论市民社会与国家二分架构
摘要
市民社会与国家二分架构是市民社会理论的核心。市民社会与国家二分架构的确立离不开个人生活和公共生活的演变及资产阶级启蒙思想这两个前提条件。市民社会与国家二分架构模式是个人生活和公共生活二分架构模式发展和演化到民族和主权国家形成、市场经济得以确立的资本主义社会时期才形成的。市民社会应该是对个人生活发展到资本主义市场经济时期并获得独立性之后,对所有个人生活领域的概括性表述。国家则代表以公共权力为中心的公共生活。以市场经济为核心的市民社会和以公共权力为中心的国家相伴而生。市民社会与国家二分架构是对个人生活与公共生活二分架构演变到一定阶段对整体社会状态的新概括。
市民社会和国家分别体现了私人利益和公共利益、伦理道德和法律规范、一般人生活价值观和核心价值观等不同的活动原则,表现出严格的区别。但是,另一方面,随着社会的发展,二者关系在不同历史阶段表现出不同的形态。国家决定市民社会和市民社会决定国家之争、福利国家、新自由主义、第三条道路等思潮都预示着国家社会化这一发展趋势,二者关系将在社会发展到自由人联合体阶段以国家回归社会的方式得到完满解决。
The dichotomy of civil society and state is the core of theory on civil society and it was established with the development of personal life and public life and the enlightening thoughts of Bourgeois. The dichotomy was made as the dichotomy of personal life and public life developed to the capitalist society, when nations and sovereign state emerged and the market economy was established. Viewing from the perspective of personal life and public life, we believe that, under the conditions of market economy, modern civil society is independent of the entire private life domain of political state. It has merged into and become a comprehensive summary of the three areas of the personal life--family, economic domain, and the private public domain. It represents autonomous individuals, and, as an organic whole of the private spheres restricts the country's public life. The so-called state is the social public authority, which, as a special social organization, controls the civil society within a certain territory, manages and represents the highest sovereignty. The civil society and the state emerged hand in hand, with market economy serving as the core of the former and public authority the latter. The dichotomy of civil society and state is a new generalization of the whole social state and was formed when the dichotomy of personal life and public life developed to a certain stage.
Within the framework of the dichotomy of civil society and state, there are dichotomies of private interests and public interests, ethics and legal norms, general values of life and core values and so on, respectively embodying basic principles of different activities.
In civil society private interests are the starting point for personal life. People pursue their private interests in everyday life for survival. What Marx called“history's first premise”meant that people conduct material production in order to meet their own private interests. Everyone is a“special individual”who has his own specific and realistic special interests, which are realized through one’s private practice with the aid of means and conditions provided by the society. These private interests are by no means without foundation and they are restricted by social historical conditions. Public interests arise between private interests, and they are created when various private interests meet mutual needs. People’s social practice and interaction root in their social attribute, which determines that, when people pursue private interests, they are also creating a realistic possibility for the emergence and establishment of public interests. Conflicts between personal interests and public interests are unavoidable in social practice and interactions. Public interests exceed, restrict and guarantee private interests. Although public interests exist among private interests, it overcomes the special nature of it and limits its extreme expansion to protect the individual private interests. As the carrier of the public interests of the time, state represents and guarantees public interests, and it conducts public activities within public domain. However, with the emergence and development of private ownership, different classes came into existence. The result of class struggle is that one class became the ruling and the other the subject. Henceforth, the public interests is represented and achieved by the ruling class by means of the state. As far as the subject class was concerned, the public interests naturally become illusive.
Modern society is composed of civil society and the state. Civil society represents individual life domain, and the state represents public life domain. Individual life domain can be adjusted by morals and ethics, while public life domain must be regulated by policies and laws. The state organs, such as, army, police, courts, prisons and so on, guarantee the implementation of policies, laws and other norms of the state. Therefore, mandatory authorities, policies, and laws altogether constitute the mandatory domain. Legal norms only act in the state public life domain; it can not adjust private social life, i.e., it is not a one-for-all social restraint mechanism. Ethics refers to the social norms adjusting the relationship between people within the civil society. It is independent of army, courts, prisons and other state organs. It is not a mandatory social norm and relies on private self-discipline. Ethics comes from interactions between people, and it is a spontaneous behavior with the purpose of maintaining everyday life. Law and ethics have always been combined on a basis of different forms to adjust, constrain, and integrate social life.
Egoism and individualism values are expanded with the establishment and continuous development of the market economy. If Egoism were only conducted in personal life under certain circumstances in traditional society, it has become the criteria for the entire civil life in modern society; if individualism and egoism were individual instincts when people were suppressed and excluded, it has become the universal and neutral value in the field of labor and exchange, guiding people's everyday activities and communications. In a market economy the goal of all economic exchanges are to maximize personal interests and expand private property, and there is keen competition between private persons. However, human nature determines that egoism can not be regarded as the one and only value. In fact, during the process of pursuing their ideal life, human are constructing the whole public life values as well. Without public life values, personal life will come to a standstill. Under the conditions of modern market economy, egoism becomes the general human values, which does not mean that the individuals are free from the constraints of productivity and economic exchanges. On the contrary, with the rapid development of the market economy, divisions of labor have become more and more professional and individuals become less and less insignificant. In the vast ocean of the market economy, if human want to transcend their limits to open up the infinite ideal life, they must focus on public life, taking the power of humanity as a whole, to challenge and surpass their limits. The public life values are an inevitable requirement of public life, as well as a breakthrough and improvement to egoism.
Ever since Hegel and Marx defined the dichotomy of civil society and State, the interrelationship between them in real life has been opened up. The historical progress of the dichotomy of civil society and state has been generally accepted by philosophers like Hegel, Marx and so on. In their view, compared with the traditional integration of society and state, it is a tremendous historical progress; the stage of the dichotomy of civil society and state is inevitable in the development of human society, which would make necessary preparation for a higher social development. Meanwhile, Hegel and Marx also pondered the future unity of the dichotomy and demonstrated its development tendency. Hegel argued that the state will go beyond civil society; civil society will be unified in the state. Marx believed that when the society develops to the association of free men stage, the state will return and be unified to society. Combining theories of the classical economic liberalism, the welfare state, neo-liberalism, the left-wing critical theory, the third way theory and so on, we may safely conclude that civil society and state must be unified in Marx’s association of free men stage.
Marx pointed out that the association of free men stage should be the common ideal of human beings and the real community form.
