《支配社会学》包括了支配的结构及其功能形态、官僚制支配的本质、前提条件及其开展、家父长制支配与家产制支配、封建制、身份制国家与家产制、卡理斯玛支配及其变形、政治支配与教权制支配。

Review
"The essays appearing in the collection 'Transitions from Authoritarian rule'...will serve as reference points for students of redemocratization for years to come. Other essays will serve as classic case studies...the volumes deserve to be read time and again."--Nancy Bermeo, 'Comparative Politics'
Review
"The essays appearing in the collection Transitions from Authoritarian rule... will serve as reference points for students of redemocratization for years to come. Other essays will serve as classic case studies... the volumes deserve to be read time and again." -- Nancy Bermeo, Comparative Politics

本項獲得高度讚譽的研究，檢視了從事人群服務的基層官僚組織，其中包括了學校、法院以及社會福利機構等，因為所有的政策都是由這些基層官僚組織所加以執行的。直接面對社會大眾的教師、警察、提供法律服務的律師以及社工人員等，必須處理諸如龐大的工作量、模糊不清的機構目標，以及有限的資源等等問題。由於這些「基層官僚」擁有必要而廣泛的自由裁量權，因此，他們的工作模式以及傾向，將會大幅度地影響到實際執行的公共服務政策。
本書榮獲1980年的「社會問題研究學會」（Society for the Study of Social Problems）所頒贈的「萊特．米爾斯獎」（C. Wright Mills Award），並且也被美國政治學協會（American Political Science Association）提名為1981年的「葛雷迪斯．卡默勒獎」（Gladys M. Kammerer Award）的共同獲獎者。
本書作者麥可．李普斯基（Michael Lipsky）目前為美國麻省理工學院的政治學教授。
「一部豐富、成熟的學術作品……一本絕佳的好書！」－－葉茲（Douglas Yates），《美國政治學評論》（American Political Science Review）「發人深省、文字清晰流暢，而且書中充滿了對於人群服務組織裡的服務模式與實務運作的深刻洞見……本書對學術界是一大貢獻！」－－韓森費爾德（Yeheskel Hasenfeld），《社會服務評論》（Social Service Review）
「一項承先啟後的研究……在這個廣泛的主題上面，本書是目前為止觀察最為清楚、而且分析過程也最為引人入勝的作品。」──維爾達夫斯基（Aaron Wildavsky）「具有高度的啟發性……對於提供人群服務的基層官僚組織，以及其所服務的當事人之間的互動關係，本書提供了極為珍貴的資訊。」－－瑞斯曼（Frank Riessman），《社會政策》（Social Policy）編輯
「在都市事務與行政管理方面，本書是近年來最為重要的書籍之一。」－－《選擇》雜誌（Choice）

The flourishing role of the private sector in security management over the last twenty years has challenged state control of the legitimate use of force. Deborah Avant examines the privatization of security and its impact on the control of force. She describes the growth of private security companies, explains how the industry works, and describes its range of customers--including states, non-government organizations and commercial transnational corporations. Avant also charts the inevitable trade-offs that the market for force imposes on the states, firms and people wishing to control it, and suggests a new way to think about the control of force.

本书系统全面地阐述了有关中国民主的一系列重要话题，这些问题影响到全人类21世纪的战争与和平，同时也对中国共产党执政命运有决定性影响。作者深刻阐述了影响中国民主化导向的一系列因素和力量。对那些有道德良知喜欢思考问题的读者来讲，本书实属不可不读的佳品。

在本书中，斯考切波要揭示的是，国家结构、国际力量和阶级关系这三种要素是如何结合在一起，共同导致了社会革命转型的起源与成就。从18世纪90年代的法国到20世纪70年代的越南，社会革命虽然很少发生，但却在现代世界历史上具有无可否认的重要性。《国家与社会革命》提供了一种新的参照框架，以分析这种革命的原因、冲突和后果。而且、该书对三个主要的案例进行了深入而严肃的比较历史分析，这三个案例是：从1787年到19世纪初期的法国革命、从1917年到20世纪30年代的俄国革命和从1911年到20世纪60年代的中国革命。    作者认为，现有的革命理论，不适合用来解释革命的实际历史模式。因此，作者力促我们采用一种新的分析视角。她主张进行结构性论而非意志论的分析，强调跨国性世界-历史背景对国内政治冲突的重要作用。首先，她坚持认为，国家应该被看成是一套行政和强制组织、在阶级控制和阶级利益面前具有潜在的自主性，因此，在解释社会革命时，必须把国家置于核心地位。    为了解释法国、俄国、和中国旧制度的导向革命性政治危机的内在矛盾，斯考切波主要集中考察了国家在两个方面的基本关系：一方面是国家的统治者及其官员与国际竞争者之间的关系；另一方面是国家的统治者及其官员与支配阶级之间的关系。在解释革命的后果时，她着重关注的是，在阶级冲突和反革命军事威胁的背景下，革命领导集团建立新国家组织的方式。在革命政权得以巩固之后，她强调的是国家权力被用来改造社会的方式。在社会革命转型的模式方面，法国、俄国和中国被当成是基本类似的案例。对那些把法国革命当成是典型的资产阶级革命、或者是把俄国革命基本上看成是无产阶级的社会主义革命的理论家而言，作者的这种观点必然会引出激烈的争论。

