“要哥俩好”,不要“窝里斗”

前不久,一位朋友谈起工厂里的人际关系,说现在需要提倡“1+1>2”的精神。 1加1大于2吗?连一年级小学生都会说,这是个错误的演算。 当然,这个公式不是要表述数学概念,而是要表述一个政治概念,它意味着,一种力与另一种力进行凝聚、结合,可以产生出比两者之和更大的新的合力。     

伯乐与千里马

这天，一匹黑马对众马说：“我要去寻找伯乐，你们要去吗？”众马听了说：“我们是千里马，我们干吗要去寻找伯乐？你不是千里马，找到了伯乐也不会成为千里马!”     

既要讲优越性更要讲必然性

在一些论述社会主义制度或进行社会主义教育的文章中,常常可以看到这样一种现象,即用社会主义制度的优越性来论证社会主义制度的合理性和科学性,说我们所以走社会主义道路,是因为社会主义有比资本主义更多更大的优越性。这当然是完全正确的,但我认为,仅仅指出这一点是不够的。当然,并不是说不能讲社会主义优越性,而是这样讲并不能说清楚社会主义制度所以合理、科学的原因,并不能深刻地说明我们为什么一定要坚持社会主义制度。优越性说到底是指方案而言的。方案可以多种多样,因而是可以选择的。而社会文义制度从根本上说,是社会进步发展的一个必经阶段,客观规律,是不以人的意志为转移的。在人类历史的发展过程中,这一阶段是不可逾越的,非走不可,因而对它没有选择的余地。也正因为它是社会发展的规律,代表了     

马克思主义与人道主义关系新探——兼论科学人道主义

马克思主义所主张的社会主义、共产主义社会本质上是人道社会,旨在真正实现人道目标.但马克思主义认定,伦理人道主义只是一种空想,因此,真正可行的人道主义、人道社会必须是科学历史观与价值观统一.而唯物主义历史观做到了科学的历史观与价值观的内在统一.这又是由于人道主义、人道目标是它的灵魂.这样,马克思把人道主义马克思主义化了.但这不是用科学社会主义、唯物主义历史观去消融人道主义.而是使人道主义具有科学性、可行性和和实践意义.这正如马克思用唯物主义历史观和剩余价值理论使社会主义由空想变为科学,但却是从根本上改造和提升社会主义理论,而不是消融它一样.     

关于信仰

信仰是情感的事,理性不利于信仰。在一个宗教内部,虔信者大多是一些情感强烈理性薄弱的人。理性强烈情感薄弱的人无意做信徒。介于两者之间的是情感和理性皆强的怀疑者,他们渴望信仰而不易得,精神上最痛苦,以及情感和理性皆弱的盲从者,他们实际上并无信仰,只是随大流罢了。     

刘长乐：世界潮流中的中国信仰

一个问题可以看到的信仰.有人问一名画家：“如果博物馆失火,里面有一幅名画和一只猫,你会去救哪一个？”画家不假思索地说：“当然要救那只猫!”名画对于画家的意义不言而喻,然而画家为何要救一只猫？因为在他看来,生命才是最重要的.哪怕最名贵的画,和生命相比都轻如鸿毛.     

关于信仰

信仰是情感的事，理性不利于信仰。在一个宗教内部，虔信者大多是一些情感强烈理性薄弱的人。理性强烈情感薄弱的人无意做信徒。介于两者之间的是情感和理性皆强的。阡疑者，他们渴望信仰而不易得，精神上最痛苦，以及情感和理性皆弱的盲从者，他们实际上并无信仰，只是隧大流罢了。     

自律与自由

<正>自律与自由是一个既对立又统一的矛盾体。自律,在常人看来是一种约束和限制,而作为领导干部来说,却是一种素质和本领。人生在世,欲望与生俱来,挥之难去。合理的欲望,是引人向上的阶梯,是推动社会发展的动力。问题在于,人之为人,不是一个"欲望的洞窟",有理智、讲理性,做欲望的主人而不是奴隶,才是人的价值所在。泰戈尔说:"顶不住眼前的诱惑,就会失去未来的幸福。"在形形色色诱惑的面前,如果不能保持高度清醒,不具备内省、自警、自律的定力,出问题是迟早的事情。现实生活中,一些党员干部包括少数位高权重的领导干部,从忽视对自己的基本约束和严格要     