In the first place, in association of free men stage, with highly development of productive forces and utmost abundance of material wealth, individuals are free from the limitations of survival; individual productivities become social commons; without the basis and need for existence, private ownership of the means of production will be eradicated completely. It is only under such conditions that human nature can be achieved and guaranteed in association of free men stage.
Secondly, in association of free men stage, public authority will no longer be alienated and drive above the society, nor will it be processed by a minority ruling class, and public affairs will no longer need the management of the state. Moreover, the public functions of state in modern society will be taken place by society, and the disillusion of public nature will be overcome and taken placed by a comprehensive public nature. Therefore, in association of free men stage, the state has lost its meaning of existence and is bound to die out.
Thirdly, in association of free men stage, the relationship between material production and exchange, with capital as the bond, will come to an end; classes and class antagonism, due to the abolition of private ownership, will be terminated; conflicts between public interest and private interest will disappear; ethics and legal norms will be internalized into citizen's consciousness, egoism and core values will be replaced by public values.
Fourthly, Marx argued,“human nature is the real community form”. Association of free men is the foundation of life itself, material and spiritual life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature and what we are. Individual freedom, including individual free activities and self-fulfillment, can only be realized in this community.
All in all, from the original clan society to class societies, as feudal society, capitalist society and so on, to classless society, as the association of free men stage, it is the dialectics of development of human society. Society is eternal and society is the goal. Being an indispensable stage in the development of human society, state only serves as a tool and will be completely socialized in the association of free men stage.
市民社会和国家分别体现了私人利益和公共利益、伦理道德和法律规范、一般人生活价值观和核心价值观等不同的活动原则,表现出严格的区别。但是,另一方面,随着社会的发展,二者关系在不同历史阶段表现出不同的形态。国家决定市民社会和市民社会决定国家之争、福利国家、新自由主义、第三条道路等思潮都预示着国家社会化这一发展趋势,二者关系将在社会发展到自由人联合体阶段以国家回归社会的方式得到完满解决。
The dichotomy of civil society and state is the core of theory on civil society and it was established with the development of personal life and public life and the enlightening thoughts of Bourgeois. The dichotomy was made as the dichotomy of personal life and public life developed to the capitalist society, when nations and sovereign state emerged and the market economy was established. Viewing from the perspective of personal life and public life, we believe that, under the conditions of market economy, modern civil society is independent of the entire private life domain of political state. It has merged into and become a comprehensive summary of the three areas of the personal life--family, economic domain, and the private public domain. It represents autonomous individuals, and, as an organic whole of the private spheres restricts the country's public life. The so-called state is the social public authority, which, as a special social organization, controls the civil society within a certain territory, manages and represents the highest sovereignty. The civil society and the state emerged hand in hand, with market economy serving as the core of the former and public authority the latter. The dichotomy of civil society and state is a new generalization of the whole social state and was formed when the dichotomy of personal life and public life developed to a certain stage.
Within the framework of the dichotomy of civil society and state, there are dichotomies of private interests and public interests, ethics and legal norms, general values of life and core values and so on, respectively embodying basic principles of different activities.
In civil society private interests are the starting point for personal life. People pursue their private interests in everyday life for survival. What Marx called“history's first premise”meant that people conduct material production in order to meet their own private interests. Everyone is a“special individual”who has his own specific and realistic special interests, which are realized through one’s private practice with the aid of means and conditions provided by the society. These private interests are by no means without foundation and they are restricted by social historical conditions. Public interests arise between private interests, and they are created when various private interests meet mutual needs. People’s social practice and interaction root in their social attribute, which determines that, when people pursue private interests, they are also creating a realistic possibility for the emergence and establishment of public interests. Conflicts between personal interests and public interests are unavoidable in social practice and interactions. Public interests exceed, restrict and guarantee private interests. Although public interests exist among private interests, it overcomes the special nature of it and limits its extreme expansion to protect the individual private interests. As the carrier of the public interests of the time, state represents and guarantees public interests, and it conducts public activities within public domain. However, with the emergence and development of private ownership, different classes came into existence. The result of class struggle is that one class became the ruling and the other the subject. Henceforth, the public interests is represented and achieved by the ruling class by means of the state. As far as the subject class was concerned, the public interests naturally become illusive.
Modern society is composed of civil society and the state. Civil society represents individual life domain, and the state represents public life domain. Individual life domain can be adjusted by morals and ethics, while public life domain must be regulated by policies and laws. The state organs, such as, army, police, courts, prisons and so on, guarantee the implementation of policies, laws and other norms of the state. Therefore, mandatory authorities, policies, and laws altogether constitute the mandatory domain. Legal norms only act in the state public life domain; it can not adjust private social life, i.e., it is not a one-for-all social restraint mechanism. Ethics refers to the social norms adjusting the relationship between people within the civil society. It is independent of army, courts, prisons and other state organs. It is not a mandatory social norm and relies on private self-discipline. Ethics comes from interactions between people, and it is a spontaneous behavior with the purpose of maintaining everyday life. Law and ethics have always been combined on a basis of different forms to adjust, constrain, and integrate social life.
Egoism and individualism values are expanded with the establishment and continuous development of the market economy. If Egoism were only conducted in personal life under certain circumstances in traditional society, it has become the criteria for the entire civil life in modern society; if individualism and egoism were individual instincts when people were suppressed and excluded, it has become the universal and neutral value in the field of labor and exchange, guiding people's everyday activities and communications. In a market economy the goal of all economic exchanges are to maximize personal interests and expand private property, and there is keen competition between private persons. However, human nature determines that egoism can not be regarded as the one and only value. In fact, during the process of pursuing their ideal life, human are constructing the whole public life values as well. Without public life values, personal life will come to a standstill. Under the conditions of modern market economy, egoism becomes the general human values, which does not mean that the individuals are free from the constraints of productivity and economic exchanges. On the contrary, with the rapid development of the market economy, divisions of labor have become more and more professional and individuals become less and less insignificant. In the vast ocean of the market economy, if human want to transcend their limits to open up the infinite ideal life, they must focus on public life, taking the power of humanity as a whole, to challenge and surpass their limits. The public life values are an inevitable requirement of public life, as well as a breakthrough and improvement to egoism.
