走向权力祭台：帝制中国的告密政治研究

发布时间：2018-02-10 17:05

本文关键词： 儒法帝国告密政治权力生产合法性　出处：《南京大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：无论是传统还是现代,权力都是政治的必然性领域,围绕权力的争夺与冲突是透视政治运作的一个绝好窗口。在西方历史发展的过程中,经过“控制国家”和“驯化君主”的宪政运动,君主(或者皇权)在很大程度上被规训,并且被嵌入作为整体的国家机器的权力链条之中,君主无法作为超然于官僚阶级的之外的个体存在,用韦伯的话说,即国家发展经历了“常规化”(routinization)与“合理化”(rationalization)的过程。但在帝制时代的中国,官僚阶级虽然在一定的程度上展示了其自主性,但是无论从制度安排还是思想观念上,帝国都呈现为刘泽华所谓的“王权中心主义”格局。为了使“一姓之朝得以千万世”,君主采取各种手段强化其统治,扩充其权力。从这个角度而言,鼓励告密可以说是专制统治的题中之义。本文即以帝制中国时期权力系统中的告密政治为研究对象。考察了告密与帝国主导性的意识形态之间的关系,运作机制以及扩大化的后果。本文以为,就基本理论预设而言,作为帝国主导性的意识形态,悖于血亲伦常和朋友义理的告密自然不在儒家的辩护范围之内。但是由于帝国“儒表法里”或者“外儒内法”的统治样态,告密很多时候被统治者当作统治权术而大肆使用,致使各个王朝都有不间断的告密风潮发生。到了专制统治发展的极端时期,即明清时代,告密政治也被正式作为统治工具被嵌入到权力链条之中,作为一种制度化的权力生产方式被鼓励和实施,即表现为一种告密制度化的操作方式。但是由于背离了传统帝国正统的道德合法性信仰模式,“告密”无法获得道德上的肯定,所以一般而言,在权力扩充和合法性生产的辩证关系中,当这种权力生产方式危及到君主的统治的自身合法性时,君主也就会适时对这一统治行为加以收敛。
[Abstract]:Whether traditional or modern, power is the inevitable field of politics. The contention and conflict around power is an excellent window to see through the operation of politics. As a result of the constitutional movement of "controlling the State" and "domesticating the monarch", the monarch (or imperial power) was largely disciplined and embedded in the chain of power of the state apparatus as a whole. The monarch cannot exist as an individual who is above the bureaucratic class. In Weber's words, national development has gone through a process of "regularization" and "rationalization." but in imperial China, Although the bureaucratic class shows its autonomy to a certain extent, it does not only show its autonomy in terms of its institutional arrangements, but also its ideology. The empires were presented as what Liu Zehua called "Wang Quan's centralism." in order to make "a monarch of one surname possible for a million generations," the monarch adopted various means to strengthen its rule and expand its power. From this perspective, Encouraging snitching can be said to be the meaning of autocratic rule. This paper takes whistleblower politics in the power system of imperial China as the object of study, and examines the relationship between snitch and imperial dominant ideology. The operating mechanism and the consequences of expansion. This paper argues that, in terms of basic theoretical presupposition, as an imperial dominant ideology, Informants that run counter to kinship, kinship, and friendship are naturally outside the scope of Confucian defense. But because of the dominance of the Empire's "Confucianism, form and law" or "outside Confucianism and internal law," snitch is often used by the ruler as a ruling power. In the extreme period of the development of autocratic rule, that is, the Ming and Qing dynasties, the whistleblower politics was formally embedded in the chain of power as a ruling tool. As an institutionalized mode of power production, it has been encouraged and implemented, that is to say, it is a kind of operation mode of systematization of snitching. However, because it deviates from the mode of moral legitimacy belief of traditional imperial orthodoxy, "snitch" can not obtain moral affirmation. Generally speaking, in the dialectical relationship between the expansion of power and the production of legitimacy, when this mode of production of power endangers the legitimacy of the monarch's own rule, the monarch will converge on the rule behavior at the right time.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D09

【相似文献】