文章 - - 文章列表 - 全部

1　　Partha Chtterjee 出生于 1947 年，于 1967 年在印度加尔各答大学取得政治学的学士学位后，前往美国罗雀斯特（Rochester）大学攻读政治学研究所，1970 取得硕士，1971 年取得博士学位。留校任教一年后，于 1972 年回国执教，自 1973 年起任职加尔各答的社会科学研究中心（Center for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta）至今，1979 年升任为教授，1997 年起任该中心主任。此外，他曾在牛津大学、纽约 New School、荷兰 Leiden 大学、纽约哥伦比亚大学担任客座访问教授。　　出身政治学，而影响力渗入其它领域，从国际性文化研究及后殖民论述的学术领域来看， Partha Chatterjee 是亚洲最为重要的学者之一，其影响力在印度、亚洲及英语世界无人可以取代。Chatterjee教授的重要性可以由几个部份来分别说明。他的成名作国族主义份子的思想与殖民世界 Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World:A Derivative Discourse? （伦敦：Zed Books；印度德里：牛津大学出版社，1986；美国米尼苏达大学出版社，1993）被视为研究第三世界民族主义理论的经典作；无论在英语世界、第三世界，乃至于台湾学界，该书对于民族主义与殖民主义之间在具体历史过程中复杂纠结关系的处理，提供了民族主义研究的新观点，迫使研究者不能再将民族主义视为一种相对自主的力量，而必须与在地的历史传统、殖民史，以及阶级、性别结构等相结合才能有解释力。　　借用葛兰西的理论与方法，放在印度近代政治／思想史的脉络中来讨论，作者不仅画出不同种民族主义的思考模态（从甘地到 Nehru）在当时战局中形成的不同位置，同时也指出这些立场如何在独立建国后持续发挥效应。该书被视为法农 (Fanon) 之后少有的来自于第三　　世界，而又由批判性思考来面对第三世界民族主义问题，从而经过扎实研究而形成的理论论述，因此 Chatterjee 快速的成为立足第三世界后殖民研究的大家。国族及其片段︰殖民与后殖民历史 TheNation and Its Fragments: Colonial and PostcolonialHistories （普林斯顿大学出版社，1993）一书，进一步深化上一本书的理论讨论，透过历史的分析，厘清国族与其它社会力量的接合点，特别是对照殖民时期与后殖民阶段的连续与断裂。这本以历史为操　　作场域的著作被评为民族主义理论的突破──突破以往以race-nation-ethnicity 为主要思考轴线的限制，一方面将民族主义碎片化来掌握它散布在诸多场域的力量，另一方面则辩证的将碎片化、看似与民族主义无关的社会力与其相连结，而这也正是民族主义动员力量之所在。这两本书的出现使得 Chatterjee 在学界建立起无可取代的地位。　　除此之外，Chatterjee 尚有诸多以印度社会及政治为分析对象的专书，他的在地性也使其被印度广大的知识界认定为当代最被尊敬的学者／知识分子。这些著作大都介入在地公共议题的讨论或是知识圈之辩论，包括：　　⊙武装，结盟与稳定 (Arms, Alliances and Stability: TheDevelopment of the Structure of International Politics) （德里：麦克米伦，1975）　　⊙ (与 S. Kaviraj, S. Dattagupta and S.K. Chaube 共着），政治理论的国家／现况 The State of Political Theory （加尔各答︰印度研究，1978）　　⊙（与 Asok Sen and Saugata Mukherjee 共着），1920 至 1947年班格尔地区农业结构的三个研究 (Three Studies of theAgrarian Structure of Bengal 1860-1947) （加尔各答︰牛津大学　　出版社，1981）　　⊙ 1920 至 1947 年班格尔地区的土地问题 (Bengal 1920-1947:The Land Question) （加尔各答：K. P. Banchi，1984）　　⊙西班格尔的当代史︰政治评论文集 (The Present History ofWest Bengal: Essays in Political Criticism) （印度德里：牛津大学出版社，1997）　　⊙一个可能的印度︰政治评论文集 (A Possible India: Essays inPolitical Criticism) （印度德里：牛津大学出版社，1997）　　另外，他编着了几本重要专着，包括：　　⊙（与 Gyanendra Pandey 合编），(Subaltern Studies VII) （印度德里：牛津大学出版社， 1992）　　⊙权力的文本︰规讯在殖民时期班格尔地区的浮现 (Texts ofPower: Emerging Disciplines in Colonial Bengal) （美国米尼苏达大学出版社，1995）　　⊙印度的国家与政治 (State and Politics in India) （印度德里：牛津大学出版社，1997 ）　　⊙自由的代价︰印度民族国家的五十年 (Wages of Freedom: FiftyYears of the Indian Nation-States) （印度德里：牛津大学出版社，1998）　　⊙（与 Gautman Bhadra 合编），Nimnabarger itihas [TheHistory of the Subaltern Classes] （加尔各答：Anada，1999）　　从以上的著作及编着显示，与 Stuart Hall 相类似，ParthaChatterjee 无法取代的重要性在于其集体研究的表现，特别是他从七０年代起参与的「下层人民研究群」（ Subaltern Studies Group），是极少在国际批判学界被注意到的学术群体，不仅在历史学上开出以下层人民为主体的研究方向，而且在理论深度上不断挑战西方既有的理论体系及思辩方式。至目前为止，国际性文化研究除了柏明罕学派外，大概还没有其它团体足以与「下层人民研究群」分庭抗礼。值得一提的是，该团体在八０年代中期崛起后，许多成员陆续离开印度至英语第一世界学界中求发展，而 Chatterjee 固守阵地，成为当代第三世界知识分子的代表性人物。　　2　　受国科会邀请以讲座教授身分来台讲学，Chatterjee 教授的三场演讲环绕着他企图发展的新概念──「政治社会」──来捕捉许多国家在独立建国之后的后殖民时期所浮现之新的民主抗争空间与形式。他的核心论点是，既有的国家 v.s. 公民社会分析架构并不足以描绘　　与解释第三世界地区的下层人民，是如何在实际的社会关系中创造非主流政治的民主空间。这些人民不是国家的主体，也不是公民社会的主体，她／他们的存在甚至被认定为非法的，或是要在现代化过程中被清除的，也因此基本上被排除在正轨的政治参与过程之外，最多不　　过成为社会菁英动员的对象，在权力分配完成后，继续被统治；但是在许多状况中，为了生存而必须与这两造（国家及以中产阶级为主体的公民社会、或是公共领域）周旋。在这个周旋过程中，他们的目的不在夺取国家机器，也不在于取得公民社会的领导权，因而开启了这　　个中介于两者之间的暂时性空间，称为政治社会。这些来自下层人民的抗争其实是后殖民时期主要的政治活动，只是国家菁英不以 " 政治 " 来对待他们，也正因为如此，Chatterjee 企图创造新的理论概念来点出这个新政治空间的重要性。　　六月二日在第一场以工作坊形式进行的演讲──「社群在东方」（Community in the East），Chatterjee 以加尔各答地区铁道附近存在五０年之久的违建户为例，挑战西方自由主义与社群主义之间辩论的贫乏，而且同时指出非西方的民族主义菁英如何与翻转的东方主义共谋，本质化西方（物质主义、个人主义、忽视传统）与东方（精神文明、社群团结、尊重传统），完全复制原有西方自由主义与社群主义的辩论框架。而这些论述都无法解释这些（所谓违法的）居民团体，如何能够以社群的形式出现，动员公民社会的非官方组织与国家所属的社会福利部门来取得生存的权力。　　第二场「民主与国家暴力：一个死亡的政治交涉」（Democracyand the Violence of the State: A Political Negotiation ofDeath）承续上一篇文章，以一个九０年代在地小宗教教派领袖之 "　　死 " 为分析焦点，探究现代性中的国家暴力。这个宗教团体的信众认为他们的领导人是在灵修，只是肉身暂时停止作用，随时会醒来，而社会菁英及媒体以现代化工程代言人自居，以迷信与非理性来指责，迫使国家以卫生为由来介入，最后以五千警力强行抓走还在 " 灵　　修 " 的教主，造成大规模暴动。事后信众以现代语汇来指控国家的威权主义与反民主，剥夺他们的宗教信仰自由与公民权。Chatterjee的细密解剖呈现的分析策略并非将宗教当作迷信看待、以道德问题来处理，而是透过事件看到宗教实践如何与其它的政治、社会力量对立　　、结盟、交涉，如何在政治社会的场域中操作，进而他观察到印度社会不同的作用者（国家、媒体、菁英、信徒），在政治社会中的互动所展现的性质。　　第三场「论后殖民民主中的公民与政治社会」（On Civil and Political Society in Postcolonial Democracies）把分析对象摆在十九世纪末，青年诗人泰歌尔与名作家那槟（Nabinchandra Sen）之间的论辩，针对是否该为现代主义派作家班罄（ BankimchandraChattopadhyay）之死举行（西式）追悼会一事，所呈现的殖民现代性之多重矛盾如何延续、转化至后殖民情境，来总结政治社会的理论性质。他指出三点：（1 ）在殖民时期，最为重要之转变社会的场域　　在公民社会，在后殖民时期则是在政治社会；（2）在殖民时期，现代性是框架社会转变论辩的主要问题，而在后殖民时期的政治社会中，主要的是民主问题；（3）在近期资本全球化的时代中，我们看到了一组正在出现的对立：即，现代性 v.s. 民主，亦即公民社会与政治社会的对立。　　Chatterjee 的讨论很能够引发台湾民主经验的讨论。在阅读文章的过程中，不断浮现的是台北市十四、十五号公园、和公娼抗争，同性恋 AG 事件、宋七力、妈祖、地震后的灾区、镇暴部队等等，由于这三场演讲直接关乎台湾当前社群主义及公共领域的争辩、社区总体　　营造运动、新兴的社群（外劳、网络、同志、性工作者等）、新兴宗教、民族主义与现代性等等议题的讨论，因此，我们请来相关的研究者来对话。我们以为第三世界的共同经验是需要经过比较，进一步被理论化，而不是一再对争议的现象只作道德化的争辩与粗暴的处理。　　Chatterjee 对于公民社会的质疑也再度勾起八０年代末、九０年代初台湾知识圈有关民间社会 v.s. 人民民主的辩论；而或许Chatterjee 所画出的政治社会空间正是人民民主操作的场域吧！　　与以往英文学术演讲不同的是，主办单位不仅将讲稿事前译成中文，还请口译人员现场翻译，使更多的听众可以尽可能的跨越语言障碍；更重要的是在各场次均安排了本地的学者，在会前详读讲稿之后，以对在地历史经验的思考与研究来响应讲者对于印度的讨论，目的在　　开始进行初步的第三世界／亚洲内部之比较与对话，期盼在未来能够形成更为贴切的理论解释。　　(2000.5.20)