Ever since Hegel and Marx defined the dichotomy of civil society and State, the interrelationship between them in real life has been opened up. The historical progress of the dichotomy of civil society and state has been generally accepted by philosophers like Hegel, Marx and so on. In their view, compared with the traditional integration of society and state, it is a tremendous historical progress; the stage of the dichotomy of civil society and state is inevitable in the development of human society, which would make necessary preparation for a higher social development. Meanwhile, Hegel and Marx also pondered the future unity of the dichotomy and demonstrated its development tendency. Hegel argued that the state will go beyond civil society; civil society will be unified in the state. Marx believed that when the society develops to the association of free men stage, the state will return and be unified to society. Combining theories of the classical economic liberalism, the welfare state, neo-liberalism, the left-wing critical theory, the third way theory and so on, we may safely conclude that civil society and state must be unified in Marx’s association of free men stage.
Marx pointed out that the association of free men stage should be the common ideal of human beings and the real community form.
In the first place, in association of free men stage, with highly development of productive forces and utmost abundance of material wealth, individuals are free from the limitations of survival; individual productivities become social commons; without the basis and need for existence, private ownership of the means of production will be eradicated completely. It is only under such conditions that human nature can be achieved and guaranteed in association of free men stage.
Secondly, in association of free men stage, public authority will no longer be alienated and drive above the society, nor will it be processed by a minority ruling class, and public affairs will no longer need the management of the state. Moreover, the public functions of state in modern society will be taken place by society, and the disillusion of public nature will be overcome and taken placed by a comprehensive public nature. Therefore, in association of free men stage, the state has lost its meaning of existence and is bound to die out.
Thirdly, in association of free men stage, the relationship between material production and exchange, with capital as the bond, will come to an end; classes and class antagonism, due to the abolition of private ownership, will be terminated; conflicts between public interest and private interest will disappear; ethics and legal norms will be internalized into citizen's consciousness, egoism and core values will be replaced by public values.
Fourthly, Marx argued,“human nature is the real community form”. Association of free men is the foundation of life itself, material and spiritual life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature and what we are. Individual freedom, including individual free activities and self-fulfillment, can only be realized in this community.
All in all, from the original clan society to class societies, as feudal society, capitalist society and so on, to classless society, as the association of free men stage, it is the dialectics of development of human society. Society is eternal and society is the goal. Being an indispensable stage in the development of human society, state only serves as a tool and will be completely socialized in the association of free men stage.
引文
[1]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1～4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995.
[2]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1～4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[3]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[4]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[5]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[6]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第21卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[7]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第30卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995.
[8]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[9]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[10]马克思.1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[11]恩格斯.家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1999.
[12]列宁.哲学笔记[M].北京:人民出版社,1993.
[13]列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[14]麦克莱伦.马克思以后的马克思主义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[15]亚里士多德.政治学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1965.
[16]霍布斯.利维坦[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[17]卢梭.论人类不平等的起源与基础[M].北京:红旗出版社,1997.
[18]卢梭.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[19]洛克.政府论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[20]休谟.人性论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[21]黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[22]黑格尔.历史哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1963.
[23]帕森斯.现代社会的结构与过程[M].北京:光明日报出版社,1988.
[24]查尔斯·霍顿·库利.人类本性与社会秩序[M].北京:华夏出版社,1989.
[25]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1989.
[26]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论——行动的合理性和社会合理性(第1卷)[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[27]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论——论功能主义理想批判(第2卷)[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[28]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[29]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[30]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[31]沃尔夫.市场或政府[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1994.
[32]约翰·基恩.公共生活与晚期资本主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[33]约翰·基恩.市民社会—旧形象,新观察[M].上海:上海远东出版社,2006.
[34]马克·尼奥克里尔斯.管理市民社会[M].北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[35]亨利希·库诺.马克思的历史、社会和国家学说[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
[36]汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[37]马尔库塞.理想和革命[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[38]马尔库塞.单向度的人[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[39]葛兰西.实践哲学[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[40]葛兰西.狱中札记[M].北京:人民出版社,1983.
[41]阿尔都塞.保卫马克思[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[42]阿尔都塞.读《资本论》[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[43]德里达.马克思的幽灵[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[44]詹明信.晚期资本主义的文化逻辑[M].北京:三联书店,1997.
[45]马克斯·舍勒.资本主义的未来[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[46]维尔默.论现代和后现代的辩证法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[47]阿格尼丝·赫勒.现代性理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[48]乌尔里希·贝克等.自反性现代化[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[49]戴维·哈维.后现代的状况[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[50]大卫·库尔珀.纯粹现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[51]凯尔纳、贝斯特.后现代理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[52]吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[53]弗格森.市民社会史[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[54]贾斯廷·罗森伯格.市民社会的帝国——现实主义国际关系理论批判[M].江苏:江苏人民出版社,2002.
[55]马丁·阿尔布劳.全球时代——超越现代性之外的国家和社会[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[56]沃尔夫冈·查普夫.现代化与社会转型[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
[57]斐迪南·藤尼斯.共同体与社会——纯粹社会学的基本概念[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[58]安东尼·吉登斯.社会的构成[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[59]安东尼·吉登斯.第三条道路——社会民主主义的复兴[M].北京:北京大学出版社店,2000.
[60]安东尼·吉登斯.民族——国家与暴力[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[61]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].北京:三联书店,1989.
[62]诺姆·乔治斯基.新自由主义和全球秩序·导言[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000.
[63]布莱尔.新英国:我对一个年轻国家的展望[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1998.
[64]赫伯特·斯宾塞.国家权利与个人自由[M].北京:华夏出版社,2000.
[65]齐格蒙特·鲍曼.共同体[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.
[66]高清海.高清海哲学文存(1～6卷)[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1997.
[67]高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(1～3卷)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004.
[68]杨魁森.当代哲学与社会发展[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2004.
[69]孙利天.论辩证法的思维方式[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2006.
[70]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
[71]贺来.边界意识和人的解放[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[72]艾福成.马克思主义哲学著作研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2004.
[73]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].长春:江西教育出版社,2005.
[74]邓正来.国家与市民社会—一种社会理论的研究路径[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1998.
[75]邓正来.国家与社会——中国市民社会研究[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1997.
[76]邓正来.市民社会理论的研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[77]郁建兴.马克思国家理论与现时代[M].上海:东方出版中心,2007.
[78]王晓升.哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[79]俞可平.权利政治与公益政治[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[80]蔡英文.主权国家与市民社会[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[81]汪晖,陈燕谷.文化与公共性[M].北京:三联书店,2005.
