苏联解体与文明进程——马克斯·韦伯“俄国革命论”的视点

自苏联在1991年末解体以来,学者们对这一历史事件的肇因进行了多种分析。这些分析中,意识形态层面的分析占据了显要的位置。然而,这些分析陷入了同义反复的逻辑错误。与此相对,各种基于事实的分析,往往停留在一种事后的描述上,未能提供有效的说明。那么,从社会科学的角度来看,苏联解体意味着什么?马克斯·韦伯在其"俄国革命论"中提供了一个卓越的视角。     

需要何种法律信任

"法律信任"对"法律信仰"概念的修正,实质走向了一个韦伯式概念,其理论本身在很大程度上也是韦伯命题的理论映照。这一韦伯式的"法律信任"概念,无论是在理论上还是在现实上都面临着巨大的困难,这种双重困难指向同一问题:"法律信任"如何可能?由此,立基于韦伯式的形式法律理论之上,不可能产生真正的"法律信任"。"法律信任"概念要想有意义,就必须建立在一种更具实质性的法律理论之上。     

从经典作家看社会学方法论对政治学发展的影响

虽然政治学和社会学都有着相对独立的研究对象,相互区别的方法体系,但很多社会学者尤以马克斯.韦伯及罗伯特.米歇尔斯为代表突破所谓的学科划分,形成交叉研究,其理论和方法对现代政治学发展产生重要影响。韦伯的"因果多元论"、"价值中立"、"理想类型"等方法论原则对现代政治科学研究方法产生重要影响,直接促成了政治系统分析的产生。米歇尔斯则在对"寡头统治铁律"进行论证的过程中不自觉地开拓了政治研究的方法,自发运用了政治心理分析和政治团体分析方法。这些学者的不懈努力最终促成了政治社会学的诞生。     

是非之心如何知善知恶？——王阳明“良知”观念的感受与认知意涵

文章的写作主要有两个目的。第一,阐述狭义的良知--即是非之心--的不同意涵,以及它所支撑的道德框架。文章澄清了两种类型的良知：(1)作为道德判断之能力的良知;(2)作为道德知识和标准的天理良知。此外,文章也通过现象学的描述分析良知的不同特征,良知其它的特征将在另文讨论;如(3)作为道德动力的良知;(4)作为实践能力的良知。良知的这些面相为道德情感所贯穿。第二,在对良知特征的阐释中,文章对治儒家话语中关于良知天理所出现的两种理论问题。第一种理论将王阳明的良知观念看作对特定事件的固化认知,以及即时的反应。这种解读不能真正地认可良知扩展、反思、道德培养和制度革新之可能性。第二种理论将良知理解为不具有具体内容,而仅仅是抽象的本体。通过合理地理解,即从道德情感的视角来检视时,王阳明的良知学说既认可我们总是可以触及良知的具体内容,又提供了深化与培养的可能性。     

No solid ground: Max Aub’s roots and routes

While Max Aub’s unique and prolific body of work has been the subject of numerous studies and monographs, his work remains undervalued in transnational contexts. An analysis of two of his plays, San Juan (1943) and El rapto de Europa (1946), and a collection of poems, Diario de Djelfa (1944), makes it possible to rethink the ways in which aesthetic projects, produced either during World War II or shortly afterwards, reveal a geography of the war’s forced displacements, in which the Spanish Civil War, European colonialism in North Africa, and its enduring postcolonial remainders become the most important landmarks. While the present analysis centers on Aub’s routes between Spain, France, Algeria, and, finally, Mexico, a persistent yearning for roots, for a sense of belonging, or, to use one of his characters’ words, for “solid ground” haunts his writing. The interplay between roots and routes therefore makes it possible to consider Aub’s work in a postcolonial context and within a transnational memory.     

论韦伯的新教伦理——评《新教伦理与资本主义精神》

经济的发展需要一种文化伦理的支撑,资本主义的兴起和繁荣是多种因素综合作用的结果,马克斯.韦伯从一种文化伦理的视角论证了新教伦理与资本主义之间的生成关系,虽有失偏颇,但对我们有着重要而深刻的启迪意义,为我们提供了富于启迪意义的思路,并开辟了多种研究途径。     

Patterns within prejudice: antisemitism in the United States in the 1940s

ABSTRACT

Ziege compares two field studies on ethnocentrism, racism and antisemitism among American workers during the Second World War: ‘Antisemitism among American Labor’ (1945) by the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research (ISR) in exile and Wartime Shipyard (1947) by Katherine Archibald at the University of California at Berkeley. The former was a large-scale team project headed by Friedrich Pollock, Theodor W. Adorno and Paul Massing, who had at their disposal a large number of fieldworkers as well as the support of the trade unions. Archibald worked in complete isolation. Yet, in spite of this and major differences in design and theory, the European Marxists and the American liberal came to similar conclusions: hostility towards Jews at that time had to be analysed in connection with hostility towards other groups (including women, Blacks, labourers from the American South and other ethnic and social minorities) and within the context of the war and the Holocaust. While aware of the innovations achieved in research by means of public opinion polls, both studies were pioneering in their ambition to improve on quantitative research by means of non-quantitative procedures and qualitative-participatory observation. Ziege links these studies to a third study, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), conducted by the ISR, particularly Adorno, which poses the question of how relevant the ISR's critical theory was for the innovations achieved in studies of prejudice, when Archibald's study, which eschewed social theory, arrived at similar conclusions regarding antisemitism.     

The Romanticization of Charismatic Leadership in the Arts

ABSTRACT

This inter-disciplinary article focuses on the role, significance, and impact of charisma in cultural leadership. It brings together fresh empirical data with a critical review of the literature to investigate the role of charisma in the operation, reputation, and strategic success of arts organizations. For the first time, this article synthesizes a diverse range of literature from sociology, psychology, political science, management, and leadership studies and applies it critically to the context of the arts. This comprehensive review is compared against interviews with key stakeholders in the arts, which challenge the neo-charismatic literature on leadership and support a return to aspects of the original formulation of charisma, as envisaged by Max Weber. The article finds that charismatic leaders are seen as extraordinary individuals and are excessively romanticized by arts managers, policymakers, and audiences. It questions this normative bias and concludes that charismatic leaders should be treated with a degree of skepticism, even caution, to temper any negative impacts on "followers" and organizations.     

怀特和韦伯"文化科学"思想之比较研究

美国著名的人类学家怀特在其代表作《文化科学———人和文明的研究》一书当中提出了他有关文化科学的主要思想。经典社会学的代表韦伯在他阐述其有关社会科学方法论的主要观点时 ,亦提出了“文化科学”一名 ,并就此进行了详细的论述。值得注意的是 ,二者所理解的“文化科学”是两个不同的概念 ,需要加以严格区分 ,因为他们不仅在研究的目的、理论的诠释系统还是探讨方法上 ,都存在着明显的分歧。引进二者这个同名的术语时 ,决不能乱贴标签 ,否则将会制造出无穷的无意义的争端