知识论的政治意识形态本性及其批判

当代知识论反对对知识研究的政治的和意识形态的干预, 强调知识的科学性, 倡导对所谓纯粹的知识的研究。这在一定程度上推进了知识论的发展, 但也从根本上遮蔽了知识论的意识形态本性及其在现实社会政治生活中的政治实践功能。本文拟从政治和意识形态角度考察知识论的演化过程, 以期对知识的概念有一个新的理解, 同时也深化对政治和意识形态本质的认识。一、作为政治统治合法性理论基础的知识论知识论作为哲学最古老领域之一, 如今已发展成为流派纷呈的庞大体系。人们对人类知识的解剖近乎原子化, 然而缺乏对作为整体性知识的论述, 缺乏对知…     

道义论——简论孔子的政治哲学及其对治权合法性问题的论证

中国传统政治哲学是从道义的角度来探讨治权的合法性问题。道义论与西方古典政治哲学的正义论有可比性,但根本精神是不同的。先秦时期,道与义反映的是西周文化秩序与政治秩序的价值理想。孟子之后,道与义反映的是儒家文化秩序与政治秩序的价值理想。孔子本人主要从德的角度来讨论王者政治权力来源及其使用的合法性问题,开始从道与义两个不同层次讨论诸侯及士大夫政治行为的合法性问题。道义论是用现代汉语词汇探讨中国传统政治哲学中有关治权合法性问题而尝试使用的一个新词汇。     

马克思意识形态理论的双重维度:政治的及历史观的

马克思在意识形态理论中不仅从政治的维度揭示了统治阶级通过编造虚假的观点来进行意识形态统治的做法,而且还从历史观的维度深刻地阐明了这种意识形态统治与生产方式发展水平之间的具体联系。历史观维度上的意识形态理论所揭示的,是意识形态的社会历史属性,而不是其现实功能。它不仅不能被消解在政治维度之中,而且还是后者的方法论指导。准确地把握马克思意识形态理论的双重维度,对于我们正确地解读马克思的意识形态理论及拜物教批判理论都具有重要的意义。     

论政治合法性的意义和实现途径

政治合法性因为关系到政权和政治秩序的稳定性而成为政治学研究的重要议题。本文在总结政治学关于政治合法性研究成果的基础上 ,系统探讨政治合法性的意义 ,政治合法性的基础和原则 ,不同国家可能面临的主要政治合法性危机 ,以及政治合法性的实现途径 ,期望给读者以相关问题的完整概念     

合法性构建的政治符号之维——基于结构-功能主义的分析框架

20世纪文化研究的符号学转向为政治学的发展带来了重要启发。在符号属性与政治属性同为人类基本设定的前提下,我们发现符号现象与合法性生成存在内在关联,二者经由政治符号所形成的合法化过程,建立起囊括各种话语、行为、仪式、象征、神话、制度、政策等在内的庞大的"象征之林",从而将政治统治过程推进延伸为一个文化的象征系统的维持过程。借助结构-功能主义的分析框架,我们将这一合法化过程解释为政治符号结构(认知、规范与信仰)在合法性环境(价值、法理与民意)的输入要求下形成的政治功能(认同、稳定与服从)输出。我们应该站在范式转换的高度来对待"象征的合法性"问题,即政治符号与合法性互为表里,应该重视从符号象征、合法化策略的角度去观察理解各种政治现象。     

现代性、法治国家与意识形态

本文通过辨析现代性的蕴含为梳理法治国家与意识形态问题提供了一个历史演变的视野,在此视野下具体分析了法治国家的内涵与社会政治秩序的关系,并指出意识形态问题不仅是一种功能性的分析,而且应该放到国家意识形态与法治秩序的辩证关系中予以考察。本文认为现代法治既是意识形态的制度基础,也是国家意识形态的有效组成部分,只有处理好法治与意识形态之间的相辅相成关系,才能避免意识形态激进主义的片面性。     

建设社会,还是建设政权?--从政权合法性角度看当前的社区建设

合法性危机是政治学中政治发展理论长期关注的问题,当前世界各国都普遍存在着政权合法性危机,发展中的中国因处于社会转型时期也存在着国家与基层社会层面潜在的政权合法性危机。社区建设通过宣传以民主与法治为内容的意识形态以及提高社区治理绩效等方式,巩固并加强了城市基层政权的合法性基础。     

西方民主理论视野下的两种政治道德观

政治道德是政治哲学的核心范畴,它回答了政治权力运用的合法性以及道德证明的问题,民主作为人类历史上迄今为止最为合理的政治统治形式和治理方式,必然也面临着道德合法性及道德证明的问题.按保护型民主与发展型民主的划分,西方民主理论本身蕴含着消极政治道德与积极政治道德两种政治道德观.     

