从宏观政治到微观政治
|
摘要
本文以从宏观政治到微观政治的转向为研究视角和切入点,以政治范畴的变迁为线索,通过对解构主义微观政治与现代宏观政治和马克思主义的对比分析,认为马克思主义仍然是一个不可超越的视界。当然由于历史处境和研究视角的限制,马克思主义还留下了仍需探索的领域和不很清晰的地带,但马克思主义基本精神没有过时,仍然是理论和实践赖以发展的基石和基本议题;认为政治范畴是在社会变迁中转型和发展的,政治不仅包括宏观政治也包括微观政治,或者说,政治既是宏观的也是微观的,在实践中要将二者联结起来。但对此二者又不可等量齐观,目前还不能否认宏观政治的主导地位。对中国社会更是如此。但中国社会阶层结构的巨大变化也是中国政治的题中应有之义,必须对它“讲政治”,这是解构主义政治哲学带给我们的启示。
With the developments of postmodern society, consumer society or later-capitalism, there’s a political trend in every field of society and individul. That is,there is a change direction------from macropolitics to micropolitics in the 1960s.
The reazons of the transformation stem from two aspects. The imperfection of modern macropolitics is internal motive forces of the transformation. Rationality and subject which are foundations of modern macropolitics are rationalism presume.The rationalism presume brings about not only rational force,but also realistic bloody force. Modern macropolitics becomes irrationality, and then falls into troubles. Deconstructionism thinkers prefer daily life, such as the human body, desire, accidental factors, emotion, etc. to rationality on thinking of possibilities of politics. The developments of postmodern society bring about changes of contents and forms of modern macropolitics.Globalization challenges absolute soverign of a state, country and politics are on the way to“end”; Consumer society makes consumer, science and technology turn into new kinds of ideaology. Ideaology and politics are becoming increasingly“non-politicalization”; The expansion of new middle class and the decline of the working class make social life increasingly“get rid of classnization and revolutionization”. All these mentioned above question the exposition systems about“Grand Narrative”of modern macropolitics.Social life shows indifference towards macropolitics. Deconstructionism thinkers begin to focus political practice on daily life, and think about the possibblity of postmodern micropolitics. New Social Movement becomes direct fuse of postmodern micropolitics. Deconstructionism thingkers are promoted to introspect Mrxism and modern macropolitics by the movement. Then they directly draw conclutions of theories of postmodern micropolitics.
There are three changes of the theme of the transformation. First, it is from monopower of a coutry to pluralistic micropower. As the kernel conception of modren politics, power takes root among the center of systems of economy and politics, and is considered as an organ of dominition. From the microangle, deconstructionism thingkers think that power is a kind of relation and a criss-cross net, not a substance that can be possessed; Power spreads all over the places without any core, possesses plural nature, ability of production and unsubjectivity; The power in daily life is more important than that of a state; Powers of knowledge, power of life, power of media and power of symbols are all micropowers. Second, it is from resistance of classes to plural microresistances. Resistance of deconstructionism is a kind of partial microresistance, not a large scale revolution among the classes. So deconstructionism criticizes conceptions of modern politics, such as the working class, class struggle and revolution. They resist state thought that serves coutries, approve of nomadic thought which fights against traditions; They fight against domination of symbols; They think that desire is not only main strength of resistance politics, but also a prerequisite to revolution. So class politics should be instead of desire micropolitics. Third, it is from identity politics of“Grand Narrative”to difference politics of micronarrative. Diffrence politics is a kind of typical form and an important dimension of postmodern micropolitics. It is based on“difference”and the concept of being against“Grand Narrative”, going round the sense of plural politics; It fights against constructing identical political philosophy like“The Enlightenment Rationality”, and emphasizes plural political value. Deconstructionism thinkers explore“difference”in order to expose the domination of rulers and their real stratagems. Meanwhile, they also advocate that the peripheries which are oppressed and eliminated from authority and comman normals should be liberated.
