丁学良:华人社会里的西方社会科学

——误解的三个根源* 
选择字号:   本文共阅读 11250 次 更新时间:2004-09-09 00:18:13

进入专题: 社会科学  

丁学良 (进入专栏)  

  as opposed to totalitarian regimes that attempt to control all aspects of life and mobilize their populations into active support of their policies.[iii]

  

  迄今对totalitarian和authoritarian system作过最全面比较,并通过这种比较而给authoritarianism下过一个经常被引用的定义的,是政治社会学家Juan Linz:

  

  …we attempted to define a variety of nondemocratic and nontotalitarian political systems as authoritarian if they were political systems with limited,not responsible,political pluralism,without elaborate and guiding ideology,but with distinctive mentalities, without extensive or intensive political mobilization,except at some points in their development,and in which a leader or occasionally a small group exercises power within formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones.

  

  The definition was developed by contrasting those systems both with competitive democracies and with the ideal type of totalitarian systems. It implies clear conceptual boundaries with democratic polities but some what more diffuse ones with totalitarianism,since pre-and posttotalitarian situations and regimes might also fit the definition[iv]

  

  以上的辨析显示,把authoritarianism译成新权威主义,绝非纯粹的措辞问题,而是牵涉到一个核心的实质问题即如何看待权威的性质。“新权威主义”这个译法当时暗示中国读者的是:权威等于专制,有权就有权威。在改革前的中国一切全被政府控制,所以是“旧权威主义”的。今后只严格控制政治,让经济自由化,所以就成了“新权威主义” 。这种把权力与权威划等号、混同专制与权威的思维方式和翻译处理,在逻辑上是混乱的,在经验上既不合乎实际又极为有害。中外历史特别是现代史反复证明,权威绝非权力更非专制的天然属性。只有为人民所真心信服(即具有真正的法统)的人和机构才有权威,哪怕他或它暂时尚不拥有实际权力。因此有权力(即使是手握专制大权)并不等于有权威。稳固的民主政体没有专制之权,但却是权威的。相反,被误称为“新权威主义”的那些政体,其中大部份却是不拥有权威的。在一九五○年代至一九七○年代期间,它们中的许多不得不经常靠公然的军警暴力来维持权力。最典型的是巴列维统治下的伊朗朝廷和马科思统治下的菲律宾政府,非常够格的authoritarian,但却权威丧失殆尽,因此天下大乱,革命、暴动、统治者流亡出走、公共秩序全毁。许多authoritarian的政体,已经或正在通过放弃authoritarianism、加速民主化来建立权威。

  

  把权威混同权力,在中国这个具有二千年专制历史的国家是很有渊源的。一个译名所映照的,乃是一种政治心态。虽然我们不能够说“一言可以兴邦,一言可以丧邦”,但把New authoritarianism译成“新权威主义” ,确实对当时及事后的中国大陆知识界和政界人士发出了一个错误的信息,加重了他们对过度集权和铁腕政治的迷信。这种迷信至今处处可见,一旦中国的改革出了问题,众多的策士首先建议的,就是重新集权。他们似乎从来不问:为甚么众多的中国机构和领导者手握那么多的权力,却不具备权威,即下属和群众不信服他(或它)?

  

  与中国大陆相比较,对西方社会科学更为熟悉的台湾学术界,早就把authoritarianism译成“威权主义”。虽然“威权主义”可能是当年的译者想不出一个更好的术语、又想使读者把它区别于authority的权宜之计,它毕竟比“权威主义”的译法谨慎得多。我在美国和香港、中国大陆的讨论会上提议把authoritarianism译成“专权主义”,因为它是专制主义的一个亚类,它对权力的控制不象全权主义(即通译为“极权主义”的totalitarianism)那样无所不及,而是限定在专门的一些领域主要是政治领域里。

  

  三 困难之本体论方面的根源

  

  华人学生赖以成长的社会,在制度和文化的各方面与西方社会均有着重要的历史的和现状的差异,因为这一系列存在经验的差异而对诸多现代西方社会科学的概念不易接受,是笔者所观察到的最普遍的一种困难。

  

  例一。在西方社会科学文献里,bureaucracy是一个中心概念。对当代bureaucracy讨论影响最大的,是韦伯(Max Weber)的著名定义:

  

  The following may thus be said to be the fundamental categories of rational legal authority:

  

  (1)A continuous organization of official functions bound by rules.

  

  (2)A specified sphere of competence…

  

  (3)The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy…

  

  (4)The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. In both cases,if their application is to be fully rational,specialized training is necessary…

  

  (5)In the rational type it is a matter of principle that the members of the administrative staff should be completely separated from ownership of the means of production or administration…

  

  (6)In the rational type case,there is also a complete absence of appropriation of his official position by the incumbent…

  

  (7)Administrative acts, decisions, and rules are formulated and recorded in writing,even in cases where oral discussion is the rule or is even mandatory…

  

  (8) Legal authority can be exercised in a wide variety of different forms…[v]

  

  上述诸特点被N.P. Mouzelis用更通俗明白的语言总结为:

  

  - High degree of specialization

  

  - Hierarchical authority structure with limited areas of command and responsibility.

  

  - Impersonality of relationships between organizational members.

  

  - Recruitment of officials on the basis of ability and technical knowledge.

  

  - Differentiation of private and official income and fortune and so on.

  

  Now,if one tries t see what lies beyond characteristics,how they are linked with one another,one finds a common,all-pervasive element;the existence of a system of control based on rational rules,rules which try to regulate the whole organizational structure and process on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of maximum efficiency.[vi]

  

  1993年12月,笔者应邀给上海复旦大学社会学系的高年级学生作学术报告,题目是《理性化与现代化——从西方社会学的几个概念谈起》。我介绍了韦伯的论述后,尽管说明他的bureaucracy是一个ideal type construction,即理念类型架构,并不是经验实体的完全对应物;学生们仍然表示难以接受。他们问道:“作为ideal type的概念,与它所要分析的经验对象之间的‘不对应’(disparity)可以到甚么程度?”“若概念与现实间的差异太多太大,那么这些概念又怎么能够起到比较研究‘参照系’ (flame of reference)的作用?”中国大陆社会科学系大学生对韦伯的bureaucracy论难以接受,根本上是因为他们对中国社会里bureaucracy的观察及对与之相关的中国历史经验的了解,实在与韦伯的概念间的黑白反差太强烈。他们的存在经验中的bureaucracy,更多的时候与rationalization(合理化) 、 efficiency(效率高)、impersonality(不徇私情)相距很远,而倒是与“长官意志”(arbitrary)、形式主义(red tape)、无能、低效、特权、傲慢乃至腐败联系在一起。

  

  我这样说并非暗示,韦伯的bureaucracy概念只是与中国历史和现实中的实体相异。实际上,即使西方现代民主制度和法治制约下的 bureaucracy,也达不到韦伯所描述的那种水平,诚为J. LaPalombara所说:

  

  ...the Weberian conception of the bureaucracy is nothing more than an ideal formulation not subject to empirical verification,and that the classical democratic formulation Of a strictly neutral and instrumental bureaucracy is an equally idealized and probably unattainable standard.(点击此处阅读下一页)

进入 丁学良 的专栏     进入专题: 社会科学  

本文责编:frank
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 社会学 > 社会学专栏
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/4099.html

11 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2021 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统