【作者】 孙宜晓；

【导师】 郑忆石；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 国外马克思主义研究， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文的主旨是阐释、论证、概括和揭示葛兰西历史主义思想的内涵、理论架构、特点、影响及其启示。全文分七个部分：第一章、葛兰西与历史主义。从词源学、理论渊源、内涵及其表现形态等方面介绍历史主义的概貌。分析葛兰西历史主义的来源、所属的思想流脉,包括对维科、黑格尔、拉布里奥拉和克罗齐等人的历史主义分析及其对葛兰西的影响。从理论与现实两个层面,揭示葛兰西历史主义情结的成因。第二章、批判与重建：葛兰西历史主义内涵。首先,分析和概括葛兰西对克罗齐思辨唯心历史主义和布哈林实证主义马克思主义的批判,葛兰西对两者共同理论缺陷的揭示：都背离了马克思主义理论与实践相统一的历史主义原则。其次,阐释葛兰西历史主义内涵：实践哲学是自足的历史理论,马克思主义哲学不能简单地划分为辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义,而是通过克服传统二元论,在论域和主题的转换中体现出它就是一种历史理论,即历史唯物主义；实践哲学历史主义的本质是理论与实践的统一,概言之,即哲学就是历史、哲学就是政治、哲学就是意识形态,通过发挥实践哲学的意识形态功能,使理论与实践、知识分子与群众有机结合,以实现理论批判和实践批判的辩证统一；实践哲学是历史的产物,它历史主义地看待自身；历史主义作为一种方法论,不仅重视对事物进行历时性或过程性的考察,而且强调逻辑与历史、理论与实践的统一第三章、实践哲学：葛兰西历史主义理论构架。从世界观、历史观、辩证法和认识论等维度,阐述历史主义在葛兰西实践哲学中的具体表现。世界观上,实践哲学以人类社会及其实践作为观察整个世界的视角,把脱离人类实践之外的外部世界当作宗教神学加以排斥；将物质纳入人类实践范围,视为实践的构成要素；从实践或历史的角度审视自然,视其为社会历史范畴。历史观上,视人类历史为实践基础上不断生成的过程,以实践批判机械决定论、庸俗进化论和超验论；强调人的主体性和历史发展的多样性、偶然性。辩证法上,批判克罗齐精神差异辩证法和布哈林机械唯物主义辩证法,揭示其共同缺陷在于将辩证法与现实历史相脱离；将马克思主义辩证法视为“合理辩证法”,即在实践基础之上探讨历史运动发展的辩证法,历史内容是辩证法探讨的对象；承认人化自然辩证法而否认自在自然辩证法。认识论上,坚持经验主义认识论,视认识为实践基础上不断生成的历史过程；将认识活动和政治活动紧密结合,视争取认识的客观性和真理性为争取文化霸权的政治活动；将自然科学纳入上层建筑范围,并在将其历史化中,挖掘隐藏其背后的历史文化因素。第四章、人道性、内在性、总体性：葛兰西历史主义特征。本章将葛兰西实践哲学的历史主义特征概括为人道性、内在性和总体性。实践哲学的人道主义特征在于：在批判克罗齐人道主义的抽象性和揭示机械唯物主义否定人的主体能动性的同时,从人的本质、价值观、实践观和历史观等角度,揭示实践哲学历史主义中蕴含的人道性。实践哲学的内在论特征在于：尽管葛兰西、克罗齐都用内在论反对超验论,但与克罗齐把一切(包括理论)都内在于精神不同,葛兰西的实践哲学把理论看作内在于历史,是历史的产物并历史主义地看待自身。实践哲学的总体性特征在于：视总体性为阐释历史主义思想的重要方法论原则,总体性方法不仅包括各种要素间相互联系构成的有机整体,而且包括相互联系的要素整体的发展过程构成的历史整体；从历史主义视角运用总体性方法,阐释了理论与实践、哲学与历史、知识分子与群众的辩证关系。第五章历史主义的同与异：葛兰西与早期西方马克思主义。在上述各章对历史主义分析的基础上,通过分析卢卡奇和柯尔施的历史主义,并与葛兰西相关思想进行比较,揭示葛兰西历史主义与早期其他西方马克思主义者之间的关系。第一节,重点分析卢卡奇的历史主义。借助黑格尔的“实体即主体”,卢卡奇在恢复马克思主义主客体辩证法中,致力于实现理论与实践的统一：在反对第二国际自然主义的自然本体论中,强调马克思主义哲学是历史本体论和历史辩证法；而强调过程性、历时性的方法同样是卢卡奇历史主义的重要内容。第二节,集中阐释柯尔施的历史主义。在批判各种否认马克思主义哲学的倾向中,柯尔施通过探讨马克思主义辩证法和黑格尔辩证法的内在联系,恢复了马克思主义理论与实践相统一的辩证法；在哲学与历史的关系上,视马克思主义哲学为现实历史的一部分,并将哲学史根植于人类社会历史之中。第三节,葛兰西历史主义和卢卡奇、柯尔施历史主义的比较分析。理论共同点在于：理论视角上,三者都反对自然主义倾向,强调从历史的视角理解马克思主义哲学；都强调马克思主义是意识形态,以恢复马克思主义理论与实践相统一的革命本质；都重视马克思主义的哲学传统。在哲学与历史的关系上,三者都视马克思主义哲学为现实历史的观念表达,认为马克思主义哲学就是历史唯物主义,马克思主义辩证法是历史辩证法,在反对教条主义中历史主义地看待马克思主义哲学自身。历史主义特征上,三者都具有人道性、总体性。其理论差异性在于：在人道性特征上,卢卡奇具有伦理抽象性；葛兰西历史主义则是现实实践的人道主义。在与黑格尔的关系上,柯尔施与卢卡奇,尤其是卢卡奇,具有将认识与实践等同的思辨性；葛兰西则立足实践,坚持理论源于实践的唯物主义立场。在本体论根基上,尽管卢卡奇和柯尔施都强调历史主义的本质是理论与实践的统一,但却是借助于总体性的辩证法去实现统一,而忽视了马克思主义哲学的实践本体；葛兰西则不仅把实践看作人的存在方式,而且看作现实感性世界和人类历史的存在基础,并竭力将理论与实践的统一奠定于实践之上。第六章、历史主义与反历史主义：葛兰西与科学派的西方马克思主义。主要从三个方面揭示和概括阿尔都塞对葛兰西历史主义的批判及其理论功过。首先,阿尔都塞肯定了葛兰西历史主义的本质,是理论与实践、哲学与历史的统一,但指责葛兰西只是在重复马克思主义关于理论与实践辩证关系的观点。由于他坚持认为马克思主义是“理论实践的理论”,而最终导致了其理论与实践的分离。其次,阿尔都塞责难葛兰西在科学与意识形态关系上的理论失误,是忽视了马克思思想发展中的“认识论断裂”,以及将科学等同于意识形态而隶属于上层建筑,批判葛兰西因混淆宗教与马克思主义,而有导致贬低和误解马克思主义的危险。但阿尔都塞的批判本身却将科学与意识形态加以绝对对立。最后,阿尔都塞批评葛兰西在对马克思主义哲学的界定上,仅仅将其理解为历史唯物主义,而否认了辩证唯物主义同样是马克思主义哲学的固有组成部分,批判了葛兰西对唯物主义的偏见。结尾：影响与启示：葛兰西历史主义的后世影响。分析葛兰西历史主义对西方马克思主义的影响,对当代中国马克思主义建设的理论启示。葛兰西历史主义所体现出实践哲学的世俗性、现实性、批判性等本质特征,对法兰克福学派及其后现代主义马克思主义产生了深远影响。