从犹太人问题到现代性批判

犹太人问题在马克思生活的时代成为一个令人关注的社会问题,马克思以其独特的视角,透过以宗教为表象的犹太人问题,层层深入,揭示了犹太人问题与政治解放、人类解放的关系,将问题的实质转化为全人类的普遍性问题,即资本主义精神,从而深入展开对现代性问题的批判。本文立足于马克思对犹太人本质的批判,挖掘出犹太人问题的内在的现实根基即＂市民社会＂,进而展开对资本主义社会的具体、深入的剖析,进一步展开了对现代性问题的批判。     

马克思与现代自然法思想的内在难题——基于《论犹太人问题》的分析

在人类法律思想的发展史上,现代自然法思想奠定了现代法律思想的基础,成为了资产阶级革命最为有力的武器。然而,自其诞生开始,现代自然法思想就蕴含着内在矛盾,该矛盾在资产阶级革命胜利之后进一步凸显出来。马克思走向成熟时期的论著——《论犹太人问题》——揭示了这一矛盾的深层次原因。而且,马克思进一步指出,人要获得最后的解放必须批判随资产阶级革命而建立起来的现实世界,并最终消除导致人之异化的资本。如此,现代自然法思想中的难题也才有了彻底解决的可能。     

马克思关于市民社会与近代法律关系的理论评析

在对青年马克思的法哲学思想研究中，他的市民社会理论常常被人忽视。马克思在批判黑格尔法哲学思想及其市民社会理论的基础上。提出了历史唯物主义的法哲学体系和市民社会理论。在市民社会与近代法律的关系上，马克思指出两个基本原则：市民社会决定法；市民社会通过国家制定法律。资本主义市场经济的发展和新兴资产阶级的崛起。导致近代市民社会与国家的分高，这是近代法律产生的根源。     

马克思法律思想新探——从马克思市民社会观看马克思法律思想的演进

马克思的法律思想是他在解决现代社会问题的理论构建中形成的。一方面马克思在市民社会分析批判的宏大主题之下指出了现代人类的归宿即共产主义社会;另一方面马克思依托这一社会发展历史境遇赋予法律作为反映者和施予者的双重角色,阐明法律在自身矛盾推动下的辩证运动及其此运动对现代社会发展的重要意义。     

马克思市民社会与政治国家关系理论的中国化特征

马克思的市民社会与政治国家关系理论是对黑格尔市民社会与政治国家关系理论的批判和继承,马克思认为是市民社会决定政治国家,而不是政治国家决定市民社会,马克思的这一理论是在其早期著作《黑格尔法哲学批判》中首先提出来的,并在其和恩格斯的著作《德意志意识形态》的第一章《费尔巴哈论》中进行了集中叙述。一些学者着重从纯文本的角度或该理论的现代性角度来论述,笔者将从马克思主义中国化过程这个动态角度来阐释马克思的市民社会和政治国家关系理论在中国革命和现代化建设中所形成的特征。     

Civil Society的意义嬗变及其内在逻辑

市民社会发端于亚里士多德的政治社会,是指与君主专制的野蛮社会相对的自由平等的法治社会.在启蒙时代,市民社会增加了时间维度,成为与自然状态相对的较发达的法治社会.黑格尔将市民社会转变成结构性概念:与政治国家相对立的、满足物质需要的组织,它是自由平等的法律生成之地.马克思、恩格斯继承了黑格尔对市民社会政治国家两分的传统,将它转化成一个历史唯物主义的基本范畴:经济基础.现代的市民社会理论则走向两极:葛兰西的革命理论和哈贝马斯的理性交往的建制理论.哈贝马斯将黑格尔的市民社会切割成私人领域与公共领域两块,这就形成了私人领域的市民社会、公共领域的市民社会—非政府组织——政治国家的三元结构.这个新的公共领域使政治国家取得合法性,并且是私人领域的市民社会与政治国家合理交往的有效性建制.从逻辑上来说,市民社会理论以科学的社会分类学概念为起点,走向乌托邦式的伦理概念,再从乌托邦式的伦理概念嬗变为社会结构分析意义上的法哲学概念,最终回归社会,成为一个推进社会进化的实践理性概念.     

马克思对刑法理论的贡献——纪念马克思逝世一百周年

马克思主义的创始人、全世界无产阶级革命的伟大导师——卡尔·马克思逝世已经整整一个世纪了。恩格斯在谈到马克思的伟大功绩时指出:“马克思发现了人类历史的发展规律”,“还发现了现代资本主义生产方式和它所产生的资产阶级社会的特殊的运动规律”;马克思是“科学巨匠”,但是“马克思首先是一个革命家。以某种方式参加推翻资本主义社会及其所建立的国家制度的事业,参加赖有他才第一次意识到本身地位和要求,意识到本身解放条件的现代无产阶级的解放事     

人本价值回归与显示路径

马克思哲学的当代价值之一,在于对社会重大现实问题的哲学回答.马克思哲学紧紧围绕人的本质,提出人的解放命题,即人类最终将实现人的"自由而全面的发展".作为社会主义国家,改革开放带来了充满活力的新中国,同时也把我国带进了经济快速发展与社会矛盾凸显的并存期.人本价值的回归不应该是一种口号的宣传,而应该立足于社会现实,从根本上入手.     