[82]李佃来.公共领域与生活世界[M].北京:人民出版社,2006.
[83]王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003.
[84]陈晏清.当代中国社会转型论[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1998.
[85]王南湜.从领域合一到领域分离[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1998.
[86]俞吾金.重新理解马克思[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2005.
[87]杨耕.为马克思辩护[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[88]邓晓芒.邓晓芒讲黑格尔[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[89]杨祖陶.康德黑格尔哲学研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2001.
[90]吴晓明.形而上学的没落[M].北京:人民出版社,2006.
[91]衣俊卿.20世纪的文化批判[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2003.
[92]刘小枫.现代性社会理论绪论[M].上海:上海三联书店,1998.
[93]邹诗鹏.生存论研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[94]张国钧.“乌托邦”还是“科学”——马克思人的解放思想研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2007.
[95]欧力同.哈贝马斯的“批判理论”[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1997.
[96]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义”论述评[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[97]孔繁斌.公共性的再生产[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[98]周宪.审美现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[99]郭湛,王维国,郑广永.社会公共性研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2009
[1]何增科.市民社会概念的历史演变[J].中国社会科学,1994(5):67-81.
[2]邓正来.关于“国家与市民社会”框架的反思与批判[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006(5):5-9.
[3]王兆良.马克思的“市民社会”思想新思考[J].哲学动态,1998(7):31-33.
[4]陈晏清.马克思的市民社会理论及其意义[J].天津社会科学,2001(4):7-12.
[5]郁建兴.马克思的市民社会概念[J].社会学研究,2002(1):31-39.
[6]郁建兴.马克思的政治哲学遗产[J].中国社会科学,2006(6):18-23.
[7]郁建兴,周俊.全球化进程中国家与社会的关系[J].哲学研究,2003(4):12-20.
[8]郁建兴.马克思的国家理论与现时代[J].河北学刊,2005(3):119-124.
[9]杨仁忠.论政治哲学视域中的市民社会[J].社会科学辑刊,2005(6):10-15.
[10]李淑珍.马克思市民社会概念辨析[J].学术界,1997(1):5-9.
[11]李淑珍.论马克思的市民社会与国家的思想及其历史与现实意义[J].1996(9):9-15.
[12]李佃来.马克思关于国家与市民社会关系内涵之探讨[J].湖北行政学院学报,2007(3):54-57.
[13]李佃来.生活世界之市民社会理论的再建构:柯亨与阿拉托的努力[J].人文杂志,2006(4):13-18.
[14]李佃来.哈贝马斯市民社会理论探讨[J].哲学研究,2004(6):60-65.
[15]王浩斌.市民社会批判与马克思主义哲学研究范式的转换[J].华东师大学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
[16]王浩斌.市民社会“契约性”社会自治与人的本质表现样态之历史嬗变[J].成都理工大学学报(社会科学版),2006(9):19-23.
[17]荣剑.马克思的国家和社会理论[J].中国社会科学,2001(3):25-34.
[18]晏辉.论市民社会的现代形态—从文化角度看市民社会[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1999(3):85-91.
[19]方朝晖.市民社会与资本主义国家的合法性——哈贝马斯的合法性学说[J].中国社会科学季刊,1993(8)
[20]方朝晖.市民社会的两个传统及其在现代的汇合[J].中国社会科学,1994 (5):82-102.
[21]蔡拓.市场经济与市民社会[J].天津社会科学,1997(3):18-25.
[22]高兆明.市民社会的建立与家庭精神的破灭——兼论“市民社会”研究进路[J].学海,1999(3):48-54.
[23]黄显中.个人主义与市民社会——关于个人主义的一种解释[J].伦理学研究,2003(6):86-90.
[24]陆树程.市民社会与当代伦理共同体的重建[J].哲学研究,2003(4):30-34.
[25]仰海峰.超越市民社会与国家:从政治解放到社会解放——马克思的国家与市民社会理论探讨[J].东岳论丛,2005(3):34-41.
[26]刘怀玉.“面向生活”的现代性政治哲学难题与超越[J].南京社会科学,2006(12):1-8.
[27]陈炳辉.国家与利益——现代西方的四种国家观[J].东南学术,2005(3):31-36.
[28]郭湛,谭清华.公共利益:马克思唯物史观的解读[J].哲学研究,2008(5):16-21.
[29]伍俊斌.有限政府理念建构的哲学之维[J].重庆社会科学,2005(8):106-110.
[30]张康之.论“后国家主义”时代的社会治理[J].江海学刊,2007(1):93-99.
[31]刘军.马克思国家观的三大理论创新[J].河北学刊,2006(6):21-25.
[32]高晓红.公共权力异化的伦理制约[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(3):75-78.
[33]刘圣中.私人性与公共性——公共权力的两重属性及其归宿[J].浙江学刊,2003(2):70-74.
[34]张富.论公共行政权力的属性、异化及其超越[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(1):22-26.
[35]陈国权,徐露辉.论政府的公共性及其实现[J].浙江社会科学,2004(4)39-42.
[36]仰海峰.国家:自由与伦理的现实体现——读黑格尔《法哲学原理》[J].福建论坛·人文社会科学版,2005(5):51-58.
[37]高兆明.公共权力:国家在现时代的历史使命[J].江苏社会科学,1999(4):77-83.
[38]汪志强.论国家公共权力的历史变迁[J].探求,2004(6):31-34.
[39]郁建兴,周俊.论当代资本主义国家与社会关系的变迁[J].中国社会科学,2002(6):162-173.
[40]谢岳.“第三域”的兴起与“政府空心化”[J].学术研究,2000(4):60-65.
[41]詹世友.公共领域·公共利益·公共性[J].社会科学,2005(7):64-73.
[42]张康之,张乾友.从共同生活到公共生活[J].探索, 2007(4):70-79.
[43]傅永军.公共领域与合法性——兼论哈贝马斯合法性理论的主题[J].山东社会科学,2008(3):5-11.
[44]王兆良.哈贝马斯的“公共领域”概念[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版),2002(6):36-37.
[45]弗·克·考夫曼.社会福利国家面临的挑战[J].科学社会主义,2006(3):131-133.
[46]徐延辉.福利国家的风险及其产生的根源[J].政治学研究,2004(1):71-77.
[47]郭忠华.资本主义困境与福利国家矛盾的双重变奏[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2007(5):77-81.
[48]杨玲.“第三条道路”与福利国家改革[J].长白学刊,2004(5):22-25.
