结合西方马克思主义哲学推进马克思主义哲学中国化研究——葛兰西哲学对马克思主义哲学中国化研究的启示

马克思主义哲学中国化研究不仅具有丰厚的国内理论资源,而且有着不可忽视的国外理论资源。其中,国外理论资源既包括东方马克思主义哲学,也包括西方马克思主义哲学。以往,受苏俄马克思主义哲学的影响,我们对东方马克思主义哲学理论资源关注得较多。如今,随着西方马克思主义哲学研究的持续深入,我们有必要进一步结合西方马克思主义哲学推进马克思主义哲学中国化研究。葛兰西哲学是西方马克思主义哲学的一个典型。它启示我们,在马克思主义哲学中国化研究中,要探寻本民族马克思主义哲学的原生形态,研究马克思主义哲学传统的继承与更新,构建当代马克思主义的政治哲学。     

葛兰西与市民社会观北大核心CSSCI

葛兰西的"市民社会"概念内涵既不同于黑格尔,也不同于马克思:其"市民社会"属于上层建筑。当他提及黑格尔时,想到的是鼎盛期的市民社会,是规范经济关系的体制。葛兰西认为,国家由政治社会和市民社会构成。市民社会是从必然向自由的过渡环节,意识形态是新历史的设计者。列宁强调政治领导权,葛兰西强调文化领导权。葛兰西认为,当政治社会被重新吸收到市民社会中时,国家就会消亡。     

后马克思主义思潮的批判性探讨

后马克思主义是近年引起较多注意的一种国外左派理论动向,它对马克思主义采取了超越“补充”的姿态,在理论上也表现出十分明显的含糊性：一方面,它把马克思主义的批判精神作为最重要的资源之一动员为一种反抗资本主义的激进个人政治话语;另一方面又扭曲了马克思主义的历史使命,并与自由主义意识形态产生了复杂的共谋。后马克思主义是传统西方马克思主义在20世纪70年代终结后的又一种新的历史动向,它在当代学术中的急剧生长,充分反映了当代资本主义的复杂变化,也在理论上为当今马克思主义哲学发展提供了一些基本教训。     

葛兰西“实践哲学”的体系特征及其逻辑建构

葛兰西“实践哲学”的体系外观具有强烈的“迫不得已”特征,并使其导向关于“文化领导权”的分析。通过“历史-社会”的解读模式,葛兰西哲学在有限承认历史唯物主义理论框架合法性的同时,极度强调文化的重要性。通过“文化-政治”与“文化-理论”的双重逻辑建构,葛兰西实际上提出了马克思主义引导意大利启蒙运动的革命目标。由于片面强调文化问题的重要性,造成其试图在资本主义社会内部独立解决文化领导权问题的理论缺陷。     

葛兰西的文化霸权理论

葛兰西的文化霸权理论既是研究社会权力关系体系的一个切入点 ,同时也是探究文化与政治、经济之间复杂动态关系的有力工具。本文分析了葛兰西理论中“文化霸权”、“市民社会”、“有机知识分子”等概念的内涵 ,进而探讨了文化霸权理论对西方马克思主义和后殖民主义的影响。     

第五届“国外马克思主义研究论坛”综述

2010年11月20—21日,全国第五届国外马克思主义研究论坛在古城南京隆重召开。此次会议由南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心、复旦大学当代国外马克思主义研究中心、黑龙江大学文化哲学研究中心和国外马克思主义研究会联合主办,来自全国30余所高校和科研机构近90位专家     

“中外比较视域中的马克思主义研究”理论研讨会综述

2011年4月16日至19日,由中国马克思主义哲学史学会、全国当代国外马克思主义研究会、全国毛泽东思想研究会、全国邓小平理论研究会、全国"三个代表"重要思想研究会联合主办、河南科技大学马克思主义学院承办,主题为"中外比较视阈中的马克思主义研究"的全国理论研讨会,在河南洛阳召开。来自全国党校系统、高等院校和科研院所等单位的120余名专家学者出席了会议,并围绕会议主题从以下四个方面展开深入讨论。     

布兹加林及其“后苏联的马克思主义”学派

进入新世纪以来,俄罗斯著名经济学家、莫斯科大学经济学系教授布兹加林创建了后苏联的马克思主义学派,又称批判的马克思主义学派。在对前苏联的现实社会主义制度、当代俄罗斯的资本主义制度、以及人类目前所身处的全球化发展进程展开全面批判的基础上,布兹加林提出了社会主义——作为向自由王国过渡和转变历史进程的明确思想主张。     