查尔斯·泰勒这个名字早已为中国学界所熟悉，他的许多著作已经被翻译成中文，包括《黑格尔》、《自我的根源》和《现代性之隐忧》。我们一般将他和麦金泰尔、沃尔泽、桑德尔归入一类，将他们视为“社群主义”的代表人物。有趣的是，除桑德尔近年来主要关注生命科技对伦理的影响[3]之外，他们当中其他几位都侧重于研究宗教。沃尔泽从普林斯顿高等研究院退休后，将自己的主要精力用在编撰《犹太政治传统》这一多卷本巨著上[4]。麦金泰尔针对现代大学传授知识和技能而不帮助学生寻找“人生意义”这一现实，试图从自己所皈依的天主教传统中找出一些对世俗大学的人文教育也有帮助的东西，因而撰写了一部关于天主教哲学传统的新著[5]。查尔斯·泰勒在宗教信仰上与麦金泰尔最为接近，但他却选择了一个似乎与宗教哲学研究本身争锋相对的视角—“世俗化”—来考察以宗教为线索的近代西方观念史和社会史[6]。他在这方面的研究从深度和广度上看都足以在学术史上留下醒目的印记，这也为他本人赢得了两个从奖金数额和“荣誉指数”上都可以同诺贝尔奖相提并论的国际奖项：2007年他获得了“坦普尔顿奖”[7]，2008年他又荣获了“京都赏”[8]。这些思想家将注意力集中在宗教上的原因很好理解：他们都不满意自由主义政治哲学将宗教“私人化”的方案，他们都认为：不涉及“整全信念（comprehensive doctrines）”的“公共理性”是空洞的理性，而不给信仰留下空间的公共领域是缺氧的领域。 《一个世俗时代》是一部874页的煌煌巨著。麦金泰尔为此书写的推介评语[9]指出： 查尔斯·泰勒以前也写过关于世俗主义的作品。但没有迹象表明他会给我们贡献一部像这本新书这样非凡的著作。他在这本书里想要达到双重目的：一方面对西方文化和社会秩序的世俗化给出一个历史解说；另一方面要澄清“作一个世俗的人”以及“栖居在一个世俗化的社会”意味着什么。没有任何简短总结可以再现泰勒细致入微而又总揽全局的分析技巧……这本书是对过去一个世纪一直在进行的关于世俗化的讨论作出的重要而又具有高度原创性的贡献。其他同类作品都望尘莫及。 虽说这本书从论述的深度和广度上看都超出了泰勒此前论述宗教和世俗化问题的著作，但说它的出现毫无先兆却有些言过其实。1998-1999学年，泰勒应邀在爱丁堡大学作了著名的“吉福德讲座”（Gifford Lectures），他为这一组讲座确定的主题是“生活在世俗时代”。此后，他先后围绕这一主题出版了两本篇幅在200来页的“小书”：2002年的《如今宗教的各种形态：重访威廉·詹姆斯》[10]和2004年的《现代社会想像》[11]。对于熟悉这两部著作的读者来说，《一个世俗时代》所表达的基本观点和论证理路都不会是陌生的。这部“大书”的精彩之处在于它的历史研究，尤其是关于教会改革和基督教神学自身的发展如何为“世俗化”和“现代性”创造了条件的历史论证。由于对这部巨著进行全面的评析必定是“费力不讨好”的，本文将侧重分析这本书所欲回答的问题、它回答这些问题的方式以及它在“世俗化”理论传统的地位。一 泰勒将世俗性理解为一种“社会想像（social imaginary）”。社会想像类似于福柯的“知识型”，它不是一种知识分子建构的“理论体系”，而是体现在普通人理解世界的方式以及日常话语中的“思维框架”。用泰勒自己的话来说，社会想像是“是人们想像他们的社会存在、他们如何与他人和谐共处的方式……以及潜藏在这些预期背后的更深层次的规范性观念和图景”[12]，它是“使共同的实践和广泛共享的正当性感觉成为可能的共同理解”[13]，“它实际上是对我们的整体处境的一种大体上零散的、未经语言整理的理解……”[14]。支持“世俗性”这种社会想像的是泰勒所称的自足的“内在框架（immanent frame）”，也就是说，人可以凭借理性和经验理解这个世界，一个“超验”的领域不是不存在的就是与我们无关的。换句话说，“内在框架”意味着我们理解和经验这个世界的全部资源都来自于人间生活，从时空维度上讲，超越此在的超验世界与超越今生的来世要么是不存在的，要么与我们无关。这一点在齐美尔那里曾经以另一种方式得到精彩表达： 通常的观念是：这里是自然世界，那里是超验世界，我们归属于其中之一。不！我们归属于第三个、无法表述的世界，在其中，自然和超验都是反映、投影、矫饰和解释。”[15] 现实绝不是世界本身，而只是与艺术世界和宗教世界并存的一个世界。它们是用同样的素材打造的，但所采用的形式和前提不同。经验中的现实世界可能是有序规整在实用意义上最适合于促进人类生存和发展的各种要素的结果……因此，决定用心智创造哪个世界的是我们的目的和明确预设，现实世界只是许多可能世界中的一个。[16] 工具理性发展到高级阶段的现代人将“自然世界”和“超验世界”都纳入自己的算计，从而营造出一个“第三世界”：人的世界。在这个世界中，“神法”或“自然法”或许并未失效，但却被人类心智的“内在框架”改造成了人在虚无中创造的意义。这种理解和体验世界的方式是所谓“现代社会想像”中的一部分。在泰勒看来，“从一开始，现代社会科学的头号问题就是现代性本身”[17]，而“现代性”是一种史无前例的混合物，其中包含各种新的实践和制度形式（科学、技术、工业生产、城市化），各种新的生活方式（个人主义、世俗化、工具理性），以及各种新式毛病（异化、空虚、一种感到社会即将瓦解而导致的恐慌）。[18] 作为现代性的一部分，世俗、世俗化或世俗时代是现代学术史上的关键词，但其含义却有待界定。对有些人而言，世俗化意味着道德的沦丧和文明的衰退；而对另一些人来说，世俗化却意味着科学昌明、社会进步和蒙昧时代的结束。与世俗化紧密关联的概念包括启蒙、祛魅以及理性化。在西方思想史上，康德和韦伯为“世俗化”命题贡献了最重要的分析工具和理论资源。康德的“启蒙”意味着把一切置于“理性”的检验和批判之下。但他同时也承认人的“理性”有其限度，强硬的无神论者和盲信的教徒都犯了同样的错误：他们都宣称自己知道其实并不知道的东西。因此，我们需要厘清知识的界限，以便为信仰留下空间。为此，康德指出，实践理性要求我们“设定”一个超验的上帝，从而我们的“道德律”提供依据。[19]这类似于孔子所说的“敬神如神在”，只有基于这种拟制或假设，我们才会“畏天命”，并做到“慎终追远”，乃至“民德归厚”。不然的话，便会陷入“上帝死了，人可以为所欲为”的道德困境。韦伯则提出“除魅”这一重要概念来帮助我们理解“世俗化”的要害。用一位评论者的话来说，在韦伯看来： 祛魅背后的力量是合理性（rationality），更准确地说，是合理性化（rationalization）。与理性（reason）不同，合理性关注的是手段而不是目的；它是指人的算计能力，有效达致可欲目标的能力。它发端于有目的的人类实践活动。它的根源是现世的。在特定情况下，它具有无限的适用性和非同小可的扩张性。实际上，它是相当霸道的。它改变着它所触及的范围，最终它改变了手段与目的之间的关系。[20] 从这个意义上讲，现代性不只是意味着用理性祛除“巫魅”，更导致了理性的自我限定，并最终使“工具理性”成为导引人们社会行动的主要心智构成。在多元主义的现代社会中，依信念伦理而行动越来越显得“不负责任”，只有将后果纳入计算和考量的社会行动才是审慎的现代人、尤其是现代政治人应当采取的行动。 尽管在对现代处境的事实分析上泰勒继承了韦伯和齐美尔等人的思路和判断，但他在规范层面上则将“祛魅（Entzauberung）”命题作为主要的批判对象。他将“祛魅”这一否定性概念重新命名为“化减（subtraction）”，并讲述了一系列相互关联的“化减故事”，其中包括：（1）启蒙或“走向成熟”的故事，也就是康德所言的“勇于认知（sapere aude）”，成熟的人要勇于走出虚幻的假象所造就的“安全和舒适”的环境，真面现实，并且为自己在现世的处境作出选择和承担责任。[21]在“现代”社会中，由于大部分受过教育的成年人都“走向了成熟”，于是“旧的参照系瓦解了、烧掉了，新出现的是将我们自己视为‘个人’的认知取向。”