论中国特色网络意识形态话语体系建构的基本逻辑

中国特色网络意识形态话语体系建构具有独特的建构逻辑,体现在政治立场、理论体系、思维方法、话语表达、话语传播、价值体系建构有机统一的基本逻辑之中。政治立场建构是前提和基础,集中体现在话语内容和话语标识的鲜明立场建构之中;理论体系建构要以中国特色社会主义理论体系科学的话语范畴和话语基础为依据,呈现科学性和统合力;话语表达建构要以准确性、生动性、主导性、规范性为必要条件;传播体系建构要充分体现话语传播的融合性、有效性、多样性、可感性,不断增强主流意识形态的影响力、表现力;价值体系构建要彰显话语核心和话语发展的价值性、导向性、开放性和创新性,凸显社会主义核心价值观的引领力和发展力,牢牢掌握中国特色社会主义意识形态的领导权和话语权。     

The Hurried Justification of Sanctions

In this paper I try to see how the Derridean aporias of the law of the urgency of legal decisions (the law interrupts the input of knowledge in the decision-making process) and the épokhè of the rule (justice can never be done in the present) are revealed in the context of the justification of sanctions. I argue that sanctions can only be justified in a purposive manner in the last instance. They can only be means to an end of punishment which has been opted for, and which can be justified on grounds of principles, or an authoritative calculation of incommensurable entities. I argue against theories, which advocate the internal connection of law and morality, because if such a connection could be established, the aporia of the hurried and unjustified action would obviously disappear. In particular my target is discourse theory as formulated mainly by Robert Alexy with his Sonderfallthese(Special Case Thesis). My objection is that, because of their instrumental nature, sanctions cannot be justified on moral grounds. I also consider some objections that could be raised from Klaus Günther's theory of appropriateness and Habermas' distinction between the moral, ethical and pragmatic employments of practical reason. I am argue that the former, which would become relevant at the stage of application, that is sentencing, does not resolve the justificatory problem of sanctions, and the latter confirms rather than falsifies my claim that punishment can never be said to be just.     

浅论女性话语

女性话语是女性意识的反映,标志着女性对男性传统话语霸权的反抗与反拨,而女性意识是女性对自身、对自身作为一个相对于男性的群体、对自身所应享有的社会地位和角色定位的认识.如果性别不会消失,性别或社会性别差异就会永远存在.强调女性主体性,不仅要改变女性对于男性的从属关系,而且要改变女性对于国家的从属关系.女性话语标志着女性对自我精神力量与价值的探寻.     

The Institutional Roots of Anti-Corruption Policies: Comparing the Three Baltic States

The idea to establish Independent Anti-Corruption Agencies (IACAs) first appeared on the international agenda in the late 1990s, and has since become a powerful subject for discourse. Responses to this idea have varied among the Baltic states. We ask why and compare the development of Baltic strategies and institutions. Our discussion focuses on how national political systems, perceptions of and discourse surrounding corruption, and external pressures on domestic structures have influenced the initial institutional choice. The resulting policies look very much alike, despite their differing points of departure.     

刑事司法中的母爱主义

我国的刑事法律经过多年发展，具有了一定的技术化特征，但往往是以武断、专横、惩罚和报复的面貌出现，抹杀了对具体的、感性的个体的关怀。技术化特征和法律形式主义是以男性为中心的法律的产物，表现为立法的父爱主义。而对具体的、感性的个体的关怀，是近年来日益凸显的刑事司法母爱主义的基本特征之一。刑事司法母爱主义关注社会问题、关注社会关系的修复、关注社会回归、关注青少年的成长和未来等富有感性的问题，从而使法律成为“有血有肉”的法律。导致其凸显的背景因素主要有：独生子女问题成为“公众论题”，女司法官人数的迅速增长，女权主义的兴起等。     