后马克思主义激进技术批判理论及其反思

维希留、鲍德里亚和鲍曼等西方学者认为,新技术支配的变迁速度把人类投入到更加激烈甚至彻底的偶然性和随机性境遇中,“流动性”“不确定性”“超现实性”构成现实之特点,“恐惧”构成生存的本质,在这一条件下解放政治不再可能,乌托邦必须重新定义。虽然他们提出了替代马克思解放政治计划的更激进的现代社会之技术批判,但就资本主义批判而言,仍然是现代性批判的延续。另外,他们提出的秩序的丧失、稳定性的消解、真实性的坍塌等,也正是历史唯物主义面向现时代需要回应的问题。     

生态主义实践与后马克思主义方法

作为当代西方生态运动的重要组成部分的生态主义,是“新社会运动”的主流,是战后发达资本主义社会中出现的一种反现代性的政治思潮与实践。以E.拉克劳与C.墨菲为代表的后马克思主义话语理论,激进多元民主理论、生态主义政治立场、对启蒙运动的批判以及后结构主义方法,为生态主义实践的深入扩展提供了方法。一生态主义实践生态主义可以追溯到绿色和平运动在西方的兴起。生态主义深受卢梭和尼采等人为代表的欧美自然主义和浪漫主义思想的影响,对西方工业文明的成果及发展方向持怀疑和批判的态度。生态主义被定义为在生态学中建立和嵌入(embed…     

"后马克思主义"研究及其理论规定

一、"后马克思主义"概念的有关规定 谈论"后马克思主义"(post-Marxism),首先遇到的问题就是如何界定"后马克思主义".目前国内对"后马克思主义"概念的研究和理解上已经出现了分歧.国内有的学者提出了"后马克思思潮"、"晚期马克思主义"和"后现代马克思主义"这三个范畴来框定"后马克思主义"理解中出现的不同视角和派别.[1]还有其他研究者提出了对"后马克思主义"的不同划分和看法.[2]我们认为,在研究伊始,对这一派别做一概要的划分很有必要.但重要的是找到"后马克思主义"区别于其他派别的根本特征,并依据这一特征使之能与"西方马克思主义"等派别区别开来,进而廓清"后马克思主义"的理论本质,并展开进一步的深入研究.基于此,我们倾向于从广义和狭义这两个视角来划分"后马克思主义".     

葛兰西对克罗齐哲学的批判改造

批判改造克罗齐哲学,是葛兰西实践哲学建构的一个重要理论基础。克罗齐虽然想消除黑格尔哲学形而上学的残余,他关于历史与精神同一性的思考、关于伦理政治史的分析,关于历史是自由的故事的论断,虽然有助于批判马克思哲学解释中的机械决定论倾向,但由于他只是从精神同一性的角度出发,就只能在不触动现实基础的情况下,提倡一种“消极革命”,强调对现实进行改良。因此,必须实现对克罗齐哲学的再颠倒,使克罗齐哲学中的有益部分真正成为实践哲学的重要内容。     

话语理论与后马克思主义的哲学取向--拉克劳、墨菲的后马克思主义方法论解读

话语理论是以拉克劳、墨菲为代表的后马克思主义哲学思想的核心,是他们在现代哲学,特别是20世纪哲学的语言学转向之后试图重构其哲学基石的理论尝试和结果。具体而言,话语理论是在当代言语行为理论,特别是后期维特根斯坦语言哲学的基础上,结合后结构主义者德里达的解构思想,综合而成的一种哲学理论。它试图将“话语”(d iscourse)作为后马克思主义的基石,并服务其以“霸权”(hegemony)为核心的“政治本体论”。在拉克劳和墨菲的后马克思主义思想中,所有问题都可归结为“话语”。“话语”成了阐释后马克思主义理论的重要依据和理论参考。不仅…     

Educating Political Adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and Radical Democratic Citizenship Education

Many scholars in the area of citizenship education take deliberative approaches to democracy, especially as put forward by John Rawls, as their point of departure. From there, they explore how students’ capacity for political and/or moral reasoning can be fostered. Recent work by political theorist Chantal Mouffe, however, questions some of the central tenets of deliberative conceptions of democracy. In the paper I first explain the central differences between Mouffe’s and Rawls’s conceptions of democracy and politics. To this end I take Eamonn Callan’s Creating Citizens as an example of Rawlsian political education and focus on the role of conflict and disagreement in his account. I then address three areas in which political education would need to change if it were to accept Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative approaches to democracy and her proposal for an agonistic public sphere. The first area is the education of political emotions; the second is fostering an understanding of the difference between the moral and the political; the third is developing an awareness of the historical and contemporary political projects of the “left” and “right.” I propose that a radical democratic citizenship education would be an education of political adversaries.