[49]徐觉哉.当代社会民主党及其“第三条道路”[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001(3):53-61.
[50]李远行.吉登斯“第三条道路”政治思想述评[J].南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学),2001(3):90-97.
[51]陈泽华,张智勇.第三条道路:当代资本主义发展的新模式[J].教学与研究,1999(11):27-32.
[52]李青.第三条道路:历史、现状及发展前景[J].科学社会主义,1999(4):72-76.
[53]中国社会科学院课题组.新自由主义研究[J].马克思主义研究,2003(6):18-31.
[54]方福前.新自由主义及其影响[J].高校理论战线,2003(12):50-53.
[55]于同申.20世纪末新自由主义经济思潮的沉浮[J].中国人民大学学报,2003 (5):140-147.
[56]刘昀献.论20世纪以来西方主流意识形态的演变及其功能[J].河南大学学报,2004(5):1-6.
[57]褚鸣.批判的新自由主义与新自由主义批判[J].国外社会科学,2005(4):10-16.
[58]程恩富.新自由主义的起源、发展及其影响[J].求是杂志,2005(3):38-41.
[59]张世鹏.关于新自由主义研究的几个问题[J].当代世界与社会主义,2003(6):25-29.
[60]周穗明.西方新自由主义理论及其批判[J].岭南学刊,2002(2):85-88.
[61]吴向东.论价值观的形成与选择[J].哲学研究,2008(5):22-28.
[62]兰久富.价值观念的社会生活根基[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1993(5):53-60.
[63]侯淑芳.论社会核心价值理念[J].佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2008(2):6-7.
[64]徐明宏.论家庭的内聚化和多元化浙江社会科学2004(5):125-128.
[65]王莹.近代早期英国个人主义的成长与核心家庭的兴起[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008(6):58-62.
[66]陈璇.当代西方家庭模式变迁的理论探讨:世纪末美国家庭论战再思考湖北社会科学,2008(1):76-80.
[67]李晓红.重建“人民生活”和“国家生活”的同一性——论《黑格尔法哲学批判》的主题[J].辽宁师范大学学报,2005(1):9-12.
[68]何萍.人的全面而自由发展与市民社会[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2002(3):261-266.
[69]陈炳辉.国家与利益——现代西方的四种国家观[J].东南学术,2005(3):31-36.
[70]张政文.康德与黑格尔国家理论中关于现代性的分歧[J].哲学研究,2007(2):95-99.
[71]汪信砚,夏昌奇.论黑格尔的市民社会概念[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2007(3):287-296.
[72]俞吾金.论马克思对德国古典哲学遗产的解读[J].中国社会科学,2006(2):11-22.
[73]格哈特·克鲁伊普.市民社会在现代国家发展中的作用[J].世界经济与政治,2004(3):56-61.
[74]菅从进,宗培.西方古典市民社会论要[J].广西社会科学,
[75]王新生.现代市民社会概念的形成[J].南开学报,2000(3):22-27.
[76]郭湛,曹鹏.飞哲学视域中的公共性及其当代诠释[J].齐鲁学刊,2005(1):121-126.
[77]郁建兴,吕明再.治理:国家与市民社会关系理论的再出发[J].求是学刊,
[78]王南湜.重思国家与经济的关系——马克思与全球化[J].江海学刊,2002(1):5-12.
[79]郁建兴.从政治解放到人类解放——马克思政治思想初论[J].中国社会科学,2000(2):24-36.
[80]田海平.日常生活转型与公共伦理意识[J].求是学刊,1999(4):15-20.
[81]赵汀阳.城邦、民众和广场[J].世界哲学,2007(2).
[82]谢维雁.公民的历史变迁[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
[83]焦文峰.韦伯科层制理论分析[J].齐齐哈尔师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(2).
[84]余世喜.从私人领域与公共权力领域的关系看资产阶级公共领域的变迁[J].马克思主义与现实,2007(2).
[85]张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究,2001(7):21.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:3.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:197.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1995:130.
①亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1965.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:25.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:21.
③蔡英文.政治实践与公共空间:阿伦特的政治思想[M].北京:新星出版社,2006:268.
④汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:28.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:32.
②哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:3.
③汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:19.
④赵汀阳.城邦、民众和广场[J].世界哲学,2007(2).
①谢维雁.公民的历史变迁[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:10.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:35.
②哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:10-11.
①邓正来.国家与市民社会[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2002:80.
①参见洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:5.
②参见洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:77-78.
③洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:78.
④洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:58.
⑤洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:70.
⑥洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:133.
①查尔斯·泰勒.市民社会的模式[G]//.邓正来.国家与市民社会.北京:中央编译出版社,2002:15.
②亚当·塞利格曼.近代市民社会概念的缘起G]//.邓正来.国家与市民社会.北京:中央编译出版社,2002:15.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:198.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:209.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:197.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:198.
③黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:309.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:336.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:250-251.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:252.
④马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:196.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:153-154.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:35.
①李淑珍.论马克思的市民社会与国家的思想及其历史与现实意义[J].学术月刊,1996(9).
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:31.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:31.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:485.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:103-104.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:76.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:25.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:33.
①汪辉、陈燕谷.文化与公共性[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005:126.
①恩格斯.家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1999:176-180.
①列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001:5.
②列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001:10.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:482.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:219.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:50.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:84.
②沃尔夫.市场或政府[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1994:72.
③哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:84-85.
④参见王晓升.哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006:200-201.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:93.
②焦文峰.韦伯科层制理论分析[J].齐齐哈尔师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(2).
③周宪.审美现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005:451.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:150-151.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:173-174.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:174.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:156.
②王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:147.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:148-149.
②王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:149-150.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:159.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:140.
①丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1989:61.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:148-149.
①高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(卷二)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004:49.
②高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(卷二)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004:101.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:72.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:172.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961:175.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982:263.
①黑格尔.历史哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1963:129.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:70.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:70.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:256.
②马克思.论犹太人问题.载于《马克思恩格斯全集》(第1卷),1956:435.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:70.
④马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:324.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:173.
②余世喜.从私人领域与公共权力领域的关系看资产阶级公共领域的变迁[J].马克思主义与现实,2007(2).
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:171.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:19.
①约翰·基恩.公共生活与晚期资本主义[M].马音译.北京:社会科学文学出版社,1996:6.
②诺姆·乔治斯基.新自由主义和全球秩序·导言[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000:1-2.