经济法的公法性--以马克思的市民社会与政治国家的二元理论为视角

马克思认为,市民社会既是指人类社会的一个特定的发展时期,又是指与“政治国家”相对应的私人活动领域,其中主要是私人的物质交往关系。在资本主义以前的社会中,政治国家与市民社会在很大程度上是重合的。二者的分离则是资本主义市场经济发展的内在要求,随着生产力的发展,政治国家终将统一于市民社会。经济法的产生是市民社会与政治国家的融合在法律上的一种反映,经济法是规范国家权力干预市民社会经济生活的基本法,表现出很强的公法性。     

马克思市民社会理论及其对构建中国和谐社会的指导

马克思在批判与继承黑格尔市民社会理论的基础上建立起自己的市民社会理论:他从物质实践出发,纠正了被黑格尔颠倒的国家与市民社会之关系,并用"物质交往关系"取代了黑格尔的"需要的体系",此外还将对人的本质关怀作为其市民社会理论的核心。在马克思市民社会理论的基础上,结合中国和谐社会的实现路径,其对构建中国和谐社会的指导意义在于:形塑中国式社会本位观,将社会经济发展作为构建和谐社会之基础,实现经济和谐;梳理市民社会与政治国家之紧张关系,构建二者的良性互动发展模式,实现政治和谐;关注中国和谐社会主体的发展,实现人际和谐。     

The Judicialization of Religion

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, one Muslim‐majority country after another adopted constitutional provisions meant to incorporate Islam into the legal order. In what is now a familiar pattern, leaders sought to harness the legitimating power of Islamic symbolism. But rather than shore up state legitimacy, these provisions opened new avenues of contestation. In countries where judicial institutions are robust, religion of the state clauses have helped to catalyze a “judicialization of religion,” wherein courts were made to authorize an “official” religion and/or render judgment on the appropriate place for religion in the political order. This study theorizes one aspect of the judicialization of religion through the illustrative case study of Malaysia. The study examines how shifting political context provided opportunities for activist lawyers to advance sweeping new interpretations of Malaysia's Religion of the Federation clause and, with it, a new vision for state and society.     

Law, Religion, and "Public Health" in the Republic of Brazil

The essay evaluates the general problem that, while most modern republican constitutions follow the U.S. and French models in declaring religious freedom, absolute religious freedom is impossible and undesirable. How are religious freedoms constrained, and how much should they be? The essay evaluates the strategies by which limitations on freedoms of religion are constructed and imposed, especially the powerful isomorphism of law and science described by Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Taking the example of Afro‐Brazilian religions in relation to the Brazilian state since 1890, post‐emancipation, the essay argues that pseudo‐scientific discourses of “public health” constrained the religious practice of former slaves, thus allowing the trompel'oeil of religious freedom to continue in the new republic, even as freedoms were in fact constrained by the state.     

Is Secularism Neutral?

This article argues that secularism is not neutral. Secularization is a process, the secular state is a structure, whereas secularism is a political philosophy. Secularism takes two main forms: first, a “benevolent” secularism that endeavours to treat all religious and nonreligious belief systems even‐handedly, and, second, a “hostile” kind that privileges unbelief and excludes religion from the public sphere. I analyze the European Court of Human Rights decision in Lautsi v Italy, which illustrates these types. The article concludes that secularism as a political philosophy cannot be neutral, and the secular state is not neutral in its effects, standpoint, governing assumptions or treatment of religious truth claims.     

Corruption,bribery and patriarchy in Tanzania

This is an ethnography of the political culture of Tanzania as compared to the political culture of the United States. Endemic and harmful corruption among the political leadership of Tanzania and the United States alike stems from widespread popular equation of order with patriarchy, made worse by extending the logic of patriarchy to belief that social order and welfare rest on the strength of the nation state. The Tanzanian war on corruption and ensuing shutdown of the University of Dar es Salaam during the first half of 1990 affirm the radical feminist premise that the models of legitimacy we apply in the privacy of our families are identical to and inseparable from the models of legitimacy employeed domestically and internationally by our political leaders. Corruption and other violence are more directly expressed in Tanzania and more indirectly expressed by Americans who as a consequence are more enslaved to corruption and violence than Tanzanians. The contrast in Tanzanian and U.S. political cultures and the nature of patriarchy itself leads to a set of paradoxes about achieving freedom from corruption through exercise of patriarchal state power—as that children who are the ultimate victims of corruption are at once most blamed by adults, more responsive to change than adults, and unable to change as long as they remain the subjects of patriarchal discipline. Bribery is not necessarily a part of the problem of corruption but is a part of the solution. Freedom from corruption basically requires democratic accountability. Tanzanians and Americans are linked symbiotically: neither people can free themselves from corruption without before the other. There is no logical starting point for a patriarchal approach to freeing people from corruption. On the other hand radically effective emancipation from corruption is occurring across Tanzania and the United States.     