权力的德性及道德使命

在人类历史上,有关权力德性的论述主要有:权力之善说,权力之恶说,权力中性说等。这些观点都脱离了社会关系,抽象地谈权力的德性。的确,权力是一种工具,但从道德上看,它本身并不是纯粹中性的,它不仅是工具理性的显现,更是价值理性的显现。因而应负载着一定的道德使命,即确保安全和维持社会秩序。从道德视阈研究权力,就是要挖掘权力的这种内在价值性,使权力不仅不能成为任人操纵的工具,它更应是一种促进社会进步的力量。     

大学生树立马克思主义信仰的重要意义——以新疆少数民族大学生为例

大学生作为中国社会主义事业的接班人,要始终坚持马克思主义信仰,因为马克思主义是一种科学的理论,同时又是一种科学的信仰。在新疆引导少数民族大学生确立中国共产党领导下走中国特色社会主义道路、实现中华民族伟大复兴的共同理想和坚定信念,这也是新疆社会稳定发展的基础,更是培养创造性人才的保证。新疆少数民族大学生树立马克思主义信仰对抵御西方敌对势力和平演变与抵御"三股势力"分裂活动具有重要意义。     

“科学”的价值诉求在现代中国的转型

“：科学”一词引入中国之初，就被视为一种价值体系，被赋予价值维度的理解。在“科学救国——科学兴国——科学发展”的转换过程中“，科学”更多地承载了立国、兴国、强国的使命，展示出其价值诉求的转型历程。这种价值维度的梳理为当前科学发展道路的理念确立和价值选择提供了历史的和逻辑的依据。     

The Dynamic American Dream

The American Dream is central to the national ethos, reflecting people's optimism that all who are willing to work hard can achieve a better life than their parents. Separate from the support for the idea of the American Dream itself is whether the public believes it is attainable. We consider the origins and dynamics of the public's belief in the achievability of the American Dream. Is the American Dream a symbolic vision, rooted in political socialization rather than contemporary politics? Or does optimism about the American Dream follow from the viability of the dream, rising with economic prosperity and falling with declining opportunity? We develop a new macrolevel measure of belief in the American Dream from 1973 to 2018. We show that it moves over time, responsive to changes in social mobility, income inequality, and economic perceptions. As inequality increases, belief in the attainability of the American Dream declines.     

Can We? Administrative Limits Revisited

The idea of administrative limits—in the sense of constraints or bounds on what can be achieved by the activity of administration in general and public administration in particular—is important for a proper understanding of twenty‐first‐century public administration. What are the effective limits of taxable capacity in the modern state, as debt‐ridden governments seek to reduce debt levels and budget deficits after the financial crashes and economic recession of the late 2000s? What are the limits of safety and security that can be realistically achieved by administrative structures and procedures in a so‐called risk society? What are the limits to the achievement of ambitious social engineering to improve the human lot by conventional organizations and bureaucracies? Such issues are not new. Questions of this kind have long been asked by scholars in the intersecting fields of public administration, policy studies, and political science. Nonetheless, the author argues, they address issues that are of continuing, central importance to government and society in today’s world.     

To ��Fall in Line�� or to ��Grab��: Thoughts on the Indigenization of Political Science

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical and practical basis for the indigenization of political science in the context of China. In particular, it attempts to address the three related questions: Is it necessary to indigenize political science? Is it possible to indigenize political science? How should political science be indigenized? It argues that that indigenization is not an easy task even for indigenous academics. Therefore a project of indigenization requires a conscious and active effort on their part. Without critical introspection, indigenization is impossible.     

Politicized Science

Publication of the study, How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study (Regnerus, 2012), caused a firestorm in the scientific community. Unlike previous studies, it found differences between the children raised by parents who had experienced a same-sex relationship as compared to those raised by heterosexual parents. Most would acknowledge that policy-relevant social science is seldom value free and frequently gets politicized, but the Regnerus controversy illustrates that it is value dependent, with scientist deeply embedded in its politicization. The kind if science that gets conducted, how findings are interpreted and received, and the degree of critical scrutiny such studies receive is dependent upon scientists’ sociopolitical views. Making every effort to apply the same standards when scrutinizing studies that provide politically palatable results as those that do not, and promoting rather than discouraging ideological diversity among researchers and their funders, are the best way to ensure value-pluralism and the integrity of science in the oft-politicized field of social science.     