③转引自《理论经济学》,2003(2).
①中国社会科学院“新自由主义研究”课题组.新自由主义研究[J].马克思主义研究,2003(6).
①布莱尔.新英国:我对一个年轻国家的展望[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1998:68.
①安东尼·吉登斯.第三条道路——社会民主主义的复兴[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000:104.
①张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究,2001(7):21.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:335.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:335.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:338.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:130.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:631.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:57.
[2]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1～4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[3]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[4]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
[5]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[6]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第21卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[7]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第30卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995.
[8]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956.
[9]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[10]马克思.1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社,1979.
[11]恩格斯.家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1999.
[12]列宁.哲学笔记[M].北京:人民出版社,1993.
[13]列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[14]麦克莱伦.马克思以后的马克思主义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[15]亚里士多德.政治学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1965.
[16]霍布斯.利维坦[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[17]卢梭.论人类不平等的起源与基础[M].北京:红旗出版社,1997.
[18]卢梭.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[19]洛克.政府论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[20]休谟.人性论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[21]黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[22]黑格尔.历史哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1963.
[23]帕森斯.现代社会的结构与过程[M].北京:光明日报出版社,1988.
[24]查尔斯·霍顿·库利.人类本性与社会秩序[M].北京:华夏出版社,1989.
[25]丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1989.
[26]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论——行动的合理性和社会合理性(第1卷)[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[27]哈贝马斯.交往行动理论——论功能主义理想批判(第2卷)[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1994.
[28]哈贝马斯.交往与社会进化[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[29]哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1989.
[30]哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[31]沃尔夫.市场或政府[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1994.
[32]约翰·基恩.公共生活与晚期资本主义[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[33]约翰·基恩.市民社会—旧形象,新观察[M].上海:上海远东出版社,2006.
[34]马克·尼奥克里尔斯.管理市民社会[M].北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[35]亨利希·库诺.马克思的历史、社会和国家学说[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2006.
[36]汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1999.
[37]马尔库塞.理想和革命[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[38]马尔库塞.单向度的人[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[39]葛兰西.实践哲学[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1990.
[40]葛兰西.狱中札记[M].北京:人民出版社,1983.
[41]阿尔都塞.保卫马克思[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[42]阿尔都塞.读《资本论》[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[43]德里达.马克思的幽灵[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[44]詹明信.晚期资本主义的文化逻辑[M].北京:三联书店,1997.
[45]马克斯·舍勒.资本主义的未来[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[46]维尔默.论现代和后现代的辩证法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[47]阿格尼丝·赫勒.现代性理论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[48]乌尔里希·贝克等.自反性现代化[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[49]戴维·哈维.后现代的状况[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[50]大卫·库尔珀.纯粹现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[51]凯尔纳、贝斯特.后现代理论[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
[52]吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京:译林出版社,2000.
[53]弗格森.市民社会史[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[54]贾斯廷·罗森伯格.市民社会的帝国——现实主义国际关系理论批判[M].江苏:江苏人民出版社,2002.
[55]马丁·阿尔布劳.全球时代——超越现代性之外的国家和社会[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[56]沃尔夫冈·查普夫.现代化与社会转型[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1998.
[57]斐迪南·藤尼斯.共同体与社会——纯粹社会学的基本概念[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999.
[58]安东尼·吉登斯.社会的构成[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[59]安东尼·吉登斯.第三条道路——社会民主主义的复兴[M].北京:北京大学出版社店,2000.
[60]安东尼·吉登斯.民族——国家与暴力[M].北京:三联书店,1998.
[61]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].北京:三联书店,1989.
[62]诺姆·乔治斯基.新自由主义和全球秩序·导言[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000.
[63]布莱尔.新英国:我对一个年轻国家的展望[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1998.
[64]赫伯特·斯宾塞.国家权利与个人自由[M].北京:华夏出版社,2000.
[65]齐格蒙特·鲍曼.共同体[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2003.
[66]高清海.高清海哲学文存(1～6卷)[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,1997.
[67]高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(1～3卷)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004.
[68]杨魁森.当代哲学与社会发展[M].北京:中国文联出版社,2004.
[69]孙利天.论辩证法的思维方式[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2006.
[70]贺来.现实生活世界——乌托邦精神的真实根基[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
[71]贺来.边界意识和人的解放[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[72]艾福成.马克思主义哲学著作研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2004.
[73]刘福森.西方文明的危机与发展伦理学[M].长春:江西教育出版社,2005.
[74]邓正来.国家与市民社会—一种社会理论的研究路径[M].北京:中央编译出版社,1998.
[75]邓正来.国家与社会——中国市民社会研究[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1997.
[76]邓正来.市民社会理论的研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[77]郁建兴.马克思国家理论与现时代[M].上海:东方出版中心,2007.
[78]王晓升.哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[79]俞可平.权利政治与公益政治[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[80]蔡英文.主权国家与市民社会[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[81]汪晖,陈燕谷.文化与公共性[M].北京:三联书店,2005.
[82]李佃来.公共领域与生活世界[M].北京:人民出版社,2006.
[83]王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003.
[84]陈晏清.当代中国社会转型论[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1998.
[85]王南湜.从领域合一到领域分离[M].太原:山西教育出版社,1998.
[86]俞吾金.重新理解马克思[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2005.
[87]杨耕.为马克思辩护[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[88]邓晓芒.邓晓芒讲黑格尔[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[89]杨祖陶.康德黑格尔哲学研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2001.
[90]吴晓明.形而上学的没落[M].北京:人民出版社,2006.
[91]衣俊卿.20世纪的文化批判[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2003.
[92]刘小枫.现代性社会理论绪论[M].上海:上海三联书店,1998.
[93]邹诗鹏.生存论研究[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[94]张国钧.“乌托邦”还是“科学”——马克思人的解放思想研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2007.
[95]欧力同.哈贝马斯的“批判理论”[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1997.
[96]陈学明.哈贝马斯的“晚期资本主义”论述评[M].重庆:重庆出版社,1993.
[97]孔繁斌.公共性的再生产[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[98]周宪.审美现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[99]郭湛,王维国,郑广永.社会公共性研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2009
[1]何增科.市民社会概念的历史演变[J].中国社会科学,1994(5):67-81.
[2]邓正来.关于“国家与市民社会”框架的反思与批判[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006(5):5-9.
