolic practices is presented. The article concludes with a call to group workers to harvest the fruits of the interactionist theoretical and research program.     

理论心理学研究及其应处理好的几大关系

中国的理论心理学从孕育、萌生,到不断发展并取得一定成绩,走过了一条不平坦的道理。回顾中国理论心理学的历史,并借鉴西方理论心理学业已取得的成果,促进理论心理学的繁荣发展是每个理论心理学工作者的责任。我们相信理论心理学在中国有着更美好的前景。     

关于理论心理学几个基本问题的探讨

文章在区分了理论和理论学科的基础上,阐述了建立理论心理学的必要性、理论心理学的任务和研究内容、建立理论心理学的障碍、理论心理学与心理学史的区别、理论心理学发展的状况,指出理论心理学在心理学发展中具有重要意义,它将大大促进心理学的发展.     

Existing and Emerging Methods for Integrating Theories within and between Disciplines

Abstract

Our conceptual systems (including theories, models, policies, and schema) all help us to understand our world. For highly complex situations such as those found in natural systems and service systems, it is important to understand them from an interdisciplinary perspective because these real-world systems do not respect the boundaries of any single discipline. While many conceptual systems exist, they have not proven to be highly effective for understanding issues that are the focus of their disciplines. Still fewer conceptual systems have been developed that cut across disciplinary boundaries — and they have not been shown to be any more effective than their mono-disciplinary companions. This article investigates emerging and existing methods for creating and integrating theories within and between disciplines. This includes ‘soft’ methods (ad-hoc, cherry-picking, and intuitive) as well as ‘rigorous’ (formal grounded theory (FGT), reflexive dimensional analysis (RDA), and integrative propositional analysis (IPA)). The article demonstrates that soft methods are relatively easy to use, but they do not produce conceptual systems of great or lasting value. In contrast, it is proposed that rigorous methods are more likely to yield conceptual systems which are measurably more systemic, more useful, and more effective for understanding and engaging the highly complex systems of our world.     

Metatheorizing in sociology

This paper describes and makes the case for sociological metatheorizing, or the systematic study of sociological theory. Three types of metatheorizing are delineated on the basis of their end products: the attainment of a deeper understanding of theory, the creation of new theory, and the creation of an overarching theoretical perspective (a metatheory). The basic problems in metatheorizing are reviewed and it is concluded that the most basic difficulty has been the lack of a clear definition of the subfield. Some thoughts on the future of metatheorizing in sociology are offered.     

Work Motivation: The Incorporation of Self-Concept-Based Processes

This paper proposes a metatheory of workmotivation incorporating theories of self-concept thathave been proposed in the sociological and psychologicalliteratures. Traditional theories of work motivation are reviewed, and the self-concept-basedsources of motivation are presented. How theself-concept influences behavior in organizations isexplained and used to develop a metatheory ofmotivational sources. Both research and managerial implications ofthe model are presented.     

A new political economy of youth reprised: rejoinder to France and Threadgold

In a previous issue of this journal, France and Threadgold [2015. “Youth and Political Economy: Towards a Bourdieusian Approach.” Journal of Youth Studies doi:10.1080/13676261.2015.1098779] claim that they ‘strongly believe that a political economy perspective remains vital for understanding macro-structural power’ (8), yet they reject key aspects of the version I recommended in an earlier issue of this journal [Côté. J. E. 2014a.“Towards a New Political Economy of Youth.” Journal of Youth Studies 17 (4): 527–543]. They also present a Bourdieusian framework, asserting that it provides a better understanding of the effects of political and the economic forces on the lives of young people. In this article, I show how their rejection of the political-economy-of-youth perspective is based on their misunderstandings of some of the fundamental concepts of that perspective, as well as their misrepresentations of what I recommend to the youth studies community concerning that perspective. Consequently, although their Bourdieusian framework may be useful in illuminating certain aspects of the problem, their attempt to promote their framework as a better approach to the political economy of youth is based on unfounded claims. I use their errors to illustrate several metatheoretical principles that can help researchers to be less imperialistic in their claims, and I offer an analysis of how this dispute reflects the current fragmented nature of the field of youth studies.