Repeated Reinterpretation of Civil Society: On the Intellectual Context of Niklas Luhmann's Sociological Theory

This article explains the intellectual context of Niklas Luhmann's sociological theory. Although Luhmann's theory is well known for its highly abstract features, this does not mean that the theory results from his references to the latest general systems theory, which has been the primary focus of previous literature. That said, no social theory is produced in a vacuum. Even if a theorist attempts to construct a general sociological theory to explain every social phenomenon, that theory is necessarily influenced by the theorist's prejudices. Therefore, social theory must be contextualized both to estimate its biases and to limit its scope. This study shows that Luhmann's systems theory is constructed through a struggle with the issues of his day. First, it notes that the question of how to conceptualize modern civil society was widely shared by German intellectuals from the late 1950s to the 1970s and that the question created a certain discourse field. Second, Luhmann's theoretical conception is contextualized in that field of discourse, and the central role of both the concept of functional differentiation and the concern with border maintenance in his theory-building is explained in comparison with the work of contemporary intellectuals. To deepen our analysis, this article reconstructs Schmitt's interpretation and criticism of civil liberalism and describes Luhmann's struggle with it. Finally, by analyzing the Gesellschaftswissenschaften of Robert von Mohl, one of the founders of civil liberalism, this article argues that Luhmann's sociology can be characterized as an attempt to rehabilitate civil liberalism.     

自由型法治抑或效能型法治？——中国变法时代的法治选择

法治并非只能与自由主义相结合,从中国特色社会主义法治现阶段的目的来看,中国的法治类型是一种效能型法治,其目的在于更有效地增强国家能力以实现民族复兴. 这一目的从隐到显地体现在中共十一届三中全会到十八届四中全会的重要文件之中. 从清末民初,即中国变法时代的开始,就已预示了未来中国在变法运动中的法治之路不是自由型法治,而是效能型法治. 这是因为中国的变法运动对国家能力的需要远远大于对个人自由的需要. 当实现富强中国的目标之后,中国特色法治文明的未来发展则应当走效能与自由相结合的道路.     

论作为政治哲学的先秦儒学

先秦儒学的本质是一种政治的道德哲学,其创发是源于对政治之“道”的高度自觉,政治秩序的重建乃是基本的思想主题,而“正名”则是君子“为政”的根本。作为政治哲学,先秦儒学展示给人们的思想景观是精神与欲望的冲突,是人性之高贵与卑俗的对抗,“教化”因此而成为政治的重要使命。先秦儒学建构的是一个与现代自由主义政治哲学根本不同的思想世界,它能够为我们反思“现代性”问题提供有益的价值资源。     

“自由”概念的各种区分及其内在逻辑

在政治哲学领域,"自由"是一个重要同时也充满争议的概念。不同的政治哲学家讨论和区分了不同的自由观,并论证了其内在逻辑。贡斯当从社会历史状况出发,比较了古代人的自由和现代人的自由,指出现代社会的人应享有现代人的自由,无须留恋和提倡古代人的自由。伯林从自由一词所蕴含的内在逻辑出发分析了积极自由和消极自由,据此指出积极自由存在逻辑上的悖论并隐含着极权的危险,从而主张消极自由。许多自由主义者虽对伯林的论证存有异议,但从根本上信奉伯林的主张。但是,共和主义的一些思想家如昆廷.斯金纳不抛弃积极自由,在自由主义的逻辑框架之外发展出一套具有自恰性的积极自由观。然而这种具有怀古精神的自由观在现代社会所能取得的共识可能并不需要,研究者们发展出一个新的、能够抵御极权主义威胁的、能获得更多认同的和自恰的积极自由概念。     

多元文化主义语境下的“族群”概念及其社会意义

对公民权利异质性的发现,是多元文化主义的核心价值之一。移民、少数民族的族群成员与主流文化成员的政治诉求存在差异。"族群"概念补充到政治哲学的思考中,将有利于思考不以平均主义为前提的社会正义。考察多元文化主义、自由主义关于族群概念的观点,分析族群概念在考虑正义问题时的建设价值和其在论证中难以解决的问题,并讨论族群理论对当代中国社会的建设有重要启示。     

政治正义与契约论证明

正义理论与契约理论在西方政治哲学传统中均具有悠久的历史。这一理论在近几十年以来迎来了一场复兴,乃至成为当代政治哲学中反复出现的关键词之一。契约理论的这一复兴首先起源于罗尔斯的著作。他的开创性成果在于将契约理论与政治正义的问题联系在一起并用一种政治建构主义的模式表达出来。罗尔斯认为,只有经过一种建构主义的契约理论的验证,某种正义观念才可能在理性多元的当代社会中树立起来,获得理性且合理的公民的广泛认同。正是因为这种理论安排,使得罗尔斯的理论与传统的正义理论或者契约理论相比,具有更强的说服力。     

同意的困境——基于以同意理论证成政府家长式干预的视角

在自由主义语境中,对政府家长式干预行为可行性的分析诉诸于对个人意愿真实性的探求,而同意理论作为个人意愿的有效表达方式成为家长主义和反家长主义者论辩的重点。但是,由于同意本身所具有的局限性,使得通过诉诸于个人意愿的方式证成政府家长式干预行为的路径遭遇了不可避免的困境。     

作为制度权力表达的自由及其建设

自由是制度的权力表达,这是在人类社会发展的历史中不断讨论和证明的问题,并且也是国家政治制度得以建立和保障所必须涉及的首要的问题.基于哲学和政治学中对自由的理解,可以看出自由是制度建设的终极目标,而制度又是自由的根本保障,因此探讨制度自由的本质及现实制度中如何体现自由是有重要意义的.     

为世界祛魅——四位一体的现代化进程趋演

韦伯在对于现代性的研究过程中,将现代化的历史过程称为理性化。人类在社会理性化过程中达到了为世界祛魅的效果,运用一种推理与计算的工具,否认价值的先在性,从而得出人的主体性、多元价值的存在、价值中立等自由主义的元素,使得自由主义成为现代社会最基本的意识形态和最基本的组织原则。这无疑将社会整体思维、个体行为选择、政府权限演变和价值的整合置入统一的逻辑架构。     

Responsible pragmatism in Turkish social policy making in the face of Islamic egalitarianism and neoliberal austerity

Akan T. Responsible pragmatism in Turkish social policy making in the face of Islamic egalitarianism and neoliberal austerity Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 367–380 © 2011 The Author(s), International Journal of Social Welfare © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. Founded in August 2001, the Justice and Development Party of Turkey (JDP) has forged a brand new identity, the Conservative Democracy, and initiated challenging politico‐economic reforms since November 2002 when it came to power. Among these reforms, the social policies of the Conservative Democrats have intriguingly yielded mixed blessings of a strategic settlement between equality of outcome and opportunity. This article argues that such a result originated from the commodification by the Conservative Democrats of the Islamic egalitarianism of ‘the Just Order’, the politico‐economic programme to which the JDP's leaders were strictly committed before becoming the Conservative Democrats. Entitling the social policy strategy of JDP as ‘Responsible Pragmatism’, this article concludes that it was an unsustainable but flexible social policy strategy that has gone as far as it can, now, on the eve of the 2011 general elections.