[22]（2）“上帝死了”的故事，也就是尼采所说的“重估一切价值”。既然上帝死了，人就成了宇宙的中心，“人类中心主义（anthropocentricism）”或“唯我独尊的人本主义（exclusive humanism）”成了现代价值的基础。“向现代性的转型穿越了传统信仰和忠诚的废墟”，[23]对传统价值的“减除”是“现代化”的题中应有之意。（3）“赛先生”的故事，也就是以达尔文的“进化论”为典型例子的自然科学对“创世论”、“启示”和“奇迹”的扫荡，“基督教义的主张在科学不断挺进的年代显得不那么可信了。”[24]这些“化减故事”导致的最严重的后果，就是朝向“超越（transcendence）”或“圆满（fullness）”之门的关闭，或者说是对人生的终极意义之求索的停顿。[25]在这一点上，作为社会科学家的韦伯和齐美尔早有类似的观察结论。比如齐美尔将近一个世纪前写道： 当下情境的强大引力场不是使这种或那种教义、而是使信仰的超验目标本身显得因虚幻而黯然无光。现在留存下来的不是可以借助新的实现方式便可以企及的超验形式，而是某种更加复杂而无助的东西：曾经由超验来满足的那种需求，那种不因满足方式的更替而消退的需求，如今由于信仰对象的退位而麻木了，就好像它的生命之源被切断了一样。[26] 与韦伯和齐美尔不同的是，作为哲学家的泰勒不满足于描述这种现代处境，更着力于批判和寻求解决之道。在他看来，超越维度的缺失使得人的生存意义变得贫乏，使得“在我死后哪管洪水滔天”式的不负责任的生活态度横行，也使得现代人时常陷入纵欲之后的空虚和匮乏。但超越之门对人类是一直敞开的，封闭的是人的心智。在“内在框架”的限定下，我们丧失了一片更广阔的天空。人本主义范畴内的所谓“内在超越”，无异于搬着自己的脚来试图离开地面的徒劳。泰勒设想出一种“非主流的”未来，也就是彷徨的现代人皈依或重新皈依宗教（在他的视界中，主要是天主教）的未来： 我预见到另一种未来，它基于另一种假定……在宗教生活中，我们对一种超验现实作出回应。我们所有人或多或少都有这方面的感悟，它显现于我们瞥见、认出并试图去往某种图景的瞬间，这种图景，我称之为“圆满”。因此，唯我独尊的人本主义者以及其他困在内在框架之中的人士所看到的“圆满”图景也是对超验现实的回应，只不过这种回应迷失了目标。他们把这个目标的关键内容关在了门外。与此相反，我在前面所描述的宗教（再）皈依的结构性特征就是敞开地直面现实，在这种（再）皈依中，我们会感到自己冲破了一个狭小的牢笼，进入了一个更广阔的天地，并且开始以不同的方式来理解事物。[27] 可见，与“启蒙”和“现代性”脉络中的主流思想家截然相反，泰勒将“以人为本”的思维框架视为“牢笼”，而将朝向超验世界的宗教视为通向更广阔天地的门径。他认为，要解决现代性的根本问题，现代人就需要向宗教和超验现实敞开自己的心灵，也就是“从戒备森严的自我（buffered self）”重新调整到“敞开的自我（porous self）”。二 关于世俗化过程的理论主要有两种，一种将信众的减少和个人信仰的弱化视为世俗化的主要含义，并将科学的发展视为世俗化的主要原因，将宗教从公共空间的退出视为这种世俗化的结果；另一种则将宗教在社会生活中的边缘化视为世俗化的主要表现形式，将现代社会的制度性安排（政教分离、社会分工等等）视为原因，将个人信仰的衰落视为结果。这两种理论识别出两种世俗性：（1）公共空间的世俗化；（2）个人信仰的衰落。但泰勒在这本书里却着重研究第三种世俗性：“信仰的条件”的转变： 我想要界定和追溯的这种转变是这样的：它把我们从一个不可能不信上帝的社会带到一个信仰即使对于最虔诚的教徒来说也只是多种可能性之一的社会。对我自己来说，放弃我的信仰也许是不可想像的；但有许多其他人，包括我的亲朋好友，他们没有信仰（至少是不信上帝或者超验世界），但我却不得不坦率地承认他们的生活绝非贫乏的、盲目的或没有意义的。信仰上帝不再是理所当然的。存在许多其他选择。而且这还意味着，至少在某些社会环境中，一个人或许很难坚守自己的信仰。有些人会感到不得不放弃自己的信仰，尽管他们会为此哀伤一阵儿。[28] 信仰的条件包括社会的、政治的、法律的、思想的和文化的。他的思想史考察涉及众多教会圣哲和世俗大师，而且着重揭示思想观念之间的传承脉络。将任何一位思想家拿出来作为例子都会破坏这种论证理路，因此，对这部分内容的理解留待有兴趣的读者自己去阅读和思考。我这里只举一个教会史上的例子。 泰勒对基督教史的细致研究涉及教会史、教会与世俗社会关系史以及宗教哲学史等多个领域。他的中心命题是：基督教思想的自身发展和教会组织的自身改革为世俗化创造了最重要的条件。比如，1215年的第四次拉特兰会议是中世纪欧洲史上的重要事件，这次会议上通过的多项教会法令对此后的欧洲史产生了多面向的影响，单是追溯这些法令带来的后果就足以耗尽多位历史学家的毕生之功。泰勒选取了其中的几项导致“规训社会（disciplinary society）”之产生的教令，并分析了它们为“世俗时代”之来临所准备的条件。泰勒指出，科层式的互补性（hierarchical complementarity）是传统宗教社会的组织原则：独身的神职人员“为结婚生子的俗人祈祷并履行传教牧灵之责，后者则为前者提供支持。在更广的范围内，僧侣为所有人祈祷，化缘修士四处传教；其他人则提供布施、医疗服务等等。随着时间的推移，矛盾之间获得了均衡，其基础就是社会功能的互补性。”[29]但1215年拉特兰会议的一项教令要求全体俗人都要向神职人员做私密忏悔，并因此强化了对神职人员的培训，出版了大量神职人员培训手册，所有这些规训手段构成了所谓“正统实践（orthopraxis）”的一部分，并最终引发了新教改革这一系统性反弹。一项旨在将修道院生活方式扩展到凡人社会的改革为何反而导致了社会的进一步世俗化？在泰勒看来，这是因为一种不加分别的信仰模式的强制推行弱化了传统上的科层式社会互补结构，并为近代的无分殊的“平等”社会打下了基础。其实，如果将这一问题置入康德和韦伯的概念框架，其原因可能变得更加清楚。在《单纯理性限度内的宗教》中，康德区分了“作为偶像崇拜的宗教”和“作为道德行动的宗教”；而在其《宗教社会学论文集》的“前言”中，韦伯则区分了大众的宗教信仰与圣贤的宗教信仰。这两组区分都体现了对“分化的秩序构型（differentiated configurations of order）”的深刻理解。普通人生活在现世的关怀、纠葛和焦虑之中，信仰对他们来说多是一种寄托，是一种乞求心灵安宁、今生福报或来世净土的手段。试想，哪一位缺乏哲学训练的普通人能够理解这样一种境界：“无目标的专注是祈祷的最高形式”[30]？苦行只有对少数修道者来说才不是苦；受苦而不明其目的，其结果只能是苦本身，而不是超越苦难的彼岸。正因如此，一项旨在清除世俗世界“精神污染”的教会改革，导致了反对教会“强权”和“腐败势力”的社会运动。 第四次拉特兰会议上通过的另一项教令，第18号教令，在泰勒的研究中未曾被提及。在中世纪欧洲，神明裁判（ordeals）曾经长期被用作司法过程中的证明手段，这导致了司法的“形式非理性”。神明裁判分为两类：一类是单边的，即只要求诉讼一方（通常是被告）接受考验，考验的方式包括开水、冰水以及烙铁；另一类是双边的，即要求诉讼方法进行司法决斗（judicial duels）。第18号教令禁止神职人员为第一类神判祝福或主持其仪式，并一般性地反对在教会和世俗司法程序中采用司法决斗。由于神职人员的参与是第一类神判的正当性基础，所以，这一教令虽然没有直接禁止或反对这一类神判，却也直接导致了这种神判在欧洲多数法域的消亡。[31]比如，在英国，这一教令所导致的直接后果之一就是陪审制的兴起。而法官向外行陪审员发布详细指令的需要，又导致了普通法的理性化。[32]这个例子也从另一个侧面证明了泰勒的“基督教自身发展为世俗化创造了条件”这一命题。三 查尔斯·泰勒本人是一位天主教徒。