Ricoeur and the pre-political

We argue that Paul Ricoeur’s work on narrative and alienation provides a largely untapped, though potentially fruitful way of re-thinking the question of political agency within the context of globalization. We argue that the political agency of many around the world has been placed in an exceedingly fragile position due to the rapid pace of globalization, the movement of multi-national corporations from their previous national headquarters, etc. We use Ricoeur’s work to argue that the alienation of globalization is not something that can be simply overcome either in a unified world-state or a retreat to protectionist nationalism, because institutional mediation—and consequently alienation—is in some sense constitutive of all politics: the world of political representation operates by its own set of rules, which are at least partially disconnected from the represented world. Using the work of Mouffe, a radical democratic theorist, we then flesh out an ideal of agonistic citizenship (which recognizes both the need for and the inevitability of discursive struggle in politics) in a number of overlapping communities of interest, rather than tying political participation solely to the sovereign government of my state. The state will remain important, but because globalization has disenfranchised so many from their participation in “local” modes of self-governance (tied to the state in which they live), we have a responsibility to re-envision what political participation means outside the traditional context of the state. Rather than merely citizens of a particular state, we need to begin thinking of ourselves politically—and then acting—as “citizens” of Green Peace, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, or whatever other supra-local concrete universals or communities of interest to which we belong, investing the time and energy there that we might previously have invested solely in our state’s government. (By implication, we must also ensure that these organizations work in transparent democratic ways themselves.) We believe that by re-plotting our narratives of political engagement in this way, we can positively respond to the alienation created by globalization, while avoiding both the extremes of “McWorld” (hyperglobalism) and “Jihad” (complete skepticism towards, or war against globalization) that Benjamin Barber and David Held have recently described.

Speaking Habermas to Gramsci: Implications for the Vocational Preparation of Community Educators

Re-working the Gramscian idea of the ‘organic’ intellectual from the cultural-political sphere to Higher Education (HE), suggests the need to develop critical and questioning ‘counter hegemonic’ ideas and behaviour in community education students. Connecting this reworking to the Habermasian theory of communicative action, suggests that these students also need to learn how to be constructive in developing such knowledge. Working towards critical and constructive capacities is particularly relevant for students who learn through acting in practice settings where general principles and purposes acquired in the academy need to be interpreted in response to the unique demands of specific situations. From a Gramscian perspective, enabling students to develop the qualities of organic intellectuals means that lecturers have a duty to teach critical knowledges which the student will be unfamiliar with and unlikely to possess. If teaching is not to become simply didactic, however, there is also a need to acknowledge Habermas’s contention that all knowledge is contingent. This does not mean that knowledge is merely relative, subjective, or essentially interest serving, as some postmodernists would have it. In Habermasian terms, knowledge is developed through a rigorous process of contesting validity claims according to procedures appropriate to discipline areas. In these procedures, contestation occurs to the point where there is general agreement about the best current understanding, until such time as this is overtaken by ideas with a better claim. The danger is that over commitment to contestation in the classroom undermines subject knowledge and ultimately the authority of the educator. Speaking Habermas to Gramsci, and vice versa, helps socially and politically committed educators to construct a space in which didactic and discursive moments purposefully alternate.     

Designs of Learning and the Formation and Transformation of Knowledge in an Era of Globalization

In this article, the formation and transformation of knowledge and the role of designs for learning will be elaborated and discussed in relation to the introduction of national curricula and school textbooks during the beginning of the industrialized era vs. the introduction of individual curricula and new digital learning resources in the post-industrialized era of globalization and multiculturalism. Quite different teaching and learning strategies have been emphasized, which I will call here “designed information and teaching” vs. “designs for learning”. It seems obvious that our current society is in a stage of change that requires a new understanding of knowledge, learning and identity formation. The new position and role of the learner underlines the productive and constructive aspect of learning. Pupils not only read texts, they also produce texts, pictures, film and music and they compile and edit virtual texts. Multimodal texts, as well as the information flow of the Internet, are the consequences of, and at the same time a vehicle for, new social patterns. “Learning Design Sequences” (LDS) is introduced as a theoretical map for the purpose of analyzing critical incidents in (a creative) learning process, using different genres, modes and media in a process of meaning-making.