Although deconstructionism political philosophy and Marxism both criticize metaphyisical rationality and capitalism modernity and both of them are very similar, deconstructionism thinker don’t approve Mrxism entirely. That is, the approval is very limited and kept at a distance. Their real intention is to deconstruct Mrxism. But Mrxism is based on not only critique of political-economy, but also critique of economic basis and social system of capitalism, and Marxist exert themselves in overthrowing the rule of capitalism, fulfil free and liberation of mankind. Therefore, Marxism has thorough revolutionary character. On the other hand, deconstructionism makes great efforts in criticizing capitalism official civilization. They don’t want to overthrow capitalism systems at all. So there are essential distinctions between them. These distinctions are just shortcomings of deconstructionism politics. Therefore, deconstructionism political philosophy will not exceed Marxism, let alone deconstruct Marxism. Although deconstructionism politics challenges Marxism, Marxism will never be out-of-date because of contemporary capitalism. On the contrary, Marxism is still foundations which guide us to go forward. The concept of politics shouid be comprehended not only by rationality, revolution and liberation, but also by the whole society(concluding daily life). Politics grows with changes of society. Politics can be used in a broad sense, and it consists of macropolitics and micropolitics. For this reazon, macropolitics and micropolitics should be connected, but this connection does’t mean that they are treated as equals. Macropolitics is also main mould of political philosophy at present. So is in China. The great changes of structures of social stratum in China belongs to politics. They posseess political nature. This is the enlightenment which deconstructionism politics gives us.
With the developments of postmodern society, consumer society or later-capitalism, there’s a political trend in every field of society and individul. That is,there is a change direction------from macropolitics to micropolitics in the 1960s.
The reazons of the transformation stem from two aspects. The imperfection of modern macropolitics is internal motive forces of the transformation. Rationality and subject which are foundations of modern macropolitics are rationalism presume.The rationalism presume brings about not only rational force,but also realistic bloody force. Modern macropolitics becomes irrationality, and then falls into troubles. Deconstructionism thinkers prefer daily life, such as the human body, desire, accidental factors, emotion, etc. to rationality on thinking of possibilities of politics. The developments of postmodern society bring about changes of contents and forms of modern macropolitics.Globalization challenges absolute soverign of a state, country and politics are on the way to“end”; Consumer society makes consumer, science and technology turn into new kinds of ideaology. Ideaology and politics are becoming increasingly“non-politicalization”; The expansion of new middle class and the decline of the working class make social life increasingly“get rid of classnization and revolutionization”. All these mentioned above question the exposition systems about“Grand Narrative”of modern macropolitics.Social life shows indifference towards macropolitics. Deconstructionism thinkers begin to focus political practice on daily life, and think about the possibblity of postmodern micropolitics. New Social Movement becomes direct fuse of postmodern micropolitics. Deconstructionism thingkers are promoted to introspect Mrxism and modern macropolitics by the movement. Then they directly draw conclutions of theories of postmodern micropolitics.
There are three changes of the theme of the transformation. First, it is from monopower of a coutry to pluralistic micropower. As the kernel conception of modren politics, power takes root among the center of systems of economy and politics, and is considered as an organ of dominition. From the microangle, deconstructionism thingkers think that power is a kind of relation and a criss-cross net, not a substance that can be possessed; Power spreads all over the places without any core, possesses plural nature, ability of production and unsubjectivity; The power in daily life is more important than that of a state; Powers of knowledge, power of life, power of media and power of symbols are all micropowers. Second, it is from resistance of classes to plural microresistances. Resistance of deconstructionism is a kind of partial microresistance, not a large scale revolution among the classes. So deconstructionism criticizes conceptions of modern politics, such as the working class, class struggle and revolution. They resist state thought that serves coutries, approve of nomadic thought which fights against traditions; They fight against domination of symbols; They think that desire is not only main strength of resistance politics, but also a prerequisite to revolution. So class politics should be instead of desire micropolitics. Third, it is from identity politics of“Grand Narrative”to difference politics of micronarrative. Diffrence politics is a kind of typical form and an important dimension of postmodern micropolitics. It is based on“difference”and the concept of being against“Grand Narrative”, going round the sense of plural politics; It fights against constructing identical political philosophy like“The Enlightenment Rationality”, and emphasizes plural political value. Deconstructionism thinkers explore“difference”in order to expose the domination of rulers and their real stratagems. Meanwhile, they also advocate that the peripheries which are oppressed and eliminated from authority and comman normals should be liberated.
