Daisaku Ikeda’s philosophy of peace,education proposals,and Soka education: convergences and divergences in peace education

In this article, the authors introduce and explicate Daisaku Ikeda’s contributions to peace education. Ikeda is a Buddhist leader, peacebuilder, school founder, and prolific author whose six decades of contributions to peace education have had a global impact in practice but have remained unexamined in the extant, particularly Anglophone, literature. Using excerpts and bilingual discourse analysis of the Ikeda corpus, the authors focus on five aspects to trace the past, present, and future of Ikeda’s contributions to peace education: first, they trace the biographical roots of Ikeda’s contributions to his early educational experiences and encounter with Josei Toda (1900–1958). Second, they outline the Nichiren Buddhist philosophy informing Ikeda’s approach to peace education. Third, they explicate in the context of peace and peace education Ikeda’s concept of value-creating, or Soka education (soka kyoiku) relative to value-creating pedagogy (soka kyoikugaku) theorized by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944). In light of this relation, they also trace the origin of the Soka Gakkai International, of which Ikeda is founding president. Fifth, they clarify Ikeda’s educational proposals made explicitly under the label of ‘peace education,’ namely, cultural exchange, a United Nations for Education, and education for disarmament and human rights (including anti-bullying, sustainability, and global citizenship). The authors conclude that Ikeda’s perspectives, proposals, and practices of Soka education and ‘peace education’ can be viewed as a tripartite ontological model of a process of becoming, moving from inner transformation by means of dialogue to global citizenship.     

多元价值背景下价值教育的挑战及其转向

当多元价值成为社会存在的一个不争事实时,一元价值社会中价值教育存在的合理性理据就丧失了。30年来,我国社会价值模式的转变也必然导致了对灌输式价值教育模式的否定,然而在转变后的多元价值社会中,价值教育不可能支持价值中立和完全宽容的立场。因此,多元价值背景下,价值教育需要向培育价值理性和捍卫客观的价值秩序,以及促进价值分享和价值对话方向转变。这不但是捍卫价值教育自身的需要,同时也是捍卫多元价值社会存在的需要。     

中美复合战略稳定关系：建构 依据、基本框架与发展趋势

中美战略稳定关系已经超越经典战略稳定性,向着复合战略稳定关系的方向演化。建构中美复合战略稳定关系是稳定两国关系的客观需要。彼此战略竞争加剧给中美之间非均势核威慑基础上的战略稳定性带来负面影响。在美国提高核力量于国家安全战略中的地位、将核武器重新作为霸权工具的背景下,中美战略稳定性面临挑战。特朗普政府对中国挑起贸易争端,经贸关系在中美关系中的“稳定器”和“压舱石”作用减弱,建构中美复合战略稳定关系的必要性凸显。中美之间经济深度相互依存,在维护国际体系稳定方面具有共同利益,这为建构中美复合战略稳定关系奠定了坚实的基础。中美复合战略稳定关系框架包括建立在非均势核威慑基础上的战略稳定性、双方经济的深度相互依存、战略互信、双方对话交流与合作机制等四根支柱,其中以非均势核威慑基础上的战略稳定性为核心支柱。虽然中美战略互信存在短板,但随着中国战略核力量的进步、中美经济相互依存的继续维持和双方对话交流与合作机制的成熟和完善,中美复合战略稳定关系将不断巩固。     

中美两国太空安全领域的互动

作为第四空间的太空是国际争夺的战略制高点。中美两国在太空领域有着广泛利益,涉及其国家安全与经济繁荣以及国际声望。中美两国之间的太空关系,事关国际战略稳定与平衡。尽管两国都主张太空安全,但是中美太空安全观大相径庭,在如何确保太空安全的方式上存在巨大差异。中国在安全困境下考虑和实施太空政策,谋求太空安全;美国则是推进太空武器化,保证美国治下的太空安全。两国在太空安全领域上进行了针锋相对的较量。美国使用传统守成大国对待崛起大国的方法,不仅研发更先进的(反)太空技术,而且也禁止中美太空合作,同时拼凑同盟,封堵中国(反)太空能力的发展。与美国相比,中国应对美国太空封堵手段相对较少,只有潜心发展自己的(反)太空能力,才能确保太空资产安全和国家安全。在外交场合下,在禁止太空军备竞赛与《禁止生产用于核武器及爆炸装置的裂变材料条约》、禁止太空武器化的国际条约与自愿性质的国际太空行为规范准则两组问题上,中美两国也进行了互不妥协的对抗。为降低两国在太空安全领域的对抗烈度,中美两国开启了民用太空对话与太空安全对话机制,同时,也不排除特朗普政府未来会启用中美外交安全对话机制处理太空安全问题。     

慈善组织信息披露机制研究——基于利益相关者理论的视角

慈善组织是利益相关者通过契约安排所构成的集合体,由于各利益相关者之间存在复杂的委托代理关系所产生的信息不对称现象以及信息本身具有外部性的特征,因此,应建立由各利益相关者参与的信息披露机制。     

‘On the outskirts of the Empire’: Joseph Brodsky and Lithuania

This article explores the role of Lithuania in Joseph Brodsky’s life and works before and after his exile from Russia in 1972. As a former Soviet republic, Lithuania represented an intermediary space for Brodsky both culturally and geographically, contributing to his realization that it was a ‘rehearsal’ for his actual emigration. However, Brodsky’s notion of Lithuania changes when, after 1972, instead of representing a simulacrum of the ‘abroad,’ the poet sees Lithuania as a ‘home’ from afar. Emigration, in Brodsky’s case, thus became a realization of the myth of exile implicit in his earlier texts about Lithuania.     

“我与你”的心理学心理学的三种话语形态

在心理学的研究中存在着三种话语形态,即"我的"心理学,"你的"心理学,"我与你的"心理学.不同的话语形态蕴含了不同的研究模式,研究者与研究对象的关系是"我"、"你"的关系."我"、"你"长期各自为阵,成为两极.话语上的割裂最终导致了心理学的科学性与现实性的割裂.只有在"我与你"的话语形态中,通过对话,才能将心理学研究的科学性与现实性有机地统一起来.     

The EU,Russia and the potential for dialogue – different readings of the crisis in Ukraine

Recent developments in European security have shown the growing need for a better understanding of the security dynamics on the European continent. This article presents an analysis of differing Russian and European perceptions of European security in general, and concerning the crisis in Ukraine in particular. As much of the literature on these issues has been normatively driven, we aim to provide an impartial presentation and analysis of the dominant Russian and EU discourses. This we see as essential for investigating the potential for constructive dialogue between Russia and the EU. If simplistic assumptions about the motivations and intentions of other actors take hold in the public debate and policy analyses, the main actors may be drawn into a logic that is ultimately dangerous or counterproductive. With this article we offer a modest contribution towards discouraging such a development in Russia–EU relations. After presenting an analysis of the differing EU and Russian perceptions, we discuss the potential for dialogue between such different worldviews, and reflect on potential implications for European security. As the article shows, there are tendencies of a certain adjustment in the Union’s approach that may make a partial rapprochement between the two sides more likely.