[3]王兆良.马克思的“市民社会”思想新思考[J].哲学动态,1998(7):31-33.
[4]陈晏清.马克思的市民社会理论及其意义[J].天津社会科学,2001(4):7-12.
[5]郁建兴.马克思的市民社会概念[J].社会学研究,2002(1):31-39.
[6]郁建兴.马克思的政治哲学遗产[J].中国社会科学,2006(6):18-23.
[7]郁建兴,周俊.全球化进程中国家与社会的关系[J].哲学研究,2003(4):12-20.
[8]郁建兴.马克思的国家理论与现时代[J].河北学刊,2005(3):119-124.
[9]杨仁忠.论政治哲学视域中的市民社会[J].社会科学辑刊,2005(6):10-15.
[10]李淑珍.马克思市民社会概念辨析[J].学术界,1997(1):5-9.
[11]李淑珍.论马克思的市民社会与国家的思想及其历史与现实意义[J].1996(9):9-15.
[12]李佃来.马克思关于国家与市民社会关系内涵之探讨[J].湖北行政学院学报,2007(3):54-57.
[13]李佃来.生活世界之市民社会理论的再建构:柯亨与阿拉托的努力[J].人文杂志,2006(4):13-18.
[14]李佃来.哈贝马斯市民社会理论探讨[J].哲学研究,2004(6):60-65.
[15]王浩斌.市民社会批判与马克思主义哲学研究范式的转换[J].华东师大学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
[16]王浩斌.市民社会“契约性”社会自治与人的本质表现样态之历史嬗变[J].成都理工大学学报(社会科学版),2006(9):19-23.
[17]荣剑.马克思的国家和社会理论[J].中国社会科学,2001(3):25-34.
[18]晏辉.论市民社会的现代形态—从文化角度看市民社会[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1999(3):85-91.
[19]方朝晖.市民社会与资本主义国家的合法性——哈贝马斯的合法性学说[J].中国社会科学季刊,1993(8)
[20]方朝晖.市民社会的两个传统及其在现代的汇合[J].中国社会科学,1994 (5):82-102.
[21]蔡拓.市场经济与市民社会[J].天津社会科学,1997(3):18-25.
[22]高兆明.市民社会的建立与家庭精神的破灭——兼论“市民社会”研究进路[J].学海,1999(3):48-54.
[23]黄显中.个人主义与市民社会——关于个人主义的一种解释[J].伦理学研究,2003(6):86-90.
[24]陆树程.市民社会与当代伦理共同体的重建[J].哲学研究,2003(4):30-34.
[25]仰海峰.超越市民社会与国家:从政治解放到社会解放——马克思的国家与市民社会理论探讨[J].东岳论丛,2005(3):34-41.
[26]刘怀玉.“面向生活”的现代性政治哲学难题与超越[J].南京社会科学,2006(12):1-8.
[27]陈炳辉.国家与利益——现代西方的四种国家观[J].东南学术,2005(3):31-36.
[28]郭湛,谭清华.公共利益:马克思唯物史观的解读[J].哲学研究,2008(5):16-21.
[29]伍俊斌.有限政府理念建构的哲学之维[J].重庆社会科学,2005(8):106-110.
[30]张康之.论“后国家主义”时代的社会治理[J].江海学刊,2007(1):93-99.
[31]刘军.马克思国家观的三大理论创新[J].河北学刊,2006(6):21-25.
[32]高晓红.公共权力异化的伦理制约[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008(3):75-78.
[33]刘圣中.私人性与公共性——公共权力的两重属性及其归宿[J].浙江学刊,2003(2):70-74.
[34]张富.论公共行政权力的属性、异化及其超越[J].四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(1):22-26.
[35]陈国权,徐露辉.论政府的公共性及其实现[J].浙江社会科学,2004(4)39-42.
[36]仰海峰.国家:自由与伦理的现实体现——读黑格尔《法哲学原理》[J].福建论坛·人文社会科学版,2005(5):51-58.
[37]高兆明.公共权力:国家在现时代的历史使命[J].江苏社会科学,1999(4):77-83.
[38]汪志强.论国家公共权力的历史变迁[J].探求,2004(6):31-34.
[39]郁建兴,周俊.论当代资本主义国家与社会关系的变迁[J].中国社会科学,2002(6):162-173.
[40]谢岳.“第三域”的兴起与“政府空心化”[J].学术研究,2000(4):60-65.
[41]詹世友.公共领域·公共利益·公共性[J].社会科学,2005(7):64-73.
[42]张康之,张乾友.从共同生活到公共生活[J].探索, 2007(4):70-79.
[43]傅永军.公共领域与合法性——兼论哈贝马斯合法性理论的主题[J].山东社会科学,2008(3):5-11.
[44]王兆良.哈贝马斯的“公共领域”概念[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版),2002(6):36-37.
[45]弗·克·考夫曼.社会福利国家面临的挑战[J].科学社会主义,2006(3):131-133.
[46]徐延辉.福利国家的风险及其产生的根源[J].政治学研究,2004(1):71-77.
[47]郭忠华.资本主义困境与福利国家矛盾的双重变奏[J].中山大学学报(社会科学版),2007(5):77-81.
[48]杨玲.“第三条道路”与福利国家改革[J].长白学刊,2004(5):22-25.
[49]徐觉哉.当代社会民主党及其“第三条道路”[J].上海社会科学院学术季刊,2001(3):53-61.
[50]李远行.吉登斯“第三条道路”政治思想述评[J].南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学),2001(3):90-97.
[51]陈泽华,张智勇.第三条道路:当代资本主义发展的新模式[J].教学与研究,1999(11):27-32.
[52]李青.第三条道路:历史、现状及发展前景[J].科学社会主义,1999(4):72-76.
[53]中国社会科学院课题组.新自由主义研究[J].马克思主义研究,2003(6):18-31.
[54]方福前.新自由主义及其影响[J].高校理论战线,2003(12):50-53.
[55]于同申.20世纪末新自由主义经济思潮的沉浮[J].中国人民大学学报,2003 (5):140-147.
[56]刘昀献.论20世纪以来西方主流意识形态的演变及其功能[J].河南大学学报,2004(5):1-6.
[57]褚鸣.批判的新自由主义与新自由主义批判[J].国外社会科学,2005(4):10-16.
[58]程恩富.新自由主义的起源、发展及其影响[J].求是杂志,2005(3):38-41.
[59]张世鹏.关于新自由主义研究的几个问题[J].当代世界与社会主义,2003(6):25-29.