Although deconstructionism political philosophy and Marxism both criticize metaphyisical rationality and capitalism modernity and both of them are very similar, deconstructionism thinker don’t approve Mrxism entirely. That is, the approval is very limited and kept at a distance. Their real intention is to deconstruct Mrxism. But Mrxism is based on not only critique of political-economy, but also critique of economic basis and social system of capitalism, and Marxist exert themselves in overthrowing the rule of capitalism, fulfil free and liberation of mankind. Therefore, Marxism has thorough revolutionary character. On the other hand, deconstructionism makes great efforts in criticizing capitalism official civilization. They don’t want to overthrow capitalism systems at all. So there are essential distinctions between them. These distinctions are just shortcomings of deconstructionism politics. Therefore, deconstructionism political philosophy will not exceed Marxism, let alone deconstruct Marxism. Although deconstructionism politics challenges Marxism, Marxism will never be out-of-date because of contemporary capitalism. On the contrary, Marxism is still foundations which guide us to go forward. The concept of politics shouid be comprehended not only by rationality, revolution and liberation, but also by the whole society(concluding daily life). Politics grows with changes of society. Politics can be used in a broad sense, and it consists of macropolitics and micropolitics. For this reazon, macropolitics and micropolitics should be connected, but this connection does’t mean that they are treated as equals. Macropolitics is also main mould of political philosophy at present. So is in China. The great changes of structures of social stratum in China belongs to politics. They posseess political nature. This is the enlightenment which deconstructionism politics gives us.
引文
[1]马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1965.
[2]马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995.
[3]马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[4]马克思恩格斯全集(第8卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1965.
[5]马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[6]马克思恩格斯选集(第1-4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[7]列宁选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1960.
[8] [美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[9] [美]斯蒂文·贝斯特,道格拉斯·凯尔纳.后现代转向[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2004.
[10] [英]特里·伊格尔顿.历史中的政治、哲学、爱欲[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[11] [英]特里·伊格尔顿.后现代主义的幻象[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[12] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.霍布斯的政治哲学[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
[13] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.政治哲学史[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1993.
[14] [美]萨拜因.政治学说史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[15] [德]卡尔·施米特.政治的概念[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[16] [法]利奥塔.后现代状况[M].长沙:湖南美术出版社,1996.
[17] [法]吉尔·德勒兹.哲学与权力的谈判——德勒兹访谈录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[18] [美]戴维·伊斯顿.政治体系[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[19] [英]迈克·费瑟斯通.消费文化与后现代主义[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[20] [法]埃里蓬.权力与反抗:米歇尔·福柯传[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[21] [法]米歇尔·福柯.知识考古学[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[22] [法]米歇尔·福柯.疯狂与文明[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[23] [法]米歇尔·福柯.约束与惩罚[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[24] [法]米歇尔·福柯.性史[M].西宁:青海人民出版社,1999.
[25] [法]米歇尔·福柯.必须保卫社会[M].上海:上海人们出版社,1999.
[26] [法]居伊·德波.景观社会[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2006.
[27] [法]鲍德里亚.消费社会[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2001.
[28] [法]弗朗索瓦·多斯.从结构到解构(下卷)[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[29] [英]迈克尔·H·莱斯诺夫.二十世纪的政治哲学家[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[30] [英]霍布斯鲍姆.极端的年代[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,1999.
[31] [美]乔治·瑞泽尔.后现代社会理论[M].北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[32] [英]奇格蒙·鲍曼.后现代性及其缺憾[M].上海:学林出版社,2002.
[33] [美]戴维·哈维.后现代的状况——对文化变迁之缘起的探究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[34] [美]理查德沃林.存在的政治——海德格尔的政治思想[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[35] [英]布赖恩·特纳.社会理论指南[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[36] [希腊]波朗查斯.政治权力与社会阶级[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1982.
[37] [美]丹尼斯·朗.权力论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[38] [美]罗德里克·马丁.权力社会学[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1992.
[39] [美]杰弗里·庞德彼得·吉尔.政治学导论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[40] [英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯.利奥塔[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[41] [英]路易斯·麦克尼.福柯[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[42] [美]詹姆斯·A.古尔德,文森特·V.瑟斯比.现代政治思想[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[43] [德]恩斯特·卡西尔.国家的神话[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999.
[44] [德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号神话文化[M].北京:东方出版社,1988.
[45] [澳]安德鲁·文森特.现代政治意识形态[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2005.
[46] [美]悉尼·胡克.理性、社会神话和民主[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1987.
[47] [美]迈克尔·欧克肖特.政治中的理性主义[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2003.
[48] [德]阿尔布莱希特·维尔默.论现代和后现代的辩证法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[49] [英]戴维·罗宾逊.尼采与后现代主义[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[50] [英]亚当·斯威夫特.政治哲学导论[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2006.
[51] [英]安德鲁·甘布尔.政治和命运[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.
[52] [美]斯蒂芬·K怀特.政治理论与后现代主义[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2004.
[53] [英]斯图亚特·西姆.德里达与历史的终结[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[54] [英]约翰·格雷.自由主义的两张面孔[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2002.
[55] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.现代性之隐忧[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[56] [英]西莉亚·卢瑞.消费文化[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[57] [匈]阿格尼斯·赫勒.现代性理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[58] [法]多斯.从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[59] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[60] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[61] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.失控的世界——全球化如何重塑我们的生活[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2001:115
[62] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[63] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论(第1卷)[M].上海:世纪出版集团,2004.