在他1996年之前的作品中，他没有公开表达自己的宗教观点，以便“说服形而上学或神学信念各异的真诚思想者”都来认真思考他的哲学论证。[33]1996年，他获得了天主教圣母会奖（Marianist Award），在题为“一种天主教现代性？”的获奖演说中，他首次明确表达了自己的宗教观点。这些观点在《一个世俗时代》一书中得到进一步阐发。泰勒试图调和天主教神学与现代性之间的紧张关系，为此他指出：救赎之道在于体认上帝以各种形式给予的启示，这种多样性不仅体现为上帝作为三位一体，也体现在人间生活的多样性上面。在泰勒看来，天主教的一项原则是，信仰的拓宽（widening of the faith）有赖于“奉献形式、精神体验形式、礼拜仪式以及对道成肉身的反应形式的增加”[34]。在这种理解之下，天主教教义是一种“跨越差异的一体（unity-across-difference）”，而不是一种“通过认同而实现的一体（unity-through-identity）”。真正的天主教徒要勇于打破传统的条条框框，与信仰其他宗教乃至无神论的人士进行对话，并在此对话过程中通过交流与反思的辩证过程而深化自己的信仰。泰勒曾经将利玛窦（Matteo Ricci, 1552-1610）视为这个意义上的天主教徒的典范：为了向中国人民传播福音，利玛窦先后学习了佛教和儒家经典，并且与中国佛教高僧和饱学鸿儒进行了积极的对话，从而赢得了明朝士大夫的信任。[35]在《一个世俗时代》中，或许是由于接受了别的学者的批评，泰勒不再以利玛窦作为典范，但仍然将宗教间的对话视为协调宗教信仰与现代性之间关系、并且丰富宗教自身内涵的主要途径。 有趣的是，泰勒试图在多元主义的当代语境中为天主教信仰找到位置的努力与哈贝马斯从“方法论上的无神论”出发为多元价值的和平共处寻找方案的谋划有着惊人的相似之处。哈贝马斯认为，在当今的多元社会中，信仰宗教与不信仰宗教的公民相互负有“认知上的义务”[36]，他们应当参与“互补性的学习过程”[37]。这一对话过程要求人们保持开放的心态，认识到差异本身的价值，走出自己所归属的信仰体系划定的视界。但是，与泰勒不同的是，哈贝马斯所设想的交流平台不是天主教信仰，哪怕是开明的天主教信仰，而是“哲学”，抑或是罗尔斯所说的“公共理性”。宗教语言必须经过“拯救性的翻译”，才能进入公共对话的空间。哈贝马斯指出： 哲学不能直接援用作为宗教经验而在宗教话语中出现的语汇。只有当哲学采用一种自身的描述方式对这些经验进行识别之后，它们才能够汇入哲学资源自身的宝库，被认可为哲学自身的经验基础。这种描述方式不是取自某一特定宗教传统的语言，而是源自与启示事件脱钩的论辩性话语。在这样一种中立化翻译无法取得成功的冲突环节上，哲学话语必须承认自己的失败。[38] 哈贝马斯把这种“拯救性翻译”看得如此之重，以至于认为“一种不具破坏性的世俗化唯有在这种翻译模式中进行”。[39] 作为天主教思想家的泰勒与作为无神论哲人的哈贝马斯在“宗教于现代社会中如何自处”这个问题上的高度一致，或许是因为他们都清楚地看到了“后工业社会”或“后世俗社会”中人们重新寻找“意义”的需求。一项有趣的“人类发展”研究为我们提供了线索。 因格哈特和魏尔泽尔根据对六大洲的81个社会（占全球人口85%）所做的长达20年（1981-2001）的“价值调查”（Value Survey）得出结论说：对于现代化和经济发展与宗教信仰之间的关系，马克思和韦伯所提出的理论都没错，但需要放到一个动态的时间序列中加以整合。在前工业社会，由于生产力水平较低，人们忙于为生存而劳碌，对信仰的自我选择能力和自我选择空间都很小，所以根深蒂固的传统价值会主导人们的生活，也就是像泰勒所说的那样，曾经有那么一段时间，在欧洲，不信仰上帝是不可能的；在工业化社会，由于社会分工、大规模生产和复杂化社会组织的需要，理性化-世俗化价值逐渐取代了传统/宗教价值，而理性化-世俗化价值与专制或威权政府类型是兼容的，因为工业化要求集体规训和整齐划一的生活方式，在这个阶段，信仰宗教的人数会显著减少；到了后工业社会，由于生存安全已经不再成为人们所操心的事情，自我表达价值逐渐取代理性-世俗价值，人们开始追求多样化的生活方式，宗教在这个阶段会重新回到许多人的生活当中，民主、价值多元和自由会成为主流的政治诉求，在这个阶段，以人为本的发展（human development）会取代单纯的经济发展成为主流的发展模式。在这一宏观叙事框架中，对文化/宗教的理解可以分两个维度，一个维度是以传统价值和世俗-理性价值为两极，另一个维度是以生存价值（survival values）和自我表达价值（self-expression values）为两端，从这两个维度来看，发展与文化之间的关系有规律可循： 尽管一个社会的文化遗产会发生持续的作用，社会经济发展会以可预见的方式改变一个社会在这两个价值维度上的位置：随着劳动力从农业向工业的转移，人们的世界观倾向于从看重传统价值朝看重世俗-理性价值的方向转移。此后，随着劳动力从工业向服务业的转移，第二轮价值转换发生了，对生存价值的强调被对自我表达价值的侧重所代替。[40] 在目前这个时代，由于西方社会普遍进入了“后工业时代”，宗教作为“自我表达价值”而不是“传统价值”的一部分而重新出现，正因如此，泰勒发现“信仰”成了诸多选择中的一种。为了避免“诸神相争”，泰勒和哈贝马斯选择了“诸神对话”。 在“诸神并存”的现代多元社会，泰勒作为以为天主教徒所启动的“对话”，或许竟如同利玛窦在四个多世纪前与儒、佛进行的“对话”一样，是一次注定会失败的传教。多元而开放的天主教，一方面会被正统的天主教徒目为异端，另一方面仍然无法为非天主教徒接受为具有正当化力量的资源。化解“文明冲突”的方案，恐怕还是要到康德、洛克、韦伯、罗尔斯、哈贝马斯等“俗人”那里去寻找。尽管如此，泰勒的巨著还是值得我们认真阅读和考究的，每一位负责任的现代知识分子，都负有“认知上的义务”，去了解一位当代天主教大哲对现代处境的理解。[1] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. 874pp.[2] 香港大学法律学院[3] 参见：Michael Sandel, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in Age of Genetic Engineering, Harvard University Press, 2007。[4] Michael Walzer, Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar, et al. (eds), The Jewish Political Tradition, Volume 1: Authority, Volume 2: Membership, Yale University Press, 2000 and 2003, respectively.[5] Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009.[6] 他在这方面的已出版的研究成果主要是两本书：Charles Taylor, Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited, Harvard University Press, 2002; A Secular Age, 详情见注1。 [7] Templeton Prize，由英国的约翰·坦普尔顿基金会颁发，奖励“在人类精神现实领域有重大发现”的人士，目前奖金数额为100万英镑或200万美元。泰勒获奖时的奖金数额据说为80万英镑或150万美元。关于该奖项的情况，请访问其网页：http://www.templetonprize.org。 [8] Kyoto Prize，由日本稻盛财团颁发，素有“日本诺贝尔奖”之称，每四年评选一次，奖金为5000万日元另加京瓷株式会社股份，其中的“思想与伦理”奖项自1988年开始颁发，首位获奖者是“最伟大的印度学学者之一”、研究吠陀梵文的德国学者保罗·蒂姆（Paul Thieme, 1905-2001），此后的获奖者都是哲学家，他们分别是卡尔·波普尔（1992）、奎因（1996）、保罗·利科（2000）、哈贝马斯（2004）和查尔斯·泰勒（2008）。关于该奖的情况，请参见其网址：http://www.kyotoprize.org。[9] 见该书封底。[10] Charles Taylor, Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited, Harvard University Press, 2002.[11] Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Duke University Press, 2004.[12] Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, p.23.[13] 同上。[14] Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, p.25.[15] Georg Simmel, Fragmente undAufsdtze. Aus dem Nachlafi und Veroffentlichungen der letzten Jahre, Munich: Drei Masken-Verlag, 1923, 3.[16] Georg Simmel, Die Religion, Gesammelte Schriftenzur Religionssoziologie, ed. Horst-Jurgen Helle, Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt, 1989, 10:43-44.[17] Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, p.1.[18] 同上。[19] Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, Meiner, 2004. 中译本见：康德著：《单纯理性限度内的宗教》，李秋零译，中国人民大学出版社，2003。[20] Alkis Kontos, “The World Disenchanted, and the Return of Gods and. Demons”, in A Horowitz and T Maley (eds), The Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the Twilight of Enlightenment, University of Toronto Press, 1994, p.230.[21] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.575.[22] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.157.[23] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.570.[24] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.267.[25] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.768-769.[26] Georg Simmel, "Das Problem der religiasen Lage," Gesammelte Schriftenzur Religionssoziologie 14: 369.[27] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.768..[28] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.3..[29] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.44.[30] Simone Weil, Waiting for God，转引自：Peter E. Gordon, “The Place of the Sacred in the Absence of God: Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age,” Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 69, Number 4 (2008), p.648.[31] John W. Baldwin, “The Intellectual Preparation for the Canon of 1215 Against Ordeals,” Speculum, Vol.36, No.4 (Oct., 1961), pp.613-636.[32] S. F. C Milsom, A Natural History of the Common Law, Columbia University Press, 2003, pp.6-8.[33] Charles Taylor, “A Catholic Modernity?”, in J. L. Heft (ed.), A Catholic Modernity? Oxford University Press, p.13.[34] Charles Taylor, “A Catholic Modernity?”, in J. L. Heft (ed.), A Catholic Modernity? Oxford University Press, p.15.[35][1][1][1][35] 对于泰勒以利玛窦为典范而展开的论证，有学者提出了尖锐的批评：利玛窦到中国后先伪装成僧人，后来发现僧人在中国社会并不受尊重，又伪装为儒生，这些都是处于传教的功利考虑，而不是出于学习和对话的目的。参见：Ian Fraser, “Charles Taylor’s Catholicism,” Contemporary Political Theory, 2005, 4, 231-252。[36] Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion: Philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp, 2005, 11.[37] 同上，146。[38] Jürgen Habermas, “Transcendenz von innen, Transcendenz ins Diesseits,” in Texte und Kontexte, Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp, 1991, pp.127-56, 136.[39] Jürgen Habermas, Glauben und Wissen, Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp, 1991, 29.[40] Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.6.

