何包钢;

• 1:澳大利亚社会科学院

摘要(Abstract)：

儒学与民主的关系必定具有多样性与复杂性。在学界的论战中学者们往往运用了不同的民主概念并对儒家思想做出了不同的解释以支持各自的观点,这导致儒学与民主关系的看法不可避免地被狭隘化、片面化并带有残缺性。过去关于儒学与民主关系的论战主要集中于二者是矛盾的还是兼容的。其实,跳出这两种较为常见的理解框架还可探索其他可供选择的对儒学与民主关系理解的范式。儒学与民主的关系有四种范式——矛盾范式、兼容范式、混合范式、批判范式。这四种理论范式,每种范式都各有优劣,都有各自思路和特征。

关键词(KeyWords)： 儒学;民主;矛盾范式;兼容范式;混合范式;批判范式

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 何包钢;

Email:

DOI: 10.13903/j.cnki.cn51-1575/d.2020.01.019

参考文献(References)：

• [1] Joseph Chan,Democracy and Meritocracy:Toward a Confucian Perspective,Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34,no.2 (2007),pp.179-193.
• [2] Samuel P.Huntington,Will More Countries Become Democratic?Political Science Quarterly 9,no.2 (1984),pp.193-218.
• [3] Francis Fukuyama,Confucianism and Democracy,Journal of Democracy 6,no.2 (1995),pp.20-33.
• [4] Shu-Hsien Liu,Democratic Idea and Practice:A Critical Re?ection,Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34,no.2 (2007),pp257–275.
• [5] [6][15]John Makeham,Lost Soul:Confucianism,in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse,Cambridge:the Harvard University Asia Center,2008:265,197.
• [7] William Theodore de Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China,Hong Kong:Chinese University Press,1983;Andrew Nathan,The Place of Values in Paul Cohen & Merle Goldman Cross-Cultural Studies:The Example of Democracy and China,in Schwartz eds.,Ideas across Cultures:Essays on Chinese Thought in Honor of Benjamin I.Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1990,p.293–314;Edward Friedman,Democratization:Generalizing the East Asian Experience,in Edward Friedman ed.,Politics of Democratization:Generalizing the East Asian Experience,Boulder:Westview Press,1994,p.27–28;Baogang He,Dual Roles of Semi-Civil Society in Chinese Democracy,Australian Journal of Political Science 29,no.1 (1994),pp.154–71.
• [8] Chung-ying Cheng,Transforming Confucian Virtues into Human Rights,in William de Bary & Tu Weiming ed.,Confucianism and Human Rights,New York:Columbia University Press,1998,pp.142–153;林毓生.中国传统的创造性转化[M].北京:三联书局,1988.
• [9] Guy S Alitto,The Last Confucian:Liang Shuming and the Chinese Dilemma of Modernity,Berkeley:University of California Press,1979.
• [10] Clinton Rossiter,Madison’s No 10,in Alexander Hamilton,James Madison,and John Jay eds.The Federalist Papers,New York:New American Library,1961.
• [11] Chong-Min Park Shin and Doh Chull,So Asian Values Deter Popular Support for Democracy in South Korea,Survey 46,no.3 (2006),pp.341–361.
• [12] [20][27]Richard Henry H.Mason,Japan’s First General Election,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1969,pp.122–123,p.24,p.76.
• [13] Kim Kyong-dong,Social and Cultural Developments in the Republic of Korea,in Thomas W.Robinson ed.,Democracy and Development in East Asia,Washington:AEI Press,1991,pp.137–54.
• [14] [32]Kang Xiaoguang,Confucianization:A Future in the Tradition,Social Research 73,no.1 (2006),pp.77–120,86-94.
• [16] Albert H.Y.Chen,Is Confucianism Compatible with Liberal Constitutional Democracy?Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34,no.2 (2007),