葛兰西历史主义中凸显的马克思主义现实性、实践性、群众性,为当代中国马克思主义的理论研究中,如何正确处理马克思主义理论与当代中国现实、意识形态性与科学性的关系等等,提供了有益的启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 The purpose of this dissertation is to interpret, demonstrate, generalize and reveal the meaning, theoretical structure, characteristics, influence and inspirations of Gramsci’s historicism. It consists of seven parts as follows:ChapterⅠ, Gramsci and historicism. To produce a profile of historicism from the etymological, theoretical original, connotative and manifestational points. Analyze the historical source of Gramsci’s historicism and the school of thought it belongs to, including the impact from Vico, Hegel, Labriola, Croce and so on. Explore the causes of Gramsci’s complex of historicism from both theoretical and realistic level.ChapterⅡ, Criticism and Reconstruction:contents of Gramsci’s historicism. First, Gramsci criticizes the speculative idealist historicism of Croce and positivism Marxism of Bukharin, reveals their common theoretical flaw that deviates the integral principle of theory and practice in Marxism’s historicism. Second, the illumination of the connotation of Gramsci’s historicism:praxis philosophy is self-contained, Marxism philosophy cannot be simply divided into dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it is a historical theory or historical materialism which overcomes the dualism and changes the domain and themes of traditional philosophy; The essence of philosophy of praxis is the unity of theory and practice, in one word, philosophy is history, philosophy is politics, philosophy is ideology. Not only the theory and practice but also the intellectuals and masses are organic combination through the intermediary of ideology, so that attain the dialectical unity of theoretical criticism and practical criticism; Philosophy of praxis is the product of history, it changes with the history; As a methodology, historicism not only emphasizes the analysis of diachronic or process but also requires the unity of logic and history, theory and practice.ChapterⅢ, Philosophy of praxis:the structure of Gramsci’s historicism. Elaborate the concrete manifestations of historicism in Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis From the view of world and history, dialectics and epistemology. In world view, praxis philosophy observes the entire world from the perspective of human society and it’s practice, to exclude the outside world which separates from human practice as a religion and theology, to take the material as an integrant element of human practice, to regard nature as a social and historical category while observe it from the respective of practice or history. In the view of history, to see history as a becoming process based on practice, with the mechanical determinism, vulgar evolutionism and transcendentalism replaced by the theory of practice; highlight the human subjectivity and diversity or fortuity of history development. In dialectics, Gramsci Criticizes Croce’s dialectics of distinction and Bukharin’s mechanical materialism dialectics, reveals their common drawback that the dialectics is separated from reality; Marxist dialectics is a "rational dialectics" which researches the laws of history practically and takes history as its object; Gramsci only ackownledges the dialectic of humanized nature, while denies the dialectic of nature-in-itself. In epistemology, Gramsci adheres to empiricism that recognizes knowledge as continuous becoming process on the basis of practice; advocates the combination between cognitive activities and political activities to take the fighting for objectivity and truth as political