The world's tallest skyscraper will open soon in Dubai, even as the emirate continues to be battered by the financial crisis. Is Burj Dubai an expression of failed megalomania or proof of Dubai leader Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's stunning vision?The view is clear, the air is soft and silky, and only a thick strip of red separates the sky and the sea at sundown. The boundary between grandeur and kitsch becomes blurred here, halfway up the Burj Dubai, the world's tallest tower.It smells of paint, varnish and new leather, and the steps of female visitors on parquet and marble produce an elegant-sounding echo that suddenly disappears when they step onto soft carpets. An artificial island in the shape of a palm tree is visible to the southwest, and farther to the north is a man-made archipelago that looks like a map of the world.But only the furniture, the carpets, the smells and the sounds are real. The rest is an illusion. The visitor isn't gazing out at the Persian Gulf from 400 meters (1,312 feet) up in the air; in fact, he or she is standing at ground level -- in a model apartment with an enormous mural stretched outside its floor-to-ceiling windows -- at the foot of a hermetically sealed building.The model apartment is located at the recently closed sales office of Emaar Properties, the real estate development company behind the Burj Dubai, which has over-extended itself -- with projects from India to Morocco -- and is now selling some of its condominiums at half the list price. After falling by 32 percent in last two weeks, Emaar's stock price gained 15 percentage points again last Thursday. Emaar, like the entire city, is on the brink of ruin, and yet it behaves as if nothing has happened.Dubai, like no other place in the world, epitomizes globalization, "innovation" and "astonishing progress," as US President Barack Obama said admiringly in his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo in June. But it also stands for mind-boggling excess. In Dubai, utopias almost feel real sometimes, and reality is sometimes nothing but a mirage.The tower, at any rate, is real. With its 160 habitable stories, it juts 818 meters (2,683 feet) into the sky. Tourists have to kneel down on the sidewalk to photograph the building in its entirety, from base to tip.The Burj Dubai is so tall that Bedouins can see it from their oases 100 kilometers (63 miles) inland and sailors can see it from their supertankers, 50 nautical miles out in the Gulf -- at least on the few winter days when the air is as clear as it's portrayed on the mural in front of the model apartment window.The tower is so enormous that the air temperature at the top is up to 8 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than at the base. If anyone ever hit upon the idea of opening a door at the top and a door at the bottom, as well as the airlocks in between, a storm would rush through the air-conditioned building that would destroy most everything in its wake, except perhaps the heavy marble tiles in the luxury apartments. The phenomenon is called the "chimney effect."AN ARMY OF IMMIGRANT WORKERSAn army of immigrant workers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who make up about two-thirds of Dubai's residents, built the Burj. Only one in five residents is considered a "local" entitled to a United Arab Emirates passport. Scores of marketing strategists take steps to ensure that no one scrapes away at the silver varnish of this architectural marvel.Security guards quickly remind anyone who comes too close to the construction site of the meaning of the word "unauthorized." Those who are invited to tour the building, or even just the grounds, are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, the terms of which are to be obey "finally, irrevocably and unconditionally." Anyone who violates the terms can expect to face a judge in Dubai.All of this will apply for only a little more than two weeks, until Jan. 4, 2010, the official opening date -- already rescheduled several times -- when the developers hope that the tower will begin serving its purpose as a magnet for a two-square-kilometer new development zone, where the wind was still blowing empty plastic bags across the desert sand only five years ago. And when the Burj Dubai opens, it will likely be one of the last major projects for some time in a city that has risen to dizzying heights and now faces the prospect of a precipitous fall.On a single day, Tuesday of last week, prices on Dubai's stock exchange fell by an average of 6 percent. The Islamic bond issued by real estate developer Nakheel fell to 52 cents a share, at a face value of $1 per share. The rating agency Moody's downgraded six other government-related firms to junk status. Hardly anyone believes that Dubai World, the largest of these companies, will be able to refinance its $26 billion debt within six months, as originally scheduled. The US bank Morgan Stanley predicts another drastic increase in the debt restructuring needs of Dubai's government-related firms to double the current level, or about $47 billion."Within a year, Dubai went from being the best-performing real estate market to one of the world's worst," writes the International Herald Tribune. Has the Persian Gulf emirate, once praised for its seemingly dazzling future, bitten off more than it can chew? Is the role model for a future-oriented Arabian Peninsula, with aspirations to become a hub of globalization between the East and the West, nothing less than a model for the future -- a failure?Ironically, it was the Wall Street Journal, standard-bearer of the West's brand of conservative capitalism, that warned against American and European arrogance and the tendency to write off the upstarts in the Gulf region and in the Third World in general. "The old centers ... view the Dubais, the Shanghais and the Rios with suspicion and with errant conviction that their models are built on foundations of sand, ready to collapse, when it was their own foundations that have proved to be weak," the paper writes. "Judging from the misguided reaction to Dubai's challenges, the past year hasn't changed those attitudes. That should make us worried, very worried, but not about Dubai."It is too early to sound the death bell for Dubai. That, at least, is the impression the sheikhs will try to make when they open the Burj Dubai in early January.A SUPREMELY ELEGANT EDIFICEStill, it would be condescending to dispute that the tower is an impressive, supremely elegant edifice, or that it is nothing less than graceful compared with the plain, cuboids from the age of functionalism or the gaudy, modern towers in places like Kuala Lumpur and Taipei.According to the tower's US architect, Adrian Smith, the floor plan, a central core surrounded by three lobes, is patterned on the blossom structure of the Hymenocallis flower, a shape that simultaneously creates more visible surface area and reduces the wind pressure acting on buildings this tall. As it tapers upward, one of the three lobes is shifted slightly backward about every eight floors, an effect that is reminiscent of an Islamic spiral minaret and provides the tower with 26 terraces. There will be an outdoor pool on one of the terraces, on the 78th floor, and the 124th floor (at 442 meters, or 1,450 feet, above sea level) will feature the world's third-highest observation deck.Uwe Hinrichs, 68, a native of the northern German city of Bremen, had already been involved in the construction of another Dubai landmark, the sail-shaped Burj-al-Arab Hotel, when he arrived on the construction site of his life in late 2004. The concrete foundation had already been poured, on top of 850 piles, driven up to 55 meters into the desert floor to support a load of 230,000 cubic meters of concrete and 31,000 tons of steel."From a construction standpoint," says Hinrichs, "the Burj Dubai is a relatively simple structure." One of the biggest challenges, according to Hinrichs, was the logistics of the project, an around-the-clock effort that lasted five years -- five years during which people, machines and material always had to be in the right place at the right time, 24 hours a day. Coordinating the whole thing was Hinrichs' job. His levelheaded northern German disposition proved advantageous in his position as chief coordinator, as did the fact that the people he reported to had no objection to the fact that he occassionally leaves Dubai to attend a concert in Vienna or a Rembrandt exhibition in Muscat in the neighboring country of Oman.PART 2: BAILOUTS FROM ABU DHABIIn 2004, a crew of about 2,000 people began building one floor at a time, completing an average of one per week. When interior construction entered its final phase in the fall of 2009, there were 14,000 people working on the project, people from 45 nations, speaking 35 different languages -- engineers in white helmets, security personnel in red helmets and laborers in blue helmets -- and yet there was no Babylonian linguistic confusion on the site. The workers completed a total of 95 million working hours, many at starvation wages. A skilled carpenter earned no more than €12 a day, while ordinary laborers made even less.Façade components were shipped from China, marble panels from Italy and veneers from Brazil. German companies were also involved in Burj Dubai's construction: Lopark, from the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia, supplied parquet flooring, entire football fields of it. The German branch of the US firm Guardian, based in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, provided 174,000 square meters (1.8 million square feet) of solar glass. Dorma, from Ennepetal in North Rhine-Westphalia, supplied hinges and fittings. Duravit provided approximately 4,000 bidets and toilets. And Miele delivered 7,650 household appliances -- the biggest single order in the company's history. Designer Giorgio Armani bought 15,200 plates and cups from Bavarian porcelain maker Rosenthal for his hotel on the first eight floors of the building.German companies also played important roles in the development and processing of the basic core material of the Burj Dubai: concrete. Because concrete dries too quickly at daytime temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), the concrete was poured at night. German chemical giant BASF developed a special chemical to make the concrete more malleable initially and later rigid. Putzmeister, a maker of concrete pumps near Stuttgart, provided special high-performance pumps to pump the concrete up to the 160th floor.Quietly and uneventfully, which was entirely to Hinrichs' liking, the tower grew, floor after floor -- until June 6, 2007, when the weather service at the airport e-mailed Hinrichs a satellite image showing a cyclone that had developed over the Indian Ocean, the biggest storm ever recorded in the region, which was heading directly for the Strait of Hormuz. "That was the only day in five years," says Hinrichs, "when we had to close the construction site."The Dubai tower had already surpassed all superlatives in building history. It had overtaken the 509-meter Taipei 101 Tower as the tallest inhabited building in the world, as well as Toronto's 553-meter CN Tower as the tallest freestanding structure. Dubai had arrived at what had become the most ambitious of its goals. The city, a village of pearl divers only a generation earlier, had brought a world record back to the Middle East. For almost four millennia, the Great Pyramid of Giza (138.8 meters) was the world's tallest man-made structure, before it was overtaken by Lincoln Cathedral in England (160 meters, at the time) in 1311.TREMORSWhat could now unhinge this economic miracle on the Gulf? A terrorist attack? A new Gulf war, this time against Iran? Another earthquake, even stronger than the one that hit the region on Sept. 10, 2008?On the day of the cyclone on Sept. 10, 2008, a crane operator working 700 meters above the ground had called Hinrichs to report that it was "shaking" where he was standing. Tremors had shaken the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas, but in Dubai, few (other than the crane operator) had even noticed.Five days later, Dubai was struck by another sort of tremor, but this one had its epicenter in New York, another city of skyscrapers. On Sept. 