英国“王在法下”政治传统的形成:从中世纪到都铎

在封建条件下,"王在法下"指王在统治中必须尊重贵族分权的政治结构和神法观念,这决定了中世纪政治的协商性和法治的政治性。英国中世纪政治的特殊之处在于,相对强大的王权和贵族集体多次抗衡导致协商经常化、制度化和议会的产生,"王在法下"从法律理念进一步发展成为"不经议会不能征税""不经议会不能立法"的宪政原则。然而,由于缺少公权力的支撑,中世纪法治并没有促成社会的和平和稳定,反而成为贵族混战的工具。绝对王权所代表的民族国家在近代早期的出现,不仅实现了国家秩序和稳定,而且直接推动了法律的合理化及法权的专制性质。在英国,议会是建议者,君主才是法律制定者,而且议会及法律只是王权统治方式之一,都铎统治由此表现为依法而治的专制。这种专制方式提升了专制王权的合法性,强化了都铎国家的基础能力,也培植了近代早期英国人的法律信仰。     

君主立法及其道德限度－－关于立法正统性的一个历史视角

立法正统性是指人们对统治立法权的获得,行使及其产品的道德认可和信从。中国传统社会君主立法的正统性来源于儒家意识形态,尤其存在于儒家圣贤人格的设计中,即通过由圣转王,圣王一体来确保君主立法的道德合法性。     

Non-domination and Egalitarian Welfare Politics

In this article I will do three things: I will argue that solidarity is not necessary for political legitimacy, that non-domination is a strong candidate for legitimacy criterion, and, finally, that non-domination can legitimate the egalitarian welfare state.     

Fact-Dependent Policy Disagreements and Political Legitimacy

Suppose we have a persistent disagreement about a particular set of policy options, not because of an underlying moral disagreement, or a mere conflict of interest, but rather because we disagree about a crucial non-normative factual assumption underlying the justification of the policy choices. The main question in the paper is what political legitimacy requires in such cases, or indeed whether there are defensible answers to that question. The problem of political legitimacy in fact-dependent policy disagreements has received almost no attention in political philosophy, which has focused mostly on value disagreements and proposed theories of legitimate coercive legislation in valuedependent disagreements. The paper presents an argument showing that under certain plausible assumptions regarding legitimacy, there are serious difficulties in identifying legitimate choices in fact-dependent policy disagreements. This may be unsurprising to political philosophers preoccupied with value-based disagreements, perhaps because it has been assumed that legitimacy-related concerns are irrelevant (or do not apply) to fact-dependent policy disagreements. The paper argues that this response is premature. If we should care about legitimacy et al.l, then it is by no means clear why we should ignore issues of legitimacy in policy-disputes that depend on factual disagreements. The paper ends by defining a set of possibilities that merit further exploration in search of a theory of legitimacy in fact-dependent policy disagreements.     

The end of History or the end of Democracy? National identity and the future of the nation‐state

Two alternative scenarios on the future of the nation state are presented in order to discuss the concepts of national identity as well as of political system legitimacy. At the core is the question to what extent the nation state will become obsolescent if not obsolete as a function of international interdependence. Fukuyama considers national identity a cultural phenomenon alien to democracy as the ultimate form of government. Guéhenno, in contrast, believes that the erosion of the nation state and of national identity will bring about the end of democracy. The disagreement rests on the assumption whether the political systems will be able to retain their autonomy allowing them to maintain or expand individual liberty and collective freedom.     

Essays: RELIGIOUS MEDICAL ETHICS: A Study of the Rulings of Rabbi Waldenberg

This article seeks to examine how religious ideas that are not the focus of a particular halakhic question become the crux of the ruling, thereby molding it and dictating its bias. We will attempt to demonstrate this through a study of Jewish medical ethics, based on some of the rulings of one of the greatest halakhic decisors of the previous generation: Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg (1915–2006). Rabbi Waldenberg molds his rulings on the basis of a religious principle asserting that the legitimacy of any medical procedure is qualified and limited. Rabbi Waldenberg rejects certain accepted medical practices, including plastic surgery, in vitro fertilization, and organ transplants. Even if these procedures are regarded by other halakhic decisors as being legitimate, for Rabbi Waldenberg they are ethically and religiously improper, and therefore they are halakhically forbidden.     