activities for culture hegemony. Science of nature which belongs to superstructure, can be historicized and excavated from the behind historical and culture factors.Chapter IV, Humanism, immanence, totality:the characters of Gramsci’s historicism. The characters of Gramsci’s historicism are summarized as humanism, immanence and totality in this chapter. The humanism character consists in:While Gramsci criticizes the abstract humanism of Corce and the mechanical materialism that denies initiative of subject, he reveals implicit humanism from historicism of philosophy of praxis on the perspectives of human nature, values, practice, the view of history and so on. The character of immanence consists in:Both Gramsci and Croce use immanentism to criticize transcendentalism, but Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis which considers theory as immanent in history and the product of history is different from Croce’s immanentism which puts everything (including the theory) into the spirit. The character of totality consists in:Totality is an important methodology for exposition Gramsci’s historicism. The methodology of totality not only includes an organic entirety which comprises linkages between various elements, but also includes the "whole" history of the development of organic entirety; The character of totality is imbodied in the exposition of important issues of Gramsci’s historicism, such as theory and practice, philosophy and history, the intellectuals and the masses etc.ChapterⅤ, The identity and difference of historicism:Gramsci and the Early Western Marxism. Based on the analysis of historicism mentioned in previous chapters, the paper reveals the relationships of Gramsci’s Historicism and other early Western Marxists through analyzing the historicism of Lukacs and Korsch and comparing with Gramsc’s. Section one, focuses on the analysis of Lukacs’s historicism. With Hegel’s "entity is subject", Lukacs expects to realize the unity of theory and practice through reinstating Marxist dialectics of subject and object; Lukacs emphasizes that Marxist philosophy is historical ontology and historical dialectics in criticism of natural ontology insisted by naturalism of the Second International; The stress on the method of procedure and diachronism is also an important aspect of Lukacs’s historicism. Section two, aims to elaborate Korsch’s historicism. By criticizing various tendencies which deny Marxist philosophy, Korsch reinstates the unity of theory and practice of Marxist dialectics through researching the interrelationships between Marxist dialectic and Hegelian dialectics; In the relationship between philosophy and history, Korsch thinks that Marxist philosophy is a part of reality as well as the history of philosophy is rooted in the history of human society. Section three, compares Gramsci’s historicism with Lukacs and Korsch’s. The identities of their theory are that:In the perspective of theory, all of them object to the naturist trend and emphasize to interpret Marxist philosophy from the perspective of history; In order to restore the unity of theory and practice which is the Critical feature of Marxism, they all stress that Marxism is ideology; They all attach importance to philosophical traditions of Marxism; In the