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers, the world's fourth-largest investment bank, filed for bankruptcy.Not just Dubai, but the West, too, had been building a tower in the years of the real estate boom, a tower of debt, which now came crashing down. But despite the vast sums of money involved in the crisis in the West, it was and largely remains a strangely abstract phenomenon. Not so in Dubai, however, which reflects the financial debacle more vividly than any other city in the world."Classic megalomania seems to have migrated from people's minds to the system itself. Nowadays the system is crazier than the people," says German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk. "That's why we, as human beings, are terribly disappointed by the course of the crisis. There was not a single colorful individual (in Europe) to make the crisis more interesting. I've never seen such an enormous conspiracy of petty bourgeoise people than at the moment."Sloterdijk may be right when it comes to the bankers, analysts and finance ministers of the West. But he apparently has never heard of Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, 60, a horse breeder and poet, a lover of fast powerful cars, an avid falconer and a juggler of billions. Maktoum is the ruler of Dubai and the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. "Many leaders make promises," he said in February 2008, when the Free University of Berlin awarded him its medal of honor, "but we deliver."Maktoum had artificial islands built in the waters off his city, with names like The Palm, The World and The Universe. Not just the Free University, but the entire West was fascinated by his energy and optimism. Like the thoroughbred horses in his racing stable, he sent the most capable of his lieutenants into the orbit of globalization, and along the way they built new towers, bought ports and sent airliners out into the world.'CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?'One real estate company after the next was founded -- Dubai Holding, Dubai Properties, Tatweer, Meraas, Sama -- and it soon became difficult to keep track of who was building what and with whose money. Apparently not even the sheikh himself was always in the know.Only about a year ago, investors were still crowding into the "CityScape Dubai" real estate convention. Former race-car driver Michael Schumacher was there, touting a skyscraper with a covered yacht berth. Nakheel, which is now in very dire financial straits, was seriously talking about the possibility of building a 1,000-meter tower. And, on the palm-shaped Jumeirah island, Dubai spent $20 million on fireworks to celebrate the opening of the fairytale Atlantis Hotel. "Crisis?" the city seemed to ask, "what crisis?"A year few weeks later, one of Sheikh Mohammed's officials presented the bill: Dubai had amassed $80 billion in debt, $50 billion of which, or about two-thirds of its gross domestic product, was scheduled to mature by 2013.For a few days, the sheikh suddenly disappeared from the scene. Rumors emerged he was ill and that he was "melancholy." Then he reappeared and began to whitewash the situation, claiming that the crisis had not affected Dubai, that Dubai had actually overcome the crisis, and that Dubai and its wealthy neighbor, Abu Dhabi, were as close and inseparable as brothers.But the "brothers" from the neighboring sheikdom, with whom the Dubaians form the bulk of the United Arab Emirates, no longer wanted any part of Dubai's excesses. Abu Dhabi has 7 percent of worldwide oil reserves, and its 64-year-old emir, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, is the president of the UAE, while Dubai's Sheikh Mohammed is only its premier -- and Abu Dhabi now views the prestigious activities of his relative in the neighboring emirate with growing mistrust, and probably some envy.At the beginning of the year, Abu Dhabi rescued Dubai from the worst of its problems with a $20 billion cash injection. The emirate stepped in again earlier this week, providing Dubai with an additional $10 billion in financial aid. The emirate may have abundant assets in its $500 billion sovereign wealth fund, but how much longer will it be willing to bailout its neighbor? The sheikhs of Abu Dhabi seem to prefer to spend their money on sounder, more sustainable projects, such as an emissions-free eco-city called Masdar, where the emirate plans to conduct research on projects for the post-petroleum age.In the last four weeks, the sheikh has revealed -- not always voluntarily -- how serious the crisis is and how deeply it affects him. At first, the normally restrained sheikh lost his composure and told the critical Western media to "shut up," and then he dismissed three of his closest advisers on the emirate's central financial council. A short time later, he waxed poetic when he described the crisis as "the fruit-bearing tree that becomes the target of stone-throwers."PART 3: A SYMBOL OF EARTHLY TEMPTATIONIn truth, Sheikh Mohammed, the poet-prince, has good reasons to look forward to the day when the Burj Dubai opens its doors. With one snip of the red ribbon, he will be taking up the thread of a great epic, a saga of humanity that goes well beyond the financial problems of a debt-ridden Gulf emirate. Once before, the Eastern World is said to have been the home another groundbreaking tower, in Babylon, the legendary Mesopotamian city between the Tigris and the Euphrates.Archeologists have confirmed that the Tower of Babel did indeed exist in the 3rd century B.C. They estimate that the skyscraper of antiquity was 90 meters tall, a marvel of the day, and was constructed on a platform that was 90 meters square. If this were true, the tower would have been one-ninth as tall as the latest wonder of the modern world. According to the Bible, the Tower of Babel was much more than a building, but rather a symbol of earthly temptation. "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves." These words, which sound strikingly like a motto of today's rulers of Dubai, are in fact from the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Even today, many of the faithful believe that endeavoring to be like God is a presumption that must invariably lead to punishment.MEGALOMANIA OR A GRAND ACHIEVEMENT?Nevertheless, the excessive building of cities and towers seems to be a cross-cultural constant, a dream and nightmare alike for mankind, from the Babylonians to the heroes and villains of the present. The ruler of Dubai isn't the only one who has carried out his plans in reinforced concrete and gleaming facades.President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan had Astana, an entire city of monumental avenues, triumphal arches and pyramids built as his new capital, where marble contrasts with granite, buildings are topped by gigantic glass domes and, on the Bayterek Tower, every subject can place his or her hand in a golden imprint of the president's hand.In the Burmese jungle, dictatorial generals had an absurd new capital, Naypyidaw, or "Seat of the Kings," conjured up out of nothing. Yamoussoukro, the capital of Côte d'Ivoire and a memorial to the country's now-deceased first president, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, is even a step closer to the brink. The city is filled with grandiose buildings, but there are hardly any people to be seen. The Basilica of Notre Dame de la Paix is a piece of lunacy inspired by the Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, but the African church is even bigger than St. Peter's. Indeed, it is the world's largest Catholic church.It is easy to ridicule the megalomaniacs and their hubris and to rail against the record-breaking mania reflected in their ostentatious buildings, phallic symbols of the rise to power of nouveau-riche potentates.And yet, aren't Brasilia and Canberra, the South American and Australian versions of the man-made model city, remarkable successes? Hasn't history proven at least a few visionaries right, people whose achievements we continue to marvel at today: the creators of Giza on the Nile, Machu Picchu in the Andes and Angkor in Cambodia, or the planners of St. Petersburg?Today, the pyramids of the pharaohs, the mountain fortress of the Incas and the sacral ruins of the Khmer are admired as part of the world's cultural heritage, places that attest to man's greatness. They are the great and magnificent achievements of past eras. Nowadays, the center of St. Petersburg -- designed on the drawing board, like Dubai today, more than 300 years ago -- is still considered an ideal city and an example of successful urban planning.Where the emirates are built on sand, the banks of the Neva River were once swampland. At the behest of the czar, St. Petersburg was not just created as Russia's window to the West, but as a reflection of what the modernists of the day defined as utopian. "Now, city of Peter, stand thou fast, Foursquare, like Russia; vaunt thy splendor! The very element shall surrender And make her peace with thee at last," Alexander Pushkin, the congenial poetic counterpart to Peter the Great, wrote in his poem "The Bronze Horseman." It was pure hubris, cast in the form of magnificent verse.What happens today in Dubai -- or in Shanghai or Astana -- generally happens under the conditions of an authoritarian form of government. In democracies, people cannot be dispossessed and driven off their property but, instead, can hire attorneys to assert their rights. In democracies, more or less reasonable building codes and ordinances, as well as licensed appraisers, ensure that uncontrolled growth and injustices are kept in check. But this limiting effect also applies to creativity, spontaneity and "positive" megalomania, resulting in a general leveling of things.THE VIRTUE OF TAKING THE PLUNGE"This society is mediocre," the poet and sharp-tongued contemporary critic Hans Magnus Enzensberger once wrote about German reality. "Its political leaders and its works of art are mediocre, as are its representatives and its taste, its joys, its opinions, its architecture, its media, its fears, vices and afflictions." And then, in his essay "Mediocrity and Delusion," Enzensberger writes: "There is something cathartic about this realization."Somewhere between Western suburbs and Yamoussoukro lies Dubai. Whether its Burj, its tower, will ever become a part of the world's cultural heritage is still open, as is the question of how long it will remain the world's tallest structure. China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are already planning towers that will be much taller than the Burj Dubai, reaching more than 1,000 meters into the sky.In the Book of Isaiah, the Bible describes the fall of Babel as follows: "And suddenly your downfall will come, and it will come unexpectedly." If the words of the Old Testament are to be believed, the megalomaniacal tower builders of today cannot expect external support: "Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast labored, even thy merchants, from thy youth: They shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee."The Burj Dubai was not cheap, and perhaps it was even unaffordable. But at least the sheikhs of Dubai have taught their contemporaries one virtue: the virtue of taking the plunge.