[64] [美]大卫·雷·格里芬.超越解构——建设性后现代哲学的奠基者[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2002.
[65] [美]大卫·格里芬.后现代科学——科学魅力的再现[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004
[66] [法]得赖弗斯P·拉比诺.超越结构主义与解释学[M].北京:光明日报出版社,1992.
[67] [英]伯特兰·罗素.权力论——一个新的社会分析[M].北京:东方出版社,1988.
[68] [英]伯特兰·罗素.权威与个人[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
[69] [美]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1992.
[70] [伊朗]拉明·贾汉贝格鲁.伯林谈话录[M].南京:译林出版社,2002.
[71] [美]罗蒂.哲学与自然之镜[M].北京:三联书店,1987.
[72] [美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.后现代主义与文化理论[M].西安:陕西师范大学出版社,1986.
[73] [美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.晚期资本主义的文化逻辑[M].北京:三联书店,1997.
[75] [德]彼得·科斯洛夫斯基.后现代文化[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1999.
[76]孙正聿.哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[77]杨魁森.马克思主义与当代思潮[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1998.
[78]杨魁森.当代哲学与社会发展[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2004.
[79]姚大志.现代之后[M].北京:东方出版社,2000.
[80]刘少杰.后现代西方社会学理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002.
[82]高文新.欧洲哲学史专题研究[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1994.
[83]张桂林.西方政治哲学――从古希腊到当代[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[84]高宣扬.后现代论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[85]高宣扬.当代法国思想五十年(上下)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[86]高宣扬.当代法国哲学导论(上下卷)[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2005.
[87]高宣扬.当代社会理论(上下)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[88]冯俊.后现代主义哲学讲演录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[89]夏光.后结构主义思潮与后现代社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[90]夏光.后结构主义思潮与后现代社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[91]夏光.东亚现代性与西方现代性:从文化的角度看[M].北京:三联书店,2005.
[92]顾肃.自由主义基本理念[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2005.
[93]杨耕.为马克思辩护[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[94]王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[95]杨大春.语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题[M].北京:三联书店,2007.
[96]杨大春.当代法国哲学诸问题[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[97]汪民安、陈永国、马海良.后现代性的哲学话语[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000.
[98]汪民安.身体、空间与现代性[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2006.
[99]汪民安.现代性基本读本[M].郑州:河南人民出版社,2005.
[100]汪民安.文化研究关键词[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[101]汪民安,陈永国,马海良.福柯的面孔[M].北京:文化艺术出版社,2001.
[102]莫伟民.莫伟民讲福柯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[103]郑乐平.超越现代主义与后现代主义——论新的社会理论空间之建构[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003.
[104]欧阳英.走进西方政治哲学——历史、模式与解构[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2006.
[105]陈炳辉.西方马克思主义的国家理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[106]罗骞.论马克思的现代性批判及其当代意义[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[107]陈嘉明.现代性与后现代性[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[108]韩冬雪.马克思主义政治哲学诸范畴初探[M].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2007.
[109]刘小枫.现代人及其敌人[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005.
[110]应奇.从自由主义到后自由主义[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[111]苏国勋.理性化及其限制——韦伯思想引论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1988.
[112]肖锦龙.德里达的解构理论思想性质论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[113]袁久红.西方马克思主义的政治哲学[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2004.
[114]高全喜.休谟的政治哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[115]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.
[116]依俊卿.回归生活世界的文化哲学[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000
[117]张奎良.张奎良集[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,1988.
[118]佟立.西方后现代主义哲学思潮研究[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2003.
[119]马德普.西方政治思想史:第5卷[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2005.
[120]马德普.普遍主义的贫困[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[121]唐士其.西方政治思想史[M].北京:.北京大学出版社,2002.
[122]张立波.阅读、书写和历史意识[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[123]朱光磊.当代中国社会各阶层分析[M].天津:天津人民出版社,1999.
[124]旷三平.唯物史观前沿问题研究——现代哲学视域下的一种理论探索[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[125]赵光武.后现代主义哲学述评[M].北京:西苑出版社,2000.
[126]徐飞.马克思主义哲学与后现代主义的比较[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[127]包亚明.福柯访谈录[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997.
[128]包亚明.利奥塔访谈书信录[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997.
[129]李小兵.当代西方政治哲学主流[M].北京:中央党校出版社,2001.
