当代政治哲学视野下的团结问题

发布时间：2018-05-01 01:06

本文选题：团结 + 正义　；参考：《浙江大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：自由、平等、博爱是法国大革命的三个旗帜性口号,奠定了现代政治-社会思想与实践的价值基础。在社会思想观念的变迁过程中,从博爱之中逐渐演化出了团结(solidarity)这个概念,并最终为团结所取代。自由、平等、团结,成为现代西方政治理想的三个基本价值。但一直以来,对于团结的研究主要集中于社会学理论和社会哲学,而在政治理论中却没有得到相应的关注。这种情况在上个世纪七、八十年代发生了转变。自罗尔斯的《正义论》引领政治哲学复兴之后,在自由至上主义和社群主义围绕着罗尔斯的正义理论进行批判的过程中,团结的理论价值逐渐凸现出来。二十多年的论辩达成的基本共识之一就是,贯彻了自由与平等原则的正义理论要获得成功,必须有相应的社会条件作为支撑。准确来说,只有在一个博爱或团结的共同体中,正义原则才能得以达成和实践。当然,情况也或许是,正义与团结相互缠绕着同步地实现。但无论如何,这都意味着正义理论需要与一种团结理论相互补充。从社会现实层面来说,随着传统社会向现代社会的变迁,前现代社会的同质性特征不复存在,取而代之的是社会的个体化和多元主义特征越来越突出。人们的文化背景、价值观、生活方式和利益的多样性大大加剧了社会冲突的可能性。在这种社会条件下,原来的社会秩序基础和社会整合机制显然已经不能胜任,因此也需要探索并构建适应现代社会的团结理论。基于这样一种对理论问题与现实问题的双重关怀,我们试图探索一种能够包容多样性的现代团结理论。经过考察和辨析,我们认为这种团结理论必须同时满足这两个条件：既要保护个人自主,又要尊重人们由于一些非自愿选择的团体性认同而不得不承担的义务。因为在现代人的道德直觉中,二者具有同样的基础性地位,不能把其中一个还原为另一个。本着这样一个标准,我们对当代几种相关的政治学说进行了讨论与分析。由于社群主义的实体论的政治共同体被设想为一种“伦理整体”,因此,这种模式会要求对具有不同善观念的个人进行同化。但在任何已经具有“合理多元主义实事”特征的社会中,这种模式将呈现为一种危险的国家模式,因为它一定会要求为了实现这种被理想化的价值整合形式而广泛使用压制性国家权力。而罗尔斯的政治自由主义整合模式,由于把一种政治正义观念与非政治的道德严格地相分离,因此大大限制了他的理论承认某些公民的特殊认同的能力,从而也会危及他试图保护的这个国家的稳定性。自由民族主义公民团结模式认为,共享同一种民族文化是实现公民团结的关键,因此,国家应该积极地促进一种共同的民族文化。但这样一种团结模式必须回应关于民族认同与民族文化的“种族内核”问题。新共和主义把自由定义为无支配,而且把它当作需要予以实现的最高的善。因此,共和主义者能够包容共同善观念,为团结提供基础。但由于他们以目的论的方式想象自由,这导致了这样的结论：共同善能够通过支配而得到促进。通过把康德式道德理论与交往行动理论融会贯通,哈贝马斯提出了一种面向所有人的、激进包容的普遍主义团结观。在现代民族国家层面,这种团结观具体呈现为他的宪法爱国主义理论。这种理论认为,公民团结的基础应该是人们共享的规范和宪法原则,而不是一种共享的种族文化身份。但共享的宪法原则不是作为既有之物继承而来的,而是公民们通过主体间性地公共参与实践达成的。按照哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学,要想就宪法原则达成共识,一方面,必须保护个人的自主权利,否则达成的共识就不是不偏不倚的；另一方面,个人也必须克服自己的自我中心立场,与他人进行换位思考,包容他人的特殊认同,否则也不会形成普遍同意。这两个方面表现了对个人自主的尊重和对个人独立性的承认。因此,在我们看来,哈贝马斯的团结模式在形式上实现了对个人自主与团体性认同的协调。然而,由于哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学的主要关切是通过对团结实践的理性重构,揭示出每一次团结行动背后的普遍性规范,这导致他的宪法爱国主义过于强调团结的道德-法律-程序性成分,因此这种团结模式还是过于“弱”。就此而言,霍奈特的更为强调差异性之价值的承认社会理论,可以作为哈贝马斯团结理论的必要补充。爱尔兰学者梅芙·库克正是通过把哈贝马斯“基于尊重”的团结理论与霍奈特“基于自尊”的团结理论结合在一起,构建出一种能够协调个人自主与团体性义务的“后传统团结”理论框架。
[Abstract]:Freedom , equality and fraternity are the three basic slogans of the French Revolution , which lays a foundation for the value of modern political - social thought and practice .

This situation has changed from the 1970s and 1980s . Since Rawls ' theory of justice has led the revival of political philosophy , the theoretical value of unity has gradually emerged . One of the basic understandings reached in the debate over the past two decades is that the principle of justice can be achieved and practice only in a community of love or solidarity . In any case , it means that justice and solidarity are mutually intertwined . But in any case , it means that the theory of justice needs to be complemented with a theory of solidarity .

From the social reality level , with the change of the traditional society to the modern society , the homogeneity of the former modern society is more and more prominent . The cultural background , the values , the way of life and the diversity of the interests have greatly increased the possibility of the social conflict . Under such social conditions , the original social order foundation and the social integration mechanism are obviously not competent , so it is also necessary to explore and construct the theory of solidarity which is adapted to the modern society .

On the basis of such a dual concern of theory and reality , we try to explore a modern solidarity theory that can accommodate diversity . We believe that this theory of solidarity must meet these two conditions at the same time : not only to protect the individual autonomy but also to respect the obligations that people have to bear because of some non - voluntary choices . Because in the moral intuition of modern people , they have the same basic position and cannot restore one of them to the other . In the spirit of such a criterion , we discuss and analyze several relevant political theories .

As the political community of communitarianism is conceived as an " ethical whole " , this model calls for the assimilation of individuals with different good ideas . But in any society that has the characteristics of " reasonable pluralism " , this pattern will be presented as a dangerous country model , since it will require the widespread use of repressive State power in the form of an idealized value integration , which limits the ability of his theory to recognize the particular identity of certain citizens , thereby compromising the stability of the country he is trying to protect .

Free nationalist citizenship holds that sharing the same ethnic culture is the key to achieving the unity of citizens . Therefore , the State should actively promote a common national culture . However , such a solidarity pattern must respond to the " race core " of national identity and national culture .

Through the integration of Kant ' s theory of ethics and the theory of communicative action , he put forward a view of universal unity oriented towards all . At the national level of the modern nation , the unity of unity is embodied as his constitutional patriotism theory . This theory holds that the basis of citizen solidarity should be the norms and constitutional principles shared by people , not a shared racial cultural identity .
On the other hand , individuals must overcome their own self - centered position , think about others , and accept the special identity of others , otherwise they will not form universal consent . These two aspects show respect for individual autonomy and recognition of individual independence . Therefore , in our view , the unity model of Habenmas has realized the coordination of individual autonomy and group identity in the form .

However , due to the rational reconstruction of unity and practice , the main concern of the ethics of Hubmas ' s business is to reveal the universal norm behind every unity action , which leads to his constitutional patriotism being too " weak " .

【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D0

【共引文献】