学者们通常认为，社会运动研究和政党研究互不相干、截然不同。事实上，二者深深地交织在一起。社会运动常常塑造选举竞争和政党政策，甚至能导致新政党的出现，同时，政党和政治活动塑造社会运动的机遇、人员结构和结果。在很多国家里，选举民主制本身就是社会运动的产物。本书考察了自20世纪50年代以来发生在美国乃至全世界的社会运动和政党政治之间的交互作用。本书揭示出，在对美国公民权运动、新左翼、捷克斯洛伐克持不同政见者运动、墨西哥人争取民主的斗争以及其他种种事件的研究中，如若忽视政党政治和社会运动之间的紧密关系，就不可能理解这些事件。

Nation-Building and Citizenship examines how states and civil societies interact in their formation of a new political community. Reinhard Bendix directs our attention to relations established between individual and state during nation-building. While the development of citizenship and the interplay between tradition and modernity are important in this process of social and political change, his key theme is the examination of authority patterns.
Bendix explores in depth the possibilities of an alternative approach to the neo-evolutionary orientation many social scientists take in their analyses of the underdeveloped areas of the world. The subjects he discusses include transformations of Western European societies since medieval times, extension of citizenship to the lower classes, bureaucratization in the nation-state, private and public authority in Western Europe and Russia, aristocracies and development in Germany and Japan, and the development of public authority in India's political community. The book concludes with a reconsideration of ideas widely held about tradition, modernity, and modernization.
In a new introduction, John Bendix writes that what continues to make this book relevant is not only what it can tell us about past and present nation-building, including the transformations of the 1980s and 1990s, but its more general messages about the nature of social and political transformations. Nation-Building and Citizenship is a necessary addition to the libraries of political scientists, sociologists, historians, and scholars of comparative studies.

What does the durability of political institutions have to do with how actors form knowledge about them? Andreas Glaeser investigates this question in the context of a fascinating historical case: socialist East Germany's unexpected self-dissolution in 1989. His analysis builds on extensive in-depth interviews with former secret police officers and the dissidents they tried to control as well as research into the documents both groups produced. In particular, Glaeser analyzes how these two opposing factions' understanding of the socialist project came to change in response to countless everyday experiences. These investigations culminate in answers to two questions: why did the officers not defend socialism by force? And how was the formation of dissident understandings possible in a state that monopolized mass communication and group formation? He also explores why the Stasi, although always well informed about dissident activities, never developed a realistic understanding of the phenomenon of dissidence. Out of this ambitious study, Glaeser extracts two distinct lines of thought. On the one hand he offers an epistemic account of socialism's failure that differs markedly from existing explanations. On the other hand he develops a theory - a sociology of understanding - that shows us how knowledge can appear validated while it is at the same time completely misleading.

本书由雷蒙·阿隆和丹尼尔·贝尔共同主编，从社会学、政治学、哲学、法学、文学分析和文体论的视角对托克维尔的民主思想进行了梳理，显示出诠释和评论方法的不同性。正如导言所说：“它汇集了不同地区和机构的研究人员和知识分子的论述，他们的鼎鼎大名足以标志近几十年来托克维尔研究的强劲势头，以及作为今天后继有人保障的青年研究人员近期著述成果。”

作为一部政治哲学的导论性作品，本书既不是政治思想史的纵向叙述，也不是政治意识形态的平行罗列，而是以这一古老学科的基本问题为中心，呈现重要的理论争论并展开批判性的分析。全书围绕政治权威、权利与美德、社会正义三大主题，聚焦于西方现代的相关理论争鸣，同时兼顾政治哲学史的视野，以富有启发性的方式呈现了一幅论辩式的、开放的政治哲学理论图景。

This is the revised version of Peter Laslett's acclaimed edition of Two Treatises of Government, which is widely recognised as one of the classic pieces of recent scholarship in the history of ideas, read and used by students of political theory throughout the world. This 1988 edition revises Dr Laslett's second edition (1970) and includes an updated bibliography, a guide to further reading and a fully reset and revised introduction which surveys advances in Locke scholarship since publication of the second edition. In the introduction, Dr Laslett shows that the Two Treatises were not a rationalisation of the events of 1688 but rather a call for a revolution yet to come.

我們該如何詮釋中國共產黨出人意料的革命軌跡？為什麼中國共產黨會走上與俄國模式大相逕庭的道路？裴宜理教授認為，箇中原因在於中國共產黨從革命起義到奪取政權及之後的各階段中創新地發展和部署文化資源。毛澤東、他的同志們以及其繼任者通過精巧地運用「文化置位」和「文化操控」建立其獨有的政治形態，使人們逐漸接受那曾經陌生的共產主義體系，成為熟悉的「中國特點」。在革命初期，毛澤東和黨的早期領導人曾在安源煤礦發動過一次影響深遠的工人運動，裴宜理教授以此地為案例進行分析。安源曾被認為是「中國的小莫斯科」，其所象徵的獨特的中國革命傳統逐漸成為中國語境下「政治正確」的試金石。在當代中國學界為尋求嶄新的政治前景而就其過往的革命歷史進行爭論時，裴宜理教授對充滿爭議的中國革命傳統之意涵進行了深入分析。
「本書帶有裴宜理明顯的個人風格：優雅而清晰的文筆、充足又前所未聞的原始資料、對於基層政治參與者人性細節的充分描述等。這些特點不僅使本書的敘事引人入勝，而且也對主題提供了清晰有效的分析。裴宜理對安源的觀點原創而新穎，就這一地區對革命所作的持續貢獻進行分析，使之成為一個令人信服的案例分析。」
──周錫瑞 (Joseph W. Esherick)，加州大學聖地亞哥分校，著有Ancestral Leaves: A Family Journey through Chinese History
「裴宜理從中國共產主義革命的源頭，探討安源工人運動的歷史，揭示1920年代毛澤東、李立三和劉少奇三位共產黨員如何利用文化資源在安源煤礦發動一次影響深遠的工人運動，並詳述1949年革命勝利以後，當權者如何扭曲和操弄安源工人運動的歷史，藉以築造和淨化革命傳統，更討論改革開放以後，官方和民間如何透過各種文化媒介如美術、電影、小說、學術和紅色旅遊等來回憶、重現或挪用安源的革命過往。作者相信中國的未來將取決於如何發掘、認識和掌握中國共產主義革命的傳統，她在安源革命傳統的溯源和發掘上開創了一個學習典範。」
──陳永發，中央研究院院士，著有《中國共產革命七十年》
「在越來越多的研究者轉去挖掘查找毛澤東時代中國失敗的各種原因的時候，裴宜理教授的這本書可謂獨樹一幟。作者不僅直截了當地追問那些只着眼於批判的學者，而且致力於重建當年特定的歷史場景，並用同情的眼光來了解那段歷史形成的複雜原因，以求回答那些有關中共歷史成敗的令人困擾的問題。比如，如果毛澤東等人向來偏激且無情，那麼他們當年在幾乎不掌握任何國家機器的條件下，又如何能夠影響數百萬計的底層民眾，使之信服並願為他們的革命事業而犧牲呢。」
──楊奎松，中共黨史研究專家，華東師範大學特聘教授

The difference between French and German definitions of citizenship is instructive - and, for millions of immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, and Eastern Europe, decisive. Rogers Brubaker explores this difference - between the territorial basis of the French citizenry and the German emphasis on blood descent - and shows how it translates into rights and restrictions for millions of would-be French and German citizens.

大众政治经常被轻蔑地称为“街头骚乱”，但在查特杰看来，它却是今天的政治现代性在其中正在不断被打造出来的地方。群众政治在世界范围内的兴起导致了治理人口新技术的发展。一方面，大众主权观念获得广泛接受。另一方面，安全和福利技术的增生造就了对人口进行行政管理而不是提供公民以民主磋商舞台的现代政府机构。...

《转变中的工商所:1949年后国家基础权力的演变及其逻辑》追溯广州市工商所发展的历史以及现实的运作以此为切入点考察1949年后中国所谓“国家基础权力”的发展从一个侧面和角度来把握1949后中国政治变迁的轨迹全书聚焦于以下三个问题第一，1949年后中国国家基础权力究竟发生了何种演变，第二，1949年后影响国家基础权力发展的因素是什么，第三，国家基础权力如何影响了国家与社会关系的展开？

Blending political, historical, and sociological analysis, Bernard S. Silberman offers a provocative explanation for the bureaucratic development of the modern state. The study of modern state bureaucracy has its origins in Max Weber's analysis of the modes of social domination, which Silberman takes as his starting point.
Whereas Weber contends that the administration of all modern nation-states would eventually converge in one form characterized by rationality and legal authority, Silberman argues that the process of bureaucratic rationalization took, in fact, two courses. One path is characterized by permeable organizational boundaries and the allocation of information by "professionals." The other features well-defined boundaries and the allocation of information by organizational rules. Through case studies of France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain, Silberman demonstrates that this divergence stems from differences in leadership structure and in levels of uncertainty about leadership succession in the nineteenth century.
Silberman concludes that the rise of bureacratic rationality was primarily a response to political problems rather than social and economic concerns. Cages of Reason demonstrates how rationalization can have occurred over a wide range of cultures at various levels of economic development. It will be of considerable interest to readers in a number of disciplines: political science, sociology, history, and public administration.
"Silberman has produced an invaluable, densely packed work that those with deep knowledge of public administrative development will find extremely rewarding." —David H. Rosenbloom, American Political Science Review
"An erudite, incisive, and vibrant book, the product of intensive study and careful reflection. Given its innovative theoretical framework and the wealth of historical materials contained in it, this study will generate debate and stimulate research in sociology, political science, and organizational theory. It is undoubtedly the best book on the comparative evolution of the modern state published in the last decade."—Mauro F. Guillen, Contemporary Sociology