The legitimation of local knowledges: introducing the postmodern into laboratory science

The idea that science simply mirrors nature has been challenged by postmodernism that has considered the way it contructs the world, our bodies and identities. But such criticisms, apart from the odd exception, have been directed at science in general with little insight or attention to actual empirical procedures that take place in laboratories, for example. This article investigates the idea that Enlightenment is not redundant, and that in fact laboratory procedures are not so different to those used in the humanities. The article shows that scientific procedure shares much with the way narratologists might analyse story. It likens representations of cancer development and cell cycles to the narratological models used by Barthes and Greimas. Science does not so much make nature reveal its secrets but offers an epistemological opportunity for examination, expression and ultimately creativity.     

Beyond reason and hysteria: Towards a postmodern model of communication and control in science

This article takes the controversy over ‘Mad Cow Disease’ ('BSE') in Britain as the starting point to reflect on postmodern contexts for the production, circulation and control of scientific discourse. It looks at two competing models of scientific rationality, modernist and postmodernist, as they function in contexts we call ‘postmodern’. With BSE? the Government began with the modernist project of combating hysteria with calm reasonableness, thereby helping to produce the hysteria they feared. But science, far from being entirely rational or unitary, is a set of relatively independent discourses? including ‘entropie’ discourse: discursive black holes which are strictly policed but never fully contained—the unconscious of science? where scientific creativity and popular paranoia meet. Where modernist science defends against the crisis of unreason to prevent it from happening, postmodern science (chaos theory, fuzzy logic) accepts the normality of crisis? chaos and unpredictability, which are not coincidentally coming to characterise the postmodern world. The problems of modernist science are not purely epistemological. The postmodern alliance of modernist science and global agribusiness has meant unprecedented assaults on nature, producing a ‘return of the (biotic) repressed’ that, in turn, becomes the content of the discursive repressed of science itself. To contend with these processes, we need postmodern theories of science—including the anomalous? the improbable in the analysis—as was not done with BSE until too late? because current science refused to accept the possible existence of a phenomenon that was empirically unproven and did not fit in. Of equal importance is to include popular discourses among the full set of available sources of scientific ‘truth’. Films like Outbreak and popular science like The Hot Zone express a popular paranoia that discourses of science urgently need to attend to. The study of popular culture should become an integral part in a new postmodern sociology of science.     

Comparative Analysis in Political Science: Requiem or Resurrection?

Comparative method in political science is currently going through a critical time, particularly after the failure of developmentalism, and of the classical paradigm of comparative government. This crisis stems from questioning universalism, mono-determinism and the compartmentalism between political science and history. New paradigms are now conceived in order to overcome this crisis: culturalism, social action, historical sociology. Can they be used to construct a new kind of comparison? Can they deal effectively with the new objects of comparison which derive from the increasing differentiation of political situations and political practices that we currently observe?     

Recommending a scheme of reason: Political theory,policy science,and democracy

It is the task of policy science, as of political theory generally, to recommend a scheme of reason that will presumably result in better public decisions. This may seem profoundly undemocratic, for in a democracy, should not the people be free to think precisely as they please? Yet all political theory intimates an idea of political reason and unreason. The problem then is which ideal of reason to teach in the name of a policy science of democracy. Herein I compare three common schemes of reason: utilitarian calculation, liberal rationalism, and practical reason. My conclusion is that there is no reason to suppose that the capacity for the more public-spirited forms of deliberation is less widely distributed in the population than calculated self-interest, and that either liberal rationalism or practical reason, or some combination of the two, is more compatible with democracy than utilitarian calculation.     

Between Speech and Silence: The Postcolonial Critic and the Idea of Emancipation

Abstract

The concept of emancipation has an increasingly ambivalent status in postcolonial criticism. Under the influence of poststructuralism, the idea that the subaltern subject might overcome colonial relations of cultural domination through acts of self-representation has been thrown into disrepute. If there is to be emancipation, according to this view, it will not come through the recovery of an authentic speaking subject, but through strategies of ‘strategic essentialism’. Here it is argued that this postructuralist approach leaves the subaltern in a politically pre carious position and should be exchanged for the kind of hermeneutic approach that makes possible a genuine politics of recognition.