中國的多民族統一國家思想的根源，可以追溯到中國人（包括之後接受中國文化思想的人們）對世界的原初認識，追溯到在這種認識之上的人類與自然神靈之間建立的契約關係，以及為了遵守這種契約關係而形成的關於人與人之間、個人•共同體•社會•國家四者之間、文化與政治之間、權威與權力之間 、民族屬性與文化屬性之間關係的認識。只有在這一宏觀認識的基礎上，才能夠正確掌握中國多民族統一國家的歷史脈絡，理解中國多民族統一國家思想在各個時代的發展演變，理解各時代的民族關係和各個政權處理民族問題政策的得失，並進而思考近代民族問題發生的原因，找到解構近代民族問題的鑰匙。

《通往奴役之路》一书在哈耶克的学术生涯中占有极其重要地位，这本书为他赢得广泛的注意，他的世界性声誉就是由此奠定的。他在这本书中论证道，当时正在计划中的福利国家不是为个人自由的战斗在和平时期的继续，倒是朝着专制的方向迈出了一步。因此，他认为追求计划经济，其无意识后果必然是极权主义。为了反对这种计划经济，哈耶克有力地重申了他一贯坚持的古典自由主义观点，同时，也允许适度的政府活动，但这仅限于符合他的法治概念的那些活动形式。应该强调的是，哈耶克的自由主义包括对许多有用的社会制度的赞赏，但这些制度只能是人的自发行动的后果，而不能是人设计的结果。这一论点是从休漠、亚当・斯密和苏格兰历史学派那里继承过来的，它在哈耶克的著作中占据了重要位置。由此出发，哈耶克认为，良好的社会不是简单地依赖于在政府所提供的法律框架内追求私利，相反，它应依赖于一套复杂的法律、道义传统和行为规则的框架，这套框架的特点应该为大多数社会成员所理解和认同。<br />这部著作从问世直到今天，一直在学术界中存有争议。其中，一个重要原因在于这本书本身的内在悖论。我们知道，哈耶克这本书的观点来源于关于市场和其它非主观设计的制度所具有的“自发秩序”的特性的思想。这种思想使哈耶克遇到一些难以解决的问题，使他不可避免地陷于社会进化和团体选择的争端之中。他对选择机制特点的论述与自由主义的关系并不总是清楚的。这些论点的非理性特征与其高度理性的几近乌托邦的新自由主义思想，形成鲜明的对照。《通往奴役之路》一书所存在的这种缺陷，日后也为作者本人意识到，他在后来出版的《自由宪章》和《法律、立法和自由》三部曲中，多处涉及这个难题，试图将古典自由主义与“进代”的主题结合起来。至于这一尝试成功与否，尚有待评说，但哈耶克及其著作无疑对学术界产生了重要影响，并对政治思想领域中古典自由主义的复兴发挥了极大的作用。

Described by Noam Chomsky as 'a very important book', Guy Standing's The Precariat has achieved cult status as the first account of this emerging class of people, facing lives of insecurity, moving in and out of jobs that give little meaning to their lives.
Guy Standing warns that the rapid growth of the precariat is producing instabilities in society. It is a dangerous class because it is internally divided, leading to the villainisation of migrants and other vulnerable groups. And, lacking agency, its members may be susceptible to the siren calls of political extremism. He argues for a new politics, in which redistribution and income security are reconfigured and in which the fears and aspirations of the precariat are made central to a progressive strategy.
Since first publication of this book in 2011, the precariat has become an ever more significant global phenomenon, highly visible in the Occupy movement and in protest movements around the world.
In a new preface Guy Standing discusses such developments - are they indicative of the emergence of a new collective spirit, or do they simply reveal the growing size and growing anger of this new class?

对魏晋之际的诸种研究，大体是站在陈寅恪先生相关论述的延长线上加以发展、修正，运用政治集团学说所具有的利弊在这一时段的研究中也有充分的体现。自从1980年代以来，涌现了不少从个别历史事件的考证入手，通过细节的考证复原魏晋之际政治变局的佳作，本书之作亦得益于此。《魏晋之际的政治权力与家族网络》采取将政治史与家族史研究相结合的方式，一方面在政治史的脉络中探讨西晋权力结构从形成到崩溃的过程，另一方面考察魏晋大族之间的政治、婚姻、交往网络，探究这一网络在魏晋政治变局中发挥的作用。

Rebellion was in the air. Workers were on strike, students were demonstrating on campuses, discipline was breaking down. No relation of domination was left untouched – the relation between the sexes, the racial order, the hierarchies of class, relationships in families, workplaces and colleges. The upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s quickly spread through all sectors of social and economic life, threatening to make society ungovernable. This crisis was also the birthplace of the authoritarian liberalism which continues to cast its shadow across the world in which we now live.
To ward off the threat, new arts of government were devised by elites in business-related circles, which included a war against the trade unions, the primacy of shareholder value and a dethroning of politics. The neoliberalism that thus began its triumphal march was not, however, determined by a simple ‘state phobia’ and a desire to free up the economy from government interference. On the contrary, the strategy for overcoming the crisis of governability consisted in an authoritarian liberalism in which the liberalization of society went hand-in-hand with new forms of power imposed from above: a ‘strong state’ for a ‘free economy’ became the new magic formula of our capitalist societies.
The new arts of government devised by ruling elites are still with us today and we can understand their nature and lasting influence only by re-examining the history of the conflicts that brought them into being.

"Recognition" has become a veritable keyword of our time, but its relation to economic "redistribution" remains untheorized. This volume remedies the lacuna by staging a debate between two philosophers, one North American, the other European, who hold different views of the matter. Highly attuned to contemporary politics, the exchange between Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth constitutes a rigorous dialogue on moral philosophy, social theory, and the best way to conceptualize capitalist society.