在当今中国为合理个人主义正名并无可能——与黄显中同志《个人主义与市民社会》一文商榷

合理个人主义既不合理,也不现实,它存在着逻辑矛盾。合理个人主义不是商品经济的反映,而是资本主义私有制商品经济的必然。传统意义的市民社会在本质上是资本主义性质的世俗社会,它是政治社会的经济基础。我国当今不存在合理个人主义的经济基础。     

个人主义与市民社会——关于个人主义的一种解释

个人主义是西方化发展的一条主线。个人主义可分为极端个人主义与合理个人主义两种。过去人们认为个人主义是在资本主义发展过程中逐步形成的道德原则,与资本主义制度相适应。实际上个人主义是以商品经济为基础的市民社会的产物,资本主义有市民社会,社会主义有市民社会,个人主义在社会主义国家也存在。只是社会主义国家以建立“真正的”集体主义为道德目标,所以它极力反对极端个人主义,只允许合理个人主义存在和发展,并且限制于市场社会领域,反对泛滥于国家生活领域。     

权利个人主义与道德个人主义辨析 ——兼论当代中国的个人主义现状和趋势

17世纪至18世纪的欧洲出现了两种截然对立的个人主义思潮——权利个人主义和道德个人主义。权利个人主义主要是感性的,它强调个人获取和占有财产、追求幸福的权利(洛克)以及得到个人安全的权利(霍布斯)。这种个人主义实际上主张权利高于责任,权利优先于责任。道德个人主义主要由康德建立,在康德的笔下,个人上升到了道德人格的层面,他超越了欲望满足阶段,在内心中给自己制定了道德法。这种道德法是具有理性精神、获得了独立、能够自主自律的现代人给自己制定的道德准则。道德个人主义主张责任高于权利,责任优先于权利。在当代中国,权利个人主义大行其道,道德个人主义\"芳踪难觅\"。随着中国政治体制改革的深入进行,中国政治的民主化和法治化的程度将日益提高,中国将出现一个崭新的公民社会。具有公民精神的中国人将同时坚持权利个人主义和道德个人主义,并使两者达到某种平衡。     

个人主义道德观辨析--兼论为什么不能以个人主义为主导价值观

个人主义是一种社会政治哲学和道德价值观,主张一切价值均以人为中心,尤其强调个人尊严、个人权利、个人价值、个人平等和个人自由.个人主义不等于利己主义,更不等于极端自私自利、损人利己和无政府主义.个人主义与集体主义有本质区别,在发展社会主义市场经济过程中,不能以个人主义为主导价值观,要坚持集体主义价值导向,反对极端个人主义价值观,正确评价个人主义价值观,抑制其消极作用,肯定其积极作用.     

论集体主义的历史特征及其生命力——从集体主义与个人主义的关系说起

作为新的价值观,集体主义与个人主义是有本质区别的,它们分别植根于不同的社会关系基础上,有着不同的历史特征;但是,前者对后者又有着深刻的历史继承关系,集体主义充分吸取了个人主义的有价值因素,所以,集体主义是比个人主义更高层次的价值观。集体主义的这个形成过程,使它具有了比个人主义更强大的生命力。     

个人主义与集体主义结构的验证性研究

本文用实证方法通过对中国大陆303名被试的调查,对个人主义、集体主义的维度及其测量问卷的构想效度进行初步验证,结果支持Triandis提出的个人主义、集体主义可以分成水平、垂直两个维度,在个人水平上,个人主义与集体主义有四种类型的构想。验证性因素分析表明,Singelis的问卷有较好的构想效度,但在中国被试的测试结果上表现出一些题目的不适合,有待于进一步修正。     

怎样理解社会发展的原动因——兼与孟庆仁同志商榷

《哲学研究》1987年第5期刊载孟庆仁同志的《论人类社会历史发展的道路和动因》一文(以下简称孟文),正确地指出了马克思主义关于人类社会发展动因的科学结论是恩格斯在1890年9月21日致约·布洛赫的信中提出的“合力”论。但是,孟文在阐述“合力”论时却忽略了恩格斯这一科学结论中所包含的一个最重要的思想,即参预“无数个力的平行四边形”所构成的总的“合力”的无数相互交错的力量的交互作用,是一些“不相等的力量的交互作用”;“其     

集体主义/个人主义对道德判断的影响：基于CNI模型的研究

采用道德困境判断的CNI(Consequence, Norm, Inaction)模型,通过两个研究考察集体主义/个人主义对道德困境判断影响。研究1考察个体的集体主义/个人主义倾向对道德判断的影响,结果显示集体主义倾向的个体在道德困境判断中表现出更强的对道德规范的敏感性和总体的不行动偏好,因而作出更少的功利主义道德判断。研究2探讨集体主义/个人主义自我构念的启动对道德判断的影响,研究发现,与启动个人主义自我构念的个体相比,启动集体主义自我构念的个体对道德规范更敏感,因而作出更少的功利主义道德判断。整个研究表明,集体主义/个人主义文化主要通过影响个体对道德规范的敏感性和自身的行动偏好来影响道德困境判断,但在对自身行动偏好的影响上,集体主义/个人主义倾向与启动的集体主义/个人主义自我构念存在差异。     