《反思中国法学界的"权利话语"》之反思

自上世纪80年代以来，“权利话语”逐渐成为我国法学界的主流话语。“权利本位”也在中国法学界的激烈讨论中获得了正统学说的地位。有论者基于经济学思维与理念对“权利话语”、“权利本位”进行批判甚至解构。这种经济学进路的背后，是一种建立在自然科学研究意义上的“经济学帝国主义”思维。在它看似无立场的研究角度的背后，却是一种追求效率至上的价值取向。这与法学所应追求的正义底线价值是格格不入的。它可能导致一种专制主义思维。尽管“权利本位”作为法律的普适价值存有争论，但是没有它却是极其危险的。     

权利的互惠性

权利,作为一种话语,是现代法学甚至道德话语的基石范畴,在当今法学的研究和法律制度的建构中处于绝对核心的地位。本文通过对权利范畴的历史演化之逻辑过程的分析,指出权利范畴有着特定的社会根基和伦理要求,即权利的互惠性。通过对权利的互惠性之社会分析,进一步指出权利保护的对象是利益,但其本质不是利益,而是表征处于社会关系结构中的"利益关系"的一种话语虚构(fiction),是对利益关系中互惠性原则的一种制度化表达,故而权利本质是一种话语。最后,通过对作为话语的权利进行解析,力图表明作为话语的权利范畴和权利制度不能也无法脱离开其历史中凝炼进来的互惠正义的社会内涵。     

纯粹中国美学话语:何以可能

在比较语境下研究中国美学话语,由于存在着中西两种话语本质的相异,西方话语只能转换为其所蕴涵的方法,以便于发明中国问题。其学术理念可以表述为:借助于西方方法之发明,以中国话语来表述中国问题,并最终形成中国方法,而不脱比较语境。据此可以对中国美学话语重建中存在的如何处置西方方法和话语的问题做出回应。     

出走与归来——从易卜生与王尔德戏剧中出走女性的译介看"五四"女权话语的多样性

"五四"时期对易卜生与王尔德戏剧的译介进入了高潮,针对其中离家出走和试图出走的女性的探讨,成为"五四"女权话语的重要内涵。出走的娜拉被奉为女性解放的最高象征,但并不能解决女性出走后所面临的重重困难,作品中那些"归来"并实现觉醒的女性亦得到读者相当的认可,并被作为解决女性盲目出走、身陷困境的一种选择,显示出"五四"语境在出走风潮之下,对女性解放的多元思考和接受。翻译作为一种文化建构力量,推动了中国女权话语的发展。     

How to not speak the ‘F‐word’: Federalism between mirage and imperative in the euro crisis

The recent financial and debt crisis has resuscitated the debate about European federalism – a theme that seemed not to have survived the painful constitutional adventure that ended with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. With the adoption of significant policy and institutional measures for tightening macroeconomic and budgetary coordination (including a constitutionally enshrined debt brake), the reforms of the monetary union have undisputedly brought the European Union further on the path towards an ever closer union. In an era where EU integration has been increasingly politicised, and Euroscepticism has been on the rise and exploited by anti‐system parties, national leaders have to face a political hiatus and respond to increased needs for symbolic and discursive legitimation of further federalisation. This is all the more crucial for French and German leaders who have brokered the main decisions during the crisis of the eurozone. Against this background, the purpose of this article is not to assess whether, or to what extent, the recent reforms of economic and monetary union have made the EU more federal. Rather, the purpose is to tackle the following puzzle: How have EU leaders legitimised the deepening of federal integration in a context where support for more European federalism is at its lowest? To elucidate this, a lexicographic discourse analysis is conducted based on all speeches held by the German Chancellor Merkel and the two French Presidents Sarkozy and Hollande, previous to, or after European summits from early 2010 until the spring of 2013. The findings indicate that federalism is both taboo and pervasive in French and German leaders' discourse. The paradox is barely apparent, though. While the ‘F‐word’ is rarely spoken aloud, two distinctive visions co‐exist in the French and German discourse. The coming of age of a political union through constitutional federalism is pictured as ineluctable, yet as a distant mirage out of reach of today's decision makers. At the same time, the deepening of functional federalism in order to cope with economic interdependence is a ubiquitous imperative that justifies further integration. The persisting gap between the constitutional and the functional vision of European federalism has crucial implications. Insofar as the Union is held responsible for not delivering successful economic policy, political leaders will fail to legitimise both functional and constitutional federalism.