民族研究学界长期认为，中文“民族”一词不见于中国古代文献，是近代由日本创造并传入中国的外来词，这一通行多年且似乎已成定论的观点缺乏根据。在中国古代文献中，“民族”作为名词形式应用于宗族之属和华夷之别的一些例证，证明了“民族”一词是古汉语固有的名词。在近代中文文献中，现代意义的 “民族”一词出现在19世纪30年代。日文中的“民族”一词见诸19世纪70年代翻译的西方著述之中，系受汉学影响的结果。但是，“民族”一词在日译西方著作中明确对应了volk、ethnos和nation等词语，这些著作对nation等词语的定义及其相关理论，对清末民初的中国民族主义思潮产生了直接影响。“民族”一词不属于“现代汉语的中—日—欧外来词”。

在中国新时期文学史中，张承志无疑极鲜明地扮演了属于自己的角色。

1953年所作。

历史上南朝士族专政，士族阶层也主导了各文化领域的创造和发展。南朝士族普遍信仰佛教，在佛教文化建设方面倾注巨大力量。南朝士族佛教形成一些鲜明特色：多有高门人士出家为僧尼；士族阶层积极参与义学讲论和佛学著述；士族家族盛建塔寺和造像，热衷奉佛实践；这一阶层信仰心特别诚挚与热烈。这样，南朝士族所创造的佛教文化丰富多彩，具有重大价值，也为隋唐时期的佛教和佛教文化大发展奠定了基础。

古代印度人在语言学方面的成就是举世无匹的。伴随着佛教的输入中国，有一些印度语言学的知识也介绍过来。研讨这一门学问的不但有唐朝智广《悉昙字记》这样成部的著作，在一般的佛书中也常常有片段的论列。

书评：蒋庆：《政治儒学——当代儒学的转向、特质与发展》，生活•读书•新知三联书店2003年5月版

比发表版本多结尾两段。

史特拉汶斯基的作品「春之祭」，是難得以「儀式」為主題的現代作品，除了他本身是虔誠的東正教教徒外，還有許許多多的地方值得研究討論。

以往国内道教研究比之佛教研究较弱，但以两种《中国道教史》的出版为标志，道教研究迈入空前繁荣的境界。

臺灣地區的道教研究書目（1945-2000）

汤用彤先生则率先注意到了黄老学向黄老道术演变的轨迹,而这正是道家向道教演进的关键环节。

一百多年来，我们也多是听到“救救孩子”的呼声，很少听过要“救救老人”。

父亲是一家之主。古文“父”字像“手拿棍棒”，《说文解字》对“父”字的解释是：“矩也，家长率教者，从手举杖。”

本次调查（07年）青少年的网瘾人数为9.72%，说明青少年网络成瘾问题仍然是不容忽视的。男性青少年网瘾比例高出女性青少年7.18个百分点，18-23岁青少年网民中网瘾比例较高，为11.39%。其中，失业或无固定职业者、研究生和本专科学生网瘾比例最高，分别约为16.5%、14%和11%。网瘾青少年中“玩网络游戏”的比例（40.77%）高于非网瘾青少年（28.61%）将近13%。

简介

结合古典文化教育的任务问题，谈谈对这90年古今中西学术变迁的观察

妙的是陈映真在这篇小说中用了一个音乐典故――萧斯塔可维奇的第三交响乐，又名《五月一日》（劳动节）。