成文宪法中的宗教内容比较研究

宗教信仰自由权是世界范围内各成文宪法保护的重要内容。与其他人权的宪法保护不同,宗教信仰自由权在各国宪法中具有扩散性保护特征。只有综合考量宪法规范中的宗教内容,才能准确理解宗教信仰自由权的宪法规范保护。通过在各成文宪法中查找与宗教相关的关键词,可以发现宗教信仰自由权成文宪法保护具有普遍性。以宗教信仰自由权为核心,辅之以政教关系的相关规定,构成了宗教问题宪法保护的基本框架。从内容上看,成文宪法保护的宗教信仰自由权具有内容的绝对性与相对性相统一、主体自主选择与结社自由相结合的特点;从属性上看,宗教信仰自由权具有入世性与政治性并存的特征。     

Secularism before the Strasbourg Court: Abstract Constitutional Principles as a Basis for Limiting Rights

The justification for the restrictions on religion inherent in secularism is the subject of lively debate in constitutional and political theory. As a rights‐focused text, the ECHR struggles to accommodate constitutional principles such as secularism whose aims and justifications may go beyond the protection of the rights of others and include abstract goals such as upholding the religious neutrality of the state. Rights alone cannot provide an adequate account of the relationship between religion, state and law, and in Ebrahimian v France, the Strasbourg Court rightly reaffirmed that secularism and strict neutrality can be in harmony with the values of the Convention. However, the Court needs more clarity about the reasons for this stance and to be vigilant in its protection of private autonomy so that the use of abstract principles to restrict religious expression does not give excessive latitude to states to restrict individual autonomy and minority rights.     

Boundary Work: Transcendence and Authoriality in Religious and Secular Law

The semiotic investigation of the divine or transcendent authoriality of religious law involves, in the context of discussions concerning the propriety or impropriety of the influence of religion in “secular” political and legal systems, preliminary boundary work to discern the meanings of “religion”, “secular”, and “belief.” Jeremy Waldron’s account of the propriety of religion in “secular” politics, mirroring but reversing John Rawls’ account of religion’s impropriety in that context, can be contrasted with neo-Calvinist (and other) conceptions of pluralism and the inevitability of fundamental “beliefs” in all political and legal thought. In the latter perspectives, religious believers are neither unique in their appeal to transcendent values, nor relegated to advancing theocracy (because pluralism is conceived as a religious value rather than religion’s opposite). A workable alternative to the conventional discourse of religious influence in politics and law is therefore evident.     

Secularism in the Indian Context

Indian constitutional framers sought to tie their new state to ideas of modernity and liberalism by creating a government that would ensure citizens' rights while also creating the conditions for democratic citizenship. Balancing these two goals has been particularly challenging with regard to religion, as exemplified by the emergence of a peculiarly Indian understanding of secularism which requires the nonestablishment of religion but not the separation of religion and state. Supporters argue that this brand of secularism is best suited to the particular social and historical circumstances of independent India. This article suggests that the desire to separate religion and state is integral to any understanding of secularism and that, consequently, the Indian state neither is nor was meant to be secular. However, Indian secularists correctly identify the Indian state's distinctive approach to religion‐state relations as appropriate to the Indian context and in keeping with India's constitutional goals.     

The Ties That Bind: Multiculturalism and Secularism Reconsidered

The article examines contemporary controversies over the rights of Muslim women to wear various forms of the veil, in both France and the United Kingdom and argues that despite their apparent differences as political ideologies, both multiculturalism and secularism are deployed as techniques to govern difference. It traces a common philosophical lineage of these two ideologies, and their shared genealogical relationship to the subject of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought. Drawing on Marx and Hegel, it argues that at the core of secularism and multiculturalism there lies the germ of a subject and law formed through a concept of culture that was to a great degree indivisible from religion. While secularism ostensibly decouples culture from religion to produce a common political culture, and multiculturalism purports to accommodate a diverse range of cultural and religious practices, both fail to accommodate difference that stretches the bounds of a citizen-subject defined according to Anglo-European norms of culture, which implicitly includes Christianity.