[60]周穗明.西方新自由主义理论及其批判[J].岭南学刊,2002(2):85-88.
[61]吴向东.论价值观的形成与选择[J].哲学研究,2008(5):22-28.
[62]兰久富.价值观念的社会生活根基[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1993(5):53-60.
[63]侯淑芳.论社会核心价值理念[J].佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2008(2):6-7.
[64]徐明宏.论家庭的内聚化和多元化浙江社会科学2004(5):125-128.
[65]王莹.近代早期英国个人主义的成长与核心家庭的兴起[J].武汉科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008(6):58-62.
[66]陈璇.当代西方家庭模式变迁的理论探讨:世纪末美国家庭论战再思考湖北社会科学,2008(1):76-80.
[67]李晓红.重建“人民生活”和“国家生活”的同一性——论《黑格尔法哲学批判》的主题[J].辽宁师范大学学报,2005(1):9-12.
[68]何萍.人的全面而自由发展与市民社会[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2002(3):261-266.
[69]陈炳辉.国家与利益——现代西方的四种国家观[J].东南学术,2005(3):31-36.
[70]张政文.康德与黑格尔国家理论中关于现代性的分歧[J].哲学研究,2007(2):95-99.
[71]汪信砚,夏昌奇.论黑格尔的市民社会概念[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2007(3):287-296.
[72]俞吾金.论马克思对德国古典哲学遗产的解读[J].中国社会科学,2006(2):11-22.
[73]格哈特·克鲁伊普.市民社会在现代国家发展中的作用[J].世界经济与政治,2004(3):56-61.
[74]菅从进,宗培.西方古典市民社会论要[J].广西社会科学,
[75]王新生.现代市民社会概念的形成[J].南开学报,2000(3):22-27.
[76]郭湛,曹鹏.飞哲学视域中的公共性及其当代诠释[J].齐鲁学刊,2005(1):121-126.
[77]郁建兴,吕明再.治理:国家与市民社会关系理论的再出发[J].求是学刊,
[78]王南湜.重思国家与经济的关系——马克思与全球化[J].江海学刊,2002(1):5-12.
[79]郁建兴.从政治解放到人类解放——马克思政治思想初论[J].中国社会科学,2000(2):24-36.
[80]田海平.日常生活转型与公共伦理意识[J].求是学刊,1999(4):15-20.
[81]赵汀阳.城邦、民众和广场[J].世界哲学,2007(2).
[82]谢维雁.公民的历史变迁[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
[83]焦文峰.韦伯科层制理论分析[J].齐齐哈尔师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(2).
[84]余世喜.从私人领域与公共权力领域的关系看资产阶级公共领域的变迁[J].马克思主义与现实,2007(2).
[85]张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究,2001(7):21.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:3.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:197.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].第1卷.北京:人民出版社,1995:130.
①亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1965.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:25.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:21.
③蔡英文.政治实践与公共空间:阿伦特的政治思想[M].北京:新星出版社,2006:268.
④汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:28.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:32.
②哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:3.
③汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:19.
④赵汀阳.城邦、民众和广场[J].世界哲学,2007(2).
①谢维雁.公民的历史变迁[J].四川师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007(3).
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:10.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:35.
②哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:10-11.
①邓正来.国家与市民社会[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2002:80.
①参见洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:5.
②参见洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:77-78.
③洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:78.
④洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:58.
⑤洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:70.
⑥洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1964:133.
①查尔斯·泰勒.市民社会的模式[G]//.邓正来.国家与市民社会.北京:中央编译出版社,2002:15.
②亚当·塞利格曼.近代市民社会概念的缘起G]//.邓正来.国家与市民社会.北京:中央编译出版社,2002:15.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:198.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:209.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:197.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:198.
③黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].范扬、张企泰译.北京:商务印书馆,1982:309.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:336.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:250-251.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:252.
④马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:196.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:153-154.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:35.
①李淑珍.论马克思的市民社会与国家的思想及其历史与现实意义[J].学术月刊,1996(9).
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:31.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:31.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:485.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第46卷上)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:103-104.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:76.
①汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:25.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:33.
①汪辉、陈燕谷.文化与公共性[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005:126.
①恩格斯.家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1999:176-180.
①列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001:5.
②列宁.国家与革命[M].北京:人民出版社,2001:10.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:482.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:219.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:50.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:84.
②沃尔夫.市场或政府[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1994:72.
③哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:84-85.
④参见王晓升.哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006:200-201.
①哈贝马斯.合法化危机[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000:93.
②焦文峰.韦伯科层制理论分析[J].齐齐哈尔师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(2).
③周宪.审美现代性批判[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005:451.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:150-151.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:173-174.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:174.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:156.
②王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:147.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:148-149.
②王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:149-150.
①王新生.市民社会论[M].南宁:广西人民出版社,2003:159.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:140.
①丹尼尔·贝尔.资本主义文化矛盾[M].北京:三联书店,1989:61.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第2卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957:148-149.
①高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(卷二)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004:49.
②高清海.高清海哲学文存·续编(卷二)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社,2004:101.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:72.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第42卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1979:172.
②黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1961:175.
①黑格尔.法哲学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1982:263.
①黑格尔.历史哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1963:129.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:70.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:70.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:256.
②马克思.论犹太人问题.载于《马克思恩格斯全集》(第1卷),1956:435.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:70.
④马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:324.
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:173.
②余世喜.从私人领域与公共权力领域的关系看资产阶级公共领域的变迁[J].马克思主义与现实,2007(2).
①哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999:171.
②汉娜·阿伦特.人的条件[M].竺乾威等译.上海:上海人民出版社,1999:19.
①约翰·基恩.公共生活与晚期资本主义[M].马音译.北京:社会科学文学出版社,1996:6.
②诺姆·乔治斯基.新自由主义和全球秩序·导言[M].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000:1-2.
③转引自《理论经济学》,2003(2).
①中国社会科学院“新自由主义研究”课题组.新自由主义研究[J].马克思主义研究,2003(6).
①布莱尔.新英国:我对一个年轻国家的展望[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1998:68.
①安东尼·吉登斯.第三条道路——社会民主主义的复兴[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2000:104.
①张汝伦.评哈贝马斯对全球化政治的思考[J].哲学研究,2001(7):21.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:335.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:335.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1956:338.
②马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第1卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:130.
③马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:631.
①马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1995:57.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |