徘徊于社群主义与共和主义之间——以桑德尔对权利自由主义的批判为例

在社群主义的重要代表人物中,如果说麦金太尔为社群主义的自由主义批判提供了历史和语言学的奠基,并归宗于受到亚里士多德主义强烈影响的“历史传统限制的实践理性观”,那么桑德尔则更多地借鉴黑格尔主义和后现象学的哲学资源,对以罗尔斯为代表的权利自由主义进行了最为明快、尖锐和深刻的批判,但是同时,这种批判也最为典型地表现出徘徊、依违于社群主义与共和主义之间的特征。本文从自我观、社群观以及对美国政制中失落的共和精神的追寻三个方面全面地探讨了桑德尔的政治哲学,并阐发了笔者对于自由主义、社群主义和共和主义之间的关系,以及走出这种三元对峙困境的观点。     

论拉兹的至善主义及其得失

正统的自由主义者都是“反至善主义的”。虽然拉兹是一名自由主义者,但他举起至善主义的大旗,试图对自由主义提供一种激进的解释,以探索一种既不同于古典自由主义也不同于新自由主义的第三条道路。拉兹的政治哲学介于自由主义和社群主义之间。     

自我的逻辑及其超越——种社群主义视角

自我观是哲学理论的逻辑基点.自我观的分殊阐释与定位是当代西方政治哲学两大流派自由主义和社群主义论争的焦点.建立在普遍主义、个人主义方法论前提的自由主义原子式自我观遭到社群主义的批判,社群主叉自我观具有构成性,是具有历史感、现实感、厚重的自我现.自由主义的自我观根源于现代社会,而现代社会出现的个体价值混乱、公共责任丧失等现象在社群主义自我观的理论展开和实践履行中得到弥补与救治.     

当代政治哲学的三足鼎立

从８０年代初到９０年代，在当代社会政治哲学中形成了新自由主义、社群主义和批判理论三足鼎立的态势，且其规模和影响日益增大     

罗尔斯问题

罗尔斯的正义理论提出了正义的两个原则,扭转了欧美哲学界的研究方向,使伦理学问题重新回到哲学研究的中心。但是罗尔斯的正义理论也遭遇了自由主义内部,即激进自由主义,以及自由主义外部,即社群主义和共和主义的批评。文章从中国现实的角度提出了罗尔斯没有考虑的正义制度的实践条件问题。     

论平等的自由主义与社群主义之争

以罗尔斯为代表的平等的自由主义理论致力于探讨公平问题,试图建立一种脱离任何形而上学立场的"程序正义"。这一理论由于其所体现的普遍主义、个人主义等特征,成为社群主义的主要批判对象。罗尔斯的政治自由主义某种程度上是对社群主义的批评的一种回应,但并不能消除社群主义的质疑。另一方面,社群主义也不能根本否定或取代自由主义,充其量只是这一理论的补充。     

当代西方政治哲学中的若干新问题和新动向(上)

自上世纪 80年代以来兴起的自由主义和社群主义的对立 ,已出现新的情况。两派中不少人从批判和企图取代变为注意到共同点或相似之处 ,正在调整自己的立场。新自由主义强调自己的传统中早就包含有社群因素 ,承认共同善根本不是问题。新社群主义声明其目标不是取代自由主义 ,而是完善和保全它 ,强调要在个人权利和社会责任之间、个人自由和社会秩序之间寻找平衡 ,同时警惕以社群和集体名义出现的权威主义和原教旨主义     

“小社群主义”——麦金太尔社群主义研究

虽然麦金太尔被视为当代社群主义的一个主要代表,但他本人却极力否认自己是社群主义者。这种否认源于他与其他社群主义者之间的根本区别,为了标示这种区别,我们不妨把麦金太尔的政治哲学称为"小社群主义"。首先,这种"小社群主义"建立在小共同体的基础之上,而小共同体(邻里、村镇或农场)区别于大共同体(现代的都市和国家);其次,这种小共同体既是实践共同体,也是道德共同体和政治共同体。     

团结:后形而上学时代的政治哲学主题

"团结"已经成为后形而上学时代的政治哲学主题.自由主义的团结、社群主义的团结和第三势力的团结是三种典型的团结方案,它们分别归属于"共识"和"共存"这两条道路.     

论自由主义在人体基因科技立法领域面临的悖论

随着人体基因科技的发展，与之配套的立法规制问题饱受争议。一方面，自由主义的价值观在面对人体基因科技立法规制问题时存在悖论；另一方面，人体基因科技立法规制对社群主义观点的合理借鉴需要一个过程和调适。梳理自由主义理念在人体基因科技及其相关立法规制中受到的挑战和存在的悖论，有助于把握和理解人体基因科技在立法问题上存在争议的原因。探讨援引社群主义理念的可行性和现实基础，有助于理解当前人体基因科技立法中的价值平衡。     

密尔自由主义政治思想论析

密尔是19世纪英国著名的自由主义政治思想家,其自由主义政治思想成为由古典自由主义向新自由主义过渡的桥梁,在西方政治思想史上具有重要的地位。自由主义政治思想的哲学基础为修正的功利主义,密尔更加重视快乐的质与功利主义的社会价值,从而完善了快乐的内涵,实现了功利主义个人与社会关系的统一。密尔自由主义政治思想的内容,包括相对的个人自由、适度的政府干预及有限社会主义。密尔自由主义政治思想具有明显的社会性、折中性和阶级性特征。     

Karl Marx's sociological theory of democracy: Civil society and political rights

This essay reconstructs Marx's relationship to democracy and liberalism through an examination of his early work which was directly concerned with the issues of understanding democracy as a kind of society. Only with an analysis of the dynamics of civil society—a political economic, sociological, and historical understanding—could the true nature of citizenship be discerned. In contradistinction to liberal political theory, he would argue that political theory could not stand on its own if it analyzed only the state. Marx came to understand the contradiction between the liberal state and civil society as what he called a sophistry because it undermined the possibility of the democratic agency of workers. This was a sophistry, not because he opposed political democracy, but because the development of capitalism undermined the possibility of democratic agency. Citizenship could be nothing but a “lion's skin” of politics concealing the nature of civil society beneath it. This contradiction would drive Marx's thought forward as he moved from liberalism to democratic socialism with his developing understanding of the structure and dynamics of capitalism from 1843 until the end of his life. The essay illustrates two closely related claims about Marx's thought regarding liberalism and democracy. First, I argue that Marx engaged in a democratic critique of liberalism; second, and as a response to his democratic critique of liberalism, Marx developed a more sociological understanding of democracy, and hence believed that political democracy was a necessary condition of freedom, though not a sufficient condition.     

论自由主义与中国社会的异质疏远性--兼论20世纪40年代中国自由主义政治思潮

20世纪40年代在中国社会兴起的自由主义政治思潮,是中国现代史上自由主义思想的一次最集中的展示,也是中国自由主义的绝唱,但中国的自由主义"先天不足,后天失调",既与中国传统文化具有异质性,又疏远中国的"社会现实".由于自由主义生长发育的主客观条件的缺失,使得自由主义在中国步履维艰,20世纪40年代虽盛极一时,但昙花一现.尽管如此,20世纪40年代的自由主义政治思潮并非一无是处,任何人都不能否认对自由追求的合理性,很多有价值的东西,需要相当一段历史时间才能看清楚.作为一笔宝贵的思想遗产,20世纪40年代的自由主义政治思想,值得我们认真地去批评与借鉴.     

Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States*

Objective. The goal of this study is to examine how the political mobilization of business interests influences aggregate public policy outputs in the states. We examine the relationship between business mobilization and general state policy liberalism, as well as policy that we term state “business policy climate.” Methods. We construct a measure of the “business policy climate” from a number of tax and regulatory indicators in the states and examine whether business influences it and policy liberalism using ordinary least squares regression. Results. The analysis shows that business mobilization does not influence general policy liberalism but is a significant influence on a state's business policy climate. Specifically, the dominance of a state's campaign finance system by business interests makes policy more favorable toward business. Conclusions. The extent of business mobilization in a state is an important influence on public policy outputs but is constrained by the activities of other political actors such as unions.     

Russian Liberalism in the Face of Crisis

The development of liberalism in Russia occurred under substantially different conditions from those in the West. The history of liberalism in the West is already a century old; not only has it acquired there a sufficiently mature theoretical form, but it has even been translated into reality as civil society and the law-governed state. Liberalism cannot be reduced to any specific moral and political movement, but it can be understood as a special type of civilization, in contrast to traditional civilization. In Russia, however, liberalism evolved always under the influence of the highest achievements of Western liberal ideas; it remained an opposition movement, opposing the dominant values of society and supporting the country's transformation into a liberal civilization.     

试析印度人民党经济思想的发展变化

印度人民党的经济思想经历了从甘地社会主义观念,到司瓦德西思想,再到自由主义政策的发展历程,这样的变化调整与社会政治形势发展是密切相关的。在不同的政治发展阶段,印度人民党依靠民族主义和现实的社会经济政策赢得选民的支持,体现了印度人民党作为具有宗教民族主义特征的现代政党,教派主义与现实主义两手抓的政治动员策略。     

被多向解读与不断诠释着的"五四意义"——三大思潮对于五四启蒙的话语阐释

在"后五四时代",激进主义、自由主义、保守主义三大思潮从各自角度对"五四意义"进行了解读和诠释,从而形成不同的"五四话语"诠释系统。激进主义从革命斗争的现实需要出发,着重于从政治、救亡、民族民主革命的革命范式与政治框架去解读和诠释"五四意义",建构了突出政治意义的五四革命话语诠释系统,后随着改革开放的深入,这种"革命范式"、"政治范式"开始向"发展范式"、"现代化范式"过渡;自由主义建构了凸显文化变革、突出个性解放的启蒙话语诠释系统,表现为褒新文化运动贬学生运动,把文化运动向政治运动的发展视为"干扰"、"救亡压倒启蒙";保守主义赞成文化运动的路径但反对新文化运动的激进反传统主义,其经历了从接纳民主、科学"新外王"的"返本开新"到五四"文化断裂"的话语诠释系统转变。三大思潮对五四启蒙的不同程度认同以及对"五四意义"的多向诠释,进一步凸显了五四精神的多元性与开放性。     

Neoliberalism,Inequality and Politics: The Changing Face of Australia

Since the early 1980s Australian public policy has undergone the most major transformation since Federation. This transformation has been underwritten by two key principles: liberalism – the view that citizens are autonomous individual actors whose interests are best served when they are free from coercive government interventions into individual action; and marketisation – the belief that free markets are arenas which best enable individual autonomy and produce efficient economic outcomes. These principles define ‘neoliberalism’ or ‘hard liberalism‘. After summarising the major policy changes identified with neoliberalism in Australia, the paper introduces a new research project that examines its impact on socioeconomic inequality, gender inequality and politics and culture. Inspection of relevant data indicates that there are important trends in inequality, public opinion and political behaviour that warrant this investigation.     

Time,history and the making of the industrial middle class: the story of Samuel Smith

This article uses the politics of time to explore the making of the industrial middle class. It argues that anxieties about the decline of industry and the future of liberalism at the end of the nineteenth century fuelled a small explosion in life writing, prosopography and popular history. Accounts combined anecdotes about everyday life and reminiscences of the great civic age in a network of texts that attempted to recreate the associational life of the industrial middle class and present it as the foundation of national progress. However, slips in time between retrospection, nostalgia, memory and history reveal the complexity of late-Victorian anti-industrialism and the tensions in liberalism between a political culture that was inclusive and open and a social world that was not. The article combines a deep reading of the autobiography of the cotton magnate and liberal politician Samuel Smith alongside popular local history and collective biography. In so doing it shows how life stories were consciously composed as history, intent on shaping the provincial middle class as a historical force at a time of uncertainty about the future of industry and of liberalism.     

本真性和公共领域:查尔斯·泰勒的自由社会观

本文围绕查尔斯·泰勒的两篇文章"消极自由有什么错" "自由主义政治与公共领域",以及泰勒与哈贝马斯在2009年的对话,来阐释他对自由主义的修正。这两篇文章相互呼应,前一篇阐释作为道德心理学的个人本真性,后一篇阐释使（个人或群体的）本真性得以充分发挥的多元公共领域。公共领域是市民社会的核心环节,而市民社会是与自由主义联系在一起的自由社会的主要形式。在对自由社会的阐释中,泰勒总结了修正自由主义的中庸观：在个人自由、自治和基于平等权利的规则之间寻求平衡和相互支持。在2009年与哈贝马斯的对话中他进而指出,宗教是多元公共领域中的议题之一。这种历史观基于他对韦伯观点的修正而形成,而此历史观对当前中国的处境有启发价值。