马克思与曼海姆知识社会学思想的差异性分析

马克思与曼海姆在知识社会学方面的差异性主要体现在:马克思的知识社会学思想是从历史唯物主义的层面研究的,而曼海姆则是从社会学层面来研究的;马克思认为"社会存在"的核心是物质生产生活方式,社会意识是对社会存在的反映,而曼海姆认为的"存在"是指除纯粹的理论因素之外的其他一切因素,外延大于马克思的理解;马克思把阶级性看作是划分意识形态的标准,曼海姆则是从社会历史的角度进行分析。     

Science, truth and history, part II. Metaphysical bolt-holes for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge?

Historians of science have frequently sought to exclude modern scientific knowledge from their narratives. Part I of this paper, published in the previous issue, cautioned against seeing more than a literary preference at work here. In particular, it was argued—contra advocates of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK)—that a commitment to epistemological relativism should not be seen as having straightforward historiographical consequences. Part II considers further SSK-inspired attempts to entangle the currently fashionable historiography with particular positions in the philosophy of science. None, I argue, is promising. David Bloor’s proposed alliance with scientific realism relies upon a mistaken view of contrastive explanation; Andrew Pickering’s appeal to instrumentalism is persuasive for particle physics but much less so for science as a whole; and Bruno Latour’s home-grown metaphysics is so bizarre that its compatibility with SSK is, if anything, a further blow to the latter’s plausibility.     

社会学视角下我国城市农民工体育权益保障问题研究

农民工是我国改革开放后工业化、城镇化进程中涌现的一支新型劳动大军,已成为产业工人的重要组成部分。但参与体育活动进行体育健身的权利作为农民工一项基本权益,目前仍无法得到保障,存在身份条件、参与"能力"、外部物质条件、自身意识薄弱等多方面的缺失。为此,本文提出了政策保护、用人单位支持、社区负责、健全社会监督机制及完善农民工的体育维权意识等策略来保障我国城市农民工体育权益。     

爱丁堡学派解构默顿科学社会学的三元向度

20世纪70年代伊始,默顿科学社会学受到了来自各方的批判,其中,爱丁堡学派可谓是最激进的代表。爱丁堡学派主要从三个方面对默顿科学社会学进行了全面的解构：其一,极力批判默顿科学社会学对科学知识进行“黑箱化”处理,倡导对科学知识进行社会学分析;其二,质疑默顿科学规范理论,不仅直接批评了默顿科学规范的独特性和有效性,还强调与默顿科学规范相悖的科学中的利益和权威等因素;其三,对同行承认作了本质上不同于默顿的解读。与默顿迥异,爱丁堡学派认为,同行承认只是科学奖励制度的一个中介环节,激励科学家从事科学活动的最终因素是包含利益因素的科学家个人的特定要求和需要得到满足。     

论曼海姆的社会境况决定论

本文考察了知识社会学的中心思想,即曼海姆的“社会境况决定论”,并在此基础上探讨了曼海姆这一理论同马克思主义唯物史观的区别。     

生命教育视角下的流动人口社会工作实践研究

在生命教育理论指导下，以昆明市M社区流动妇女为研究对象开展的社会工作实践研究，目的是提升流动妇女家庭教育意识，拓展流动妇女家庭教育能力，促进流动人口子女及其家庭实现生命质量的提升以及生命价值的实现。实践重点是围绕流动人口自然生命和精神生命两个维度而开展的社会工作实务探索，并成功的将性健康教育、爱的教育、艾滋病防治教育、心理健康教育等内容有效整合。     

Is it Safe to Talk About Systems Again Yet?

The following article makes a case for the social sciences to renew their interest in systems, drawing on ideas circulating in organisational and community psychology, industry, engineering, biology and ecology, the new physics, management, evaluation, religion and spirituality, policy-making, human services professions, and service-user and community movements. It charts a different kind of systemic thinking in striking contrast to traditional mechanistic social systems theory. Sociology’s current resiling from systems theory is explained as a legacy of its loyal service in the ‘battlefield’ of the post WW2 critique of authoritarian structural-functionalist positivist systems and the hard-won interpretive turn to issues of process, diversity, conflict, change and a critical and ‘qualitative’ epistemology. A new transdisciplinary mental architecture of self-organising processes for complex living systems is offered which integrates understandings of both ‘structural systems’ and the ‘processual systemic’ in individual psychology, organisational sociology, and in action research as its epistemology.

以系统论方法诠释中国传统思维:社会 学简

本文以系统论方法诠释中国传统思维，再用中国传统思维——精气学说和阴阳学说的观点、方法和语言去解释社会的流动、阶级的形成、社会的分化与整合、社会结构的优化、和谐社会的形成和推动社会发展的动力。中国古代思想家和哲学家，尤其是具有代表性的老子和孔子关于社会和谐的理论，对今天社会具有重要的现实意义。     

刍议无边界职业发展与继续教育价值统一的社会根基

动态职业生涯发展中的新视点——无边界职业生涯是组织结构异化和日益加剧的国内外竞争及实施并购等战略决策和后现代组织成员的心理成就感的职业目标变化的产物,是挑战传统职业生涯流弊的新模式,其发展趋向同大教育系统中灵活多质的继续教育的多功能价值取向存在着本质的联系,笔者拟以社会学角度挖掘二者的统一性。     

Science, truth and history, Part I. Historiography, relativism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Recently, many historians of science have chosen to present their historical narratives from the ‘actors’-eye view’. Scientific knowledge not available within the actors’ culture is not permitted to do explanatory work. Proponents of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) purport to ground this historiography on epistemological relativism. I argue that they are making an unnecessary mistake: unnecessary because the historiographical genre in question can be defended on aesthetic and didactic grounds; and a mistake because the argument from relativism is in any case incoherent.The argument of the present article is self-contained, but steers clear of metaphysical debates in the philosophy of science. To allay fears of hidden assumptions, the sequel, to be published in the following issue, will consider SSK’s prospects of succour from scientific realism, instrumentalism, and a metaphysical system of Bruno Latour’s own devising.