Farewell to Political Obligation: In Defense of a Permissive Conception of Legitimacy

In the recent debate on political legitimacy, we have seen the emergence of a revisionist camp, advocating the idea of ‘legitimacy without political obligation,’ as opposed to the traditional view that political obligation is necessary for state legitimacy. The revisionist idea of legitimacy is appealing because if it stands, the widespread skepticism about the existence of political obligation will not lead us to conclude that the state is illegitimate. Unfortunately, existing conceptions of ‘legitimacy without political obligation’ are subject to serious objections. In this article, I propose a new conception of ‘legitimacy without political obligation,’ and defend it against various objections that the revisionist idea of legitimacy is either conceptually or morally mistaken. This new conception of legitimacy promises to advance the debates between anarchists and statists by making the task of philosophical anarchists significantly more difficult.     

The Normative Underpinnings of Democracy and the Balance between Morality and Legitimacy

ABSTRACT

Jürgen Habermas’s political philosophy incorporates the view that legitimacy is immanent to law, even though it makes morality a central component of democratic legitimacy. Taking this as a starting point, the article examines one criticism that applies to Habermas’s political theory, insofar as he puts morality at the centre of his reconstruction of the concept of legitimacy. Habermas claims that the moral point of view justifies only those norms that embody universalizable interests and rules out those that embody particular interests. Therefore, the objection is that particular citizens will have no reason to endorse these norms and act according to them because these norms do not incorporate their interests. The article goes on to show that Habermas can successfully answer this objection by means of the principle of discourse. The principle performs this function, inasmuch as it has a post-Kantian nature. On the one hand, it incorporates Kantian autonomy. And on the other, the Hegelian insight that autonomy has to be actualized through modern institutions and practices.     

The attack of psychiatric legitimacy in the 1960s: rhetoric and reality

During the 1960s there was a sustained attack on psychiatric legitimacy. Thomas S. Szasz was the most vituperative and best-known critic, but he was by no means alone. Individuals and groups from both extremes of the political spectrum were united in their belief that psychiatry was not a legitimate medical specialty, but one that was devoted to protecting its authority as well as enforcing societal norms associated with an unjust society. The attack on psychiatry, of course, did not occur in a vacuum; numerous social and intellectual currents played major roles. To comprehend such attacks and their consequences requires an understanding of the larger societal context as well as the changes that transformed psychiatry in the post-World War II years.     

Two Models of Deliberation: Oratory and Conversation in Ratifying the Constitution

In recent years, "deliberation" has become the byword of many political theorists, most of whom identify deliberation with reasoned conversation. Among the most forceful advocates of deliberation as conversation are Jürgen Habermas and, to a greater or lesser extent, his successors who style themselves "deliberative democrats." For them, the more political decision-making approximates the ideal of a reasoned public conversation among free and equal individuals, the more legitimate and rational it will be. "Outcomes," they say are democratically legitimate if and only if they could be the object of a free and reasoned agreement among equals. Their deliberative model produces more rational decision-making, they say, because it conveys information, impels individuals to order their preferences coherently, and by making persons articulate good reasons in public leads them "to think from the standpoint of all involved."     

The imperial systems in traditional China and Japan: A comparative analysis of contrasting political philosophies and their contemporary significance

The paper discusses the historical roots of the political cultures of Japan and China by examining the principal characteristics of their traditional Imperial systems. Comparison of the logic of legitimacy in each case, namely divine lineage in Japan in contrast to the awesome but demanding Mandate of Heaven in China, highlights the philosophical difference between reigning and ruling, and the consequences of this for modem politics in each country. A sacral aura still surrounds the Japanese system tending to insulate authority from the kind of pressures that could lead, in China, to the loss of the Mandate, most recently based on socialist ideals. The power of continuity in both systems, surviving into the present in different forms, remains a serious possible impediment to the further political development of modem Asia.     

Lenin,Gorbachev, and ‘national-statehood’: Can Leninism countenance the new Soviet federal order?

One of the most intractable contemporary problems in the USSR is the Soviet federal dilemma. The late 1980s witnessed competing claims among the national minority groups of the USSR to rights of voice, representation, and cultural, economic, and even political sovereignty. Since the onset ofperestrojka, the principle of ‘nationalstatehood’ has acquired a new legitimacy. Nationality is one of the pillars of the federal reform. The drive to create a ‘new Soviet federalism’ has become an important component ofperestrojka. But, according to Leninist doctrine, the ‘nation’ is a transitional formation. Unless there is a significant departure from Leninist theory, the new acknowledgement of the ‘rights of nations’ in the USSR can only be a political — and thus temporary — concession. Can the ideology evolve in such a way as to provide ideologically-based political legitimacy to the notion of national-statehood? Is Gorbachev's ‘dynamic’ interpretation of Leninism capable of rejecting one of Lenin's most fundamental concepts? The thesis of this article is that Soviet federal reform requires a substantial departure from the Leninist tradition. The extent to which Soviet leaders are prepared to do this casts light on one of the perennial concerns of socialist thought, namely whether ideology matters at all.