[130]曾枝盛.20世纪末国外马克思主义纲要[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[131] John Simons. Foucault & the Political[M]. Routledge,1995.
[132] Avigail Eisenburg.Reconstruction Political Pluralism[M]. State University of New York Press,1993.
[133] David R Dickens, Aandrea Fontana (ed).“Postmodernism and Social Inquiry[M]. The Guilford Pressm, 1993.
[134] Claude Leford.The Plitical From of Modern Society [M].Polity Press,1978.
[135] Honi Fern Haber.Beyond Postmodern Politics:Lyotard,Rorty Foucaut[M]. Routeledge,1994.
[136] Foucault.Resume Descours[M]. Paris,1989.
[137] Donald Sassoon.One Hundred Years of Socialism:the West European Left in the Twentieth Century[M]. London: I. B.Tauris Publishers, 1996.
[138] Leslie Paul Thiele.Thinking Politics[M].Chatham House Publishers,1999,
[1]杨魁森.论生活的意义[J].长白学刊,2004,2.
[2]杨魁森.现代、后现代与中国的发展[J].哲学动态,1999,1.
[3]孙正聿.建构马克思主义政治哲学的前提性思考和理论资源分析[J].中国社会科学,2006,6.
[4]孙利天.后现代主义哲学与东方思想[J].社会科学战线,2003,5.
[5]刘福森.消费主义文化价值观的后现代解读[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,9.
[6]姚大志.后现代主义与启蒙[J].社会科学战线,2005,1.
[7]姚大志.契约论与政治合法性[J].复旦学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,4.
[8]贺来..“后形而上学”:视域与辩证法的批判本性[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2007,3.
[9]贺来.现代性的反省与马克思哲学研究纵深推进的生长点[J].求是学刊,2005,1.
[10]贺来.论马克思实践哲学的政治意蕴[J].哲学研究,2007,1.
[11]贺来.“现代性”的建构——哲学范式转换的基本主题[J].哲学动态,2000,3.
[12]王振林.透视后现代伦理学[J].人文杂志,2004,6.
[13]张盾.20世纪后期西方马克思主义阶级理论研究述评[J].哲学动态,2006,11.
[14]张盾.马克思的政治理论及其路径[J].中国社会科学,2006,5.
[15]张盾.反现代性:马克思哲学革命的真实意义[J].长白学刊,2004,1.
[16]杨耕.后现代主义与现代主义、马克思主义关系的再思考[J].文史哲,2003,4.
[17]杨耕,德里达:从解构主义转向马克思主义[J].哲学研究,5.
[18]郁建兴.马克思的政治哲学遗产[J].中国社会科学,2006,6.
[19]陈嘉明.启蒙的意义与现代性的合理性——“福柯”的现代性的态度[J].求是学刊,2006,3.
[20]李德顺.理解马克思主义政治哲学的理论基础和现实依据[J].河北学刊,2006,5.
[21]郑伟.从解放政治到生活政治——吉登斯政治观管窥[J].理论学刊,2004,1.
[22]任剑涛.特殊主义、普遍主义与现代性政治的认同——在中西政治文化之间的言说[J].江海学刊,2007,1.
[23]陈华兴.关于吉登斯政治哲学的初步评价[J].浙江社会科学,2004,6.
[24]朱荣英.“后马克思主义”的真实意义与未来走势[J].喀什示范学院学报,2006,3
[25]吕振合.“解构”权力:福柯与马克思主义权力观比较分析[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,1.
[26]吕振合.福柯的微观权力观——一种科学知识的政治学分析[J].中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,2.
[27]吕振合,王德胜.知识与权力——从福柯的观点看学科场域中的权力运作[J].自然辩证法研究,2007,9.
[28]程党根.在欲望与权力之间;德勒兹与福柯思想互动探析[J].天津社会科学,2005,4.
[29]程党根.力本论底盘上的微观政治游戏——德勒兹政治哲学的后现代地平线[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2004,3.
[30]欧阳英.建立在“话语”理论基础上的思想变革——福柯政治哲学探析[J].晋阳学刊,2007,1.
[31]付文忠,孔明安.话语理论与后马克思主义的哲学取向[J].哲学动态,2006,6.
[32]付文忠.新霸权理论与后马克思主义的解构逻辑[J].哲学研究,2007,2.
[33]周凡.后马克思主义的政治概念——拉克劳与墨菲对激进政治的重构[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006,11
[34]韩平.福柯的权力观与法学研究[J].长春理工大学学报(社会科学版),2004,6.
[35]张法.德勒兹与思想重构[J].天津社会科学,2001,5.
[36]李荣海.相遇后的尴尬[J].社会科学战线,2004,1.
[37]冯珠娣,汪民安.日常生活、身体、政治[J].社会学研究,2004,1.
[2]马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995.
[3]马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[4]马克思恩格斯全集(第8卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1965.
[5]马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[6]马克思恩格斯选集(第1-4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[7]列宁选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1960.
[8] [美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[9] [美]斯蒂文·贝斯特,道格拉斯·凯尔纳.后现代转向[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2004.
[10] [英]特里·伊格尔顿.历史中的政治、哲学、爱欲[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[11] [英]特里·伊格尔顿.后现代主义的幻象[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[12] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.霍布斯的政治哲学[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
[13] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.政治哲学史[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1993.
[14] [美]萨拜因.政治学说史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[15] [德]卡尔·施米特.政治的概念[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[16] [法]利奥塔.后现代状况[M].长沙:湖南美术出版社,1996.
[17] [法]吉尔·德勒兹.哲学与权力的谈判——德勒兹访谈录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[18] [美]戴维·伊斯顿.政治体系[M].北京:商务印书馆,1993.
[19] [英]迈克·费瑟斯通.消费文化与后现代主义[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[20] [法]埃里蓬.权力与反抗:米歇尔·福柯传[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[21] [法]米歇尔·福柯.知识考古学[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[22] [法]米歇尔·福柯.疯狂与文明[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[23] [法]米歇尔·福柯.约束与惩罚[M].北京:三联书店,1999.
[24] [法]米歇尔·福柯.性史[M].西宁:青海人民出版社,1999.
[25] [法]米歇尔·福柯.必须保卫社会[M].上海:上海人们出版社,1999.
[26] [法]居伊·德波.景观社会[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2006.
[27] [法]鲍德里亚.消费社会[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2001.
[28] [法]弗朗索瓦·多斯.从结构到解构(下卷)[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[29] [英]迈克尔·H·莱斯诺夫.二十世纪的政治哲学家[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[30] [英]霍布斯鲍姆.极端的年代[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,1999.
[31] [美]乔治·瑞泽尔.后现代社会理论[M].北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[32] [英]奇格蒙·鲍曼.后现代性及其缺憾[M].上海:学林出版社,2002.
[33] [美]戴维·哈维.后现代的状况——对文化变迁之缘起的探究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[34] [美]理查德沃林.存在的政治——海德格尔的政治思想[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[35] [英]布赖恩·特纳.社会理论指南[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2003.
[36] [希腊]波朗查斯.政治权力与社会阶级[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1982.
[37] [美]丹尼斯·朗.权力论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[38] [美]罗德里克·马丁.权力社会学[M].石家庄:河北人民出版社,1992.
[39] [美]杰弗里·庞德彼得·吉尔.政治学导论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[40] [英]詹姆斯·威廉姆斯.利奥塔[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[41] [英]路易斯·麦克尼.福柯[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[42] [美]詹姆斯·A.古尔德,文森特·V.瑟斯比.现代政治思想[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[43] [德]恩斯特·卡西尔.国家的神话[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999.
[44] [德]恩斯特·卡西尔.符号神话文化[M].北京:东方出版社,1988.
[45] [澳]安德鲁·文森特.现代政治意识形态[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2005.
[46] [美]悉尼·胡克.理性、社会神话和民主[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1987.
[47] [美]迈克尔·欧克肖特.政治中的理性主义[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2003.
[48] [德]阿尔布莱希特·维尔默.论现代和后现代的辩证法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[49] [英]戴维·罗宾逊.尼采与后现代主义[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[50] [英]亚当·斯威夫特.政治哲学导论[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2006.
[51] [英]安德鲁·甘布尔.政治和命运[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.
[52] [美]斯蒂芬·K怀特.政治理论与后现代主义[M].沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2004.
[53] [英]斯图亚特·西姆.德里达与历史的终结[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[54] [英]约翰·格雷.自由主义的两张面孔[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2002.
[55] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.现代性之隐忧[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[56] [英]西莉亚·卢瑞.消费文化[M].南京:南京大学出版社,2003.
[57] [匈]阿格尼斯·赫勒.现代性理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[58] [法]多斯.从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[59] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[60] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[61] [英]安东尼·吉登斯.失控的世界——全球化如何重塑我们的生活[M].南昌:江西人民出版社,2001:115
[62] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.重建历史唯物主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[63] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论(第1卷)[M].上海:世纪出版集团,2004.
[64] [美]大卫·雷·格里芬.超越解构——建设性后现代哲学的奠基者[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2002.