relationship between philosophy and history, Marxist philosophy is historical materialism which is a reflection of the reality. Marxist dialectics is historical dialectics; In the fight against dogmatism, they treat Marxist philosophy historically; They all stress the characters of historicism such as humanist, totality and so on. The differences of their theories are as follows:humanism of Lukacs’s historicism is abstract ethical humanism, while Gramsci’s historicism is practical humanism of reality; In the relationship with Hegel, especially as far as Lukacs is concerned, he identifies the theory and practice which is full of speculative characteristic. While Gramsci insists that the theory comes from practice; In the aspect of ontological foundation, although Lukacs and Korsch stress that the essence of historicism is the unity of theory and practice, they achieve this unity only with the help of dialectic of totality. rather than the practice which constitutes the foundation of the ontology of Marxist philosophy. In the opinion of Gramsci, practice is not only the way of human existence, but also a foundation of perceptual world and human history, the unity of theory and practice is based on practice.ChapterⅥ, historicism and anti-historicism:Gramsci and the scientific Western Marxism. To summarise and reveal Althusser’s critiques of Gramsci’s historicism and generalize it’s merits and defects from three aspects mainly. First, Althusser affirms that the unity of theory and practice, philosophy and history is the essence of Gramsci’s historicism, but he criticizes that Gramsci’s opinion is only repeating the dialectical relationship between theory and practice of Marxism. For Althusser adheres to Marxism as a "theory of theoretical practice", eventually resulting in his theory separate from practice. Second, in the relationship between science and ideology, Althusser blames Gramsci’s flaw that he ignores the epistemological break in development of Marx’s thought and identified science with ideology which can be attributed to superstructure. Althusser criticizes Gramsci’s mistake that he confuses religion and Marxism which leads him to denigrating and misunderstanding of Marxism, but science and ideology are opposite absolutely in Althusser’s critique. Finally, in the relationship between dialectical materialism and historical materialism, Althusser criticizes Gramsci’s bias against materialism that Marxist philosophy is not understood as dialectical materialism but merely historical materialism.The end:Influence and Inspirations:influence of Gramsci’s historicism. Analyze the influence of Gramsci’s historicism to western of Marxism and the inspirations for the construction of contemporary Chinese Marxist theory. Secularity, realism, criticism and other essential characteristics of Gramsci’s historicism has had a profound influence on the Frankfurt School and the post-modernism of Marxism. The prominence of realism, practicality and popularity in Marxism provides a useful inspirations for contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical research on how to correctly handle the relationship of Marxism and the reality of contemporary China, as well as the relationship of Marxist ideology and the scientific nature of Marxism.更多还原