“一国两制”的“后民族结构”合法性溯源——基于政治哲学的考察与辨析

发布时间：2018-05-04 06:58

本文选题：一国两制 + 后民族结构理论　；参考：《福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年04期

【摘要】：传统民族结构理论对"一国两制"的阐释重视以两岸四地在文化和血缘上的同一性为基础,建立"一个中国"的合法性。这一阐释模式不论在理论上还是实践上对"一国两制"的实施都有无可替代的重要意义。但该解释模式并非十全十美,随着时代的变迁,其仍有需要进行完善的空间。为此,一些"台独"、"港独"分子利用传统民族结构阐释的局限,通过强调两岸四地的文化、制度差异来质疑"一国两制"的合法性。其实在两岸四地彼此之间的联系越来越紧密的状况下,"一国两制"已经具有了哈贝马斯的"后民族结构"意蕴。借助"后民族结构"的理论视域,我们能够更有说服力地澄明在存在文化差异、意识形态差异、社会制度差异的前提下,"一国两制"的合法性来源。
[Abstract]:The interpretation of "one country, two systems" in the traditional theory of national structure is based on the cultural and consanguineous identity of the four places on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and establishes the legitimacy of "one China". This mode of interpretation has an irreplaceable significance for the implementation of "one country, two systems" both in theory and practice. But this explanation mode is not perfect, with the change of times, it still needs perfect space. For this reason, some "Taiwan independence" and "Hong Kong independence" elements take advantage of the limitations of the interpretation of the traditional national structure to question the legitimacy of "one country, two systems" by emphasizing the cultural and institutional differences between the two sides of the strait. In fact, under the condition that the two sides are more and more closely connected with each other, "one country, two systems" already has Habermas'"post-national structure" implication. With the help of the theoretical horizon of "post-national structure", we can more persuasively clarify the legitimacy of "one country, two systems" under the premise of cultural differences, ideological differences, and social systems differences.
【作者单位】：深圳大学社会科学学院;
【基金】：2014年国家社会科学基金重大项目《香港社会思潮分析与有效引导的对策研究》(14ZDA058) 2016年广东省哲学社会科学"十三五"规划项目《香港“本土主义”社会思潮跟踪分析和有效引导对策研究》(GD16YMK01) 2016年广东省教育厅重点平台及科研项目青年创新人才类项目(人文社科)《自媒体新部落文化形态下香港民粹主义的演进与对策研究》(2016WQNCX127) 2017年度深圳大学马克思主义理论与思想政治教育专项资助项目《马克思主义与中国文化相结合视域下国家认同问题研究》(17MSZX12)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D618;D633

【相似文献】