[65] [美]大卫·格里芬.后现代科学——科学魅力的再现[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004
[66] [法]得赖弗斯P·拉比诺.超越结构主义与解释学[M].北京:光明日报出版社,1992.
[67] [英]伯特兰·罗素.权力论——一个新的社会分析[M].北京:东方出版社,1988.
[68] [英]伯特兰·罗素.权威与个人[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
[69] [美]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1992.
[70] [伊朗]拉明·贾汉贝格鲁.伯林谈话录[M].南京:译林出版社,2002.
[71] [美]罗蒂.哲学与自然之镜[M].北京:三联书店,1987.
[72] [美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.后现代主义与文化理论[M].西安:陕西师范大学出版社,1986.
[73] [美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.晚期资本主义的文化逻辑[M].北京:三联书店,1997.
[75] [德]彼得·科斯洛夫斯基.后现代文化[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1999.
[76]孙正聿.哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1998.
[77]杨魁森.马克思主义与当代思潮[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1998.
[78]杨魁森.当代哲学与社会发展[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2004.
[79]姚大志.现代之后[M].北京:东方出版社,2000.
[80]刘少杰.后现代西方社会学理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002.
[82]高文新.欧洲哲学史专题研究[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1994.
[83]张桂林.西方政治哲学――从古希腊到当代[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[84]高宣扬.后现代论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[85]高宣扬.当代法国思想五十年(上下)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[86]高宣扬.当代法国哲学导论(上下卷)[M].上海:同济大学出版社,2005.
[87]高宣扬.当代社会理论(上下)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[88]冯俊.后现代主义哲学讲演录[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[89]夏光.后结构主义思潮与后现代社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[90]夏光.后结构主义思潮与后现代社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[91]夏光.东亚现代性与西方现代性:从文化的角度看[M].北京:三联书店,2005.
[92]顾肃.自由主义基本理念[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2005.
[93]杨耕.为马克思辩护[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[94]王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[95]杨大春.语言身体他者——当代法国哲学的三大主题[M].北京:三联书店,2007.
[96]杨大春.当代法国哲学诸问题[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[97]汪民安、陈永国、马海良.后现代性的哲学话语[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000.
[98]汪民安.身体、空间与现代性[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2006.
[99]汪民安.现代性基本读本[M].郑州:河南人民出版社,2005.
[100]汪民安.文化研究关键词[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[101]汪民安,陈永国,马海良.福柯的面孔[M].北京:文化艺术出版社,2001.
[102]莫伟民.莫伟民讲福柯[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[103]郑乐平.超越现代主义与后现代主义——论新的社会理论空间之建构[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003.
[104]欧阳英.走进西方政治哲学——历史、模式与解构[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2006.
[105]陈炳辉.西方马克思主义的国家理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[106]罗骞.论马克思的现代性批判及其当代意义[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[107]陈嘉明.现代性与后现代性[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[108]韩冬雪.马克思主义政治哲学诸范畴初探[M].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2007.
[109]刘小枫.现代人及其敌人[M].北京:华夏出版社,2005.
[110]应奇.从自由主义到后自由主义[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[111]苏国勋.理性化及其限制——韦伯思想引论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1988.
[112]肖锦龙.德里达的解构理论思想性质论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[113]袁久红.西方马克思主义的政治哲学[M].南京:东南大学出版社,2004.
[114]高全喜.休谟的政治哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[115]章国锋.关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2001.
[116]依俊卿.回归生活世界的文化哲学[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2000
[117]张奎良.张奎良集[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,1988.
[118]佟立.西方后现代主义哲学思潮研究[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2003.
[119]马德普.西方政治思想史:第5卷[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2005.
[120]马德普.普遍主义的贫困[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[121]唐士其.西方政治思想史[M].北京:.北京大学出版社,2002.
[122]张立波.阅读、书写和历史意识[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[123]朱光磊.当代中国社会各阶层分析[M].天津:天津人民出版社,1999.
[124]旷三平.唯物史观前沿问题研究——现代哲学视域下的一种理论探索[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[125]赵光武.后现代主义哲学述评[M].北京:西苑出版社,2000.
[126]徐飞.马克思主义哲学与后现代主义的比较[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[127]包亚明.福柯访谈录[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997.
[128]包亚明.利奥塔访谈书信录[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1997.
[129]李小兵.当代西方政治哲学主流[M].北京:中央党校出版社,2001.
[130]曾枝盛.20世纪末国外马克思主义纲要[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[131] John Simons. Foucault & the Political[M]. Routledge,1995.
[132] Avigail Eisenburg.Reconstruction Political Pluralism[M]. State University of New York Press,1993.