社会公正:弘扬集体主义价值观的前提

中国社会正处于前所未有的转型期,市场化过程一方面改变了中国社会的经济结构和组织方式,同时也改变了广大民众的生活态度、价值观念。随着市场化过程的进一步深入,原有的价值观念同社会发展大趋势的矛盾逐步暴露出来。个人主义与集体主义之间日趋激烈的碰撞正是这种矛盾的突出表现,集体主义日渐为社会民众所淡化和遗忘,如果不能正确认识这种现状和疏导这种矛盾,势必影响改革的进一步深入。作者认为社会主义市场经济建设必须坚持集体主义价值观的指导,同时导入公正原则。     

指称与实在——兼与张盾同志商榷

指称问题是当代语言哲学的首要的和根本的问题,它规定了语言哲学家对真理问题、意义问题、必然性问题等一系列问题所作出的回答。张盾同志在《无须存在公理的指称理论》一文中对此作了有益的探讨。然而,作者在文章中所提出的一系列结论是我们所不能接受的。本文拟就此提出一些粗浅的看法以求教于张盾同志。     

In Defense of Individualism

This paper offers a programmatic philosophical articulation of moral and political individualism. This individualism consists of two main components: value individualism and rights individualism. The former is the view that, for each individual, the end which is of ultimate value is his own well-being. Each individual's well-being has ultimate agent-relative value and the only ultimate values are these agent-relative values. The latter view is that individuals possess moral jurisdiction over themselves, i.e., rights of self-ownership. These rights (along with other rights individuals may come to possess) constrain the manner in which agents may pursue value. For this reason, the articulated individualism is an constrained individualism. Sketches of arguments are offered for both value and rights individualism. And it is argued that the sole legitimate function of legal/political institutions is to further delineate and protect the rights of individuals. However, the paper is also concerned to indicate why this radical moral and political individualism does not have many of the features or implications that are commonly ascribed to it. In this connection, I seek to show how this social doctrine accords with individuals' having concern for the well-being of others, with the emergence of relationships among individuals that have both instrumental and non-instrumental value, with a degree of responsibility for self and others that is often thought to be antithetical to individualism and, in general, with a flourishing of civil order.     

Individualism/Collectivism and Social Identity

On the basis of data collected in three representative national surveys carried out in 1990, 1991 and 1993, the relationship between an individualistic/collectivistic orientation and social identity is investigated. Individualism/collectivism is measured using a specially constructed Bulgarian scale. Individualists and collectivists are characterized by specific profiles of social self-identification which differ only slightly from one another. The characteristic of the individualists' profile is that they tend to identify themselves with the political opposition as being republicans, as not being religious, as being distant from those who are rich and close to those of low social status. In contrast, the collectivists profile themselves as people who identify with a socialist political orientation, as being monarchists, religious, close to those who are rich, as standing higher in the social hierarchy and as connected with the structures of power. In terms of the direction of social transition, collectivists emerge as the more conservative part of Bulgarian society. A strongly European identity is associated with those who score highly on the individualism scale. (© 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)     

Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Among College Students in the United States,Taiwan, and Argentina

Abstract

Among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina, the author examined the strength of 4 cultural patterns (horizontal collectivism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, vertical individualism; H. C. Triandis, 1995). A 3-group confirmatory factor analysis established the measurement equivalence among the 3 samples before the comparison. The Taiwanese and the Argentine samples were more vertically collectivist than the U.S. sample. The U.S. and the Taiwanese samples were more vertically individualistic than the Argentine sample. The U.S. sample was more horizontally individualistic than the Argentine sample, which, in turn, was more horizontally individualistic than the Taiwanese sample.     

Open society fosters satisfaction: explanation to why individualism associates with country level measures of satisfaction

ABSTRACT

Although the association between individualism and satisfaction in societies is well documented, the precise mechanism linking these two remained understudied so far. Here we coin and describe the specific facet of individualism responsible for the above association–the ‘open society’. Open societies foster four others-benefitting attitudes: tolerance, trust, civic engagement, and minimization of materialistic pressure. In the others-benefitting qualities of these four attitudes, this paper finds the mechanism promoting life satisfaction of societies. Further, when open society attitudes are controlled for, the most common facet of individualism (quantified by Hofstede) turns out to be a negative predictor of satisfaction in societies. At the individual level of analysis, the relation of endorsement of four open society attitudes with individual life satisfaction is almost absent. Thus, open society promotes the satisfaction of communities in a eusocial way only.