[133] David R Dickens, Aandrea Fontana (ed).“Postmodernism and Social Inquiry[M]. The Guilford Pressm, 1993.
[134] Claude Leford.The Plitical From of Modern Society [M].Polity Press,1978.
[135] Honi Fern Haber.Beyond Postmodern Politics:Lyotard,Rorty Foucaut[M]. Routeledge,1994.
[136] Foucault.Resume Descours[M]. Paris,1989.
[137] Donald Sassoon.One Hundred Years of Socialism:the West European Left in the Twentieth Century[M]. London: I. B.Tauris Publishers, 1996.
[138] Leslie Paul Thiele.Thinking Politics[M].Chatham House Publishers,1999,
[1]杨魁森.论生活的意义[J].长白学刊,2004,2.
[2]杨魁森.现代、后现代与中国的发展[J].哲学动态,1999,1.
[3]孙正聿.建构马克思主义政治哲学的前提性思考和理论资源分析[J].中国社会科学,2006,6.
[4]孙利天.后现代主义哲学与东方思想[J].社会科学战线,2003,5.
[5]刘福森.消费主义文化价值观的后现代解读[J].自然辩证法研究,2002,9.
[6]姚大志.后现代主义与启蒙[J].社会科学战线,2005,1.
[7]姚大志.契约论与政治合法性[J].复旦学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,4.
[8]贺来..“后形而上学”:视域与辩证法的批判本性[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2007,3.
[9]贺来.现代性的反省与马克思哲学研究纵深推进的生长点[J].求是学刊,2005,1.
[10]贺来.论马克思实践哲学的政治意蕴[J].哲学研究,2007,1.
[11]贺来.“现代性”的建构——哲学范式转换的基本主题[J].哲学动态,2000,3.
[12]王振林.透视后现代伦理学[J].人文杂志,2004,6.
[13]张盾.20世纪后期西方马克思主义阶级理论研究述评[J].哲学动态,2006,11.
[14]张盾.马克思的政治理论及其路径[J].中国社会科学,2006,5.
[15]张盾.反现代性:马克思哲学革命的真实意义[J].长白学刊,2004,1.
[16]杨耕.后现代主义与现代主义、马克思主义关系的再思考[J].文史哲,2003,4.
[17]杨耕,德里达:从解构主义转向马克思主义[J].哲学研究,5.
[18]郁建兴.马克思的政治哲学遗产[J].中国社会科学,2006,6.
[19]陈嘉明.启蒙的意义与现代性的合理性——“福柯”的现代性的态度[J].求是学刊,2006,3.
[20]李德顺.理解马克思主义政治哲学的理论基础和现实依据[J].河北学刊,2006,5.
[21]郑伟.从解放政治到生活政治——吉登斯政治观管窥[J].理论学刊,2004,1.
[22]任剑涛.特殊主义、普遍主义与现代性政治的认同——在中西政治文化之间的言说[J].江海学刊,2007,1.
[23]陈华兴.关于吉登斯政治哲学的初步评价[J].浙江社会科学,2004,6.
[24]朱荣英.“后马克思主义”的真实意义与未来走势[J].喀什示范学院学报,2006,3
[25]吕振合.“解构”权力:福柯与马克思主义权力观比较分析[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,1.
[26]吕振合.福柯的微观权力观——一种科学知识的政治学分析[J].中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,2.
[27]吕振合,王德胜.知识与权力——从福柯的观点看学科场域中的权力运作[J].自然辩证法研究,2007,9.
[28]程党根.在欲望与权力之间;德勒兹与福柯思想互动探析[J].天津社会科学,2005,4.
[29]程党根.力本论底盘上的微观政治游戏——德勒兹政治哲学的后现代地平线[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2004,3.
[30]欧阳英.建立在“话语”理论基础上的思想变革——福柯政治哲学探析[J].晋阳学刊,2007,1.
[31]付文忠,孔明安.话语理论与后马克思主义的哲学取向[J].哲学动态,2006,6.
[32]付文忠.新霸权理论与后马克思主义的解构逻辑[J].哲学研究,2007,2.
[33]周凡.后马克思主义的政治概念——拉克劳与墨菲对激进政治的重构[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006,11
[34]韩平.福柯的权力观与法学研究[J].长春理工大学学报(社会科学版),2004,6.
[35]张法.德勒兹与思想重构[J].天津社会科学,2001,5.
[36]李荣海.相遇后的尴尬[J].社会科学战线,2004,1.
[37]冯珠娣,汪民安.日常生活、身体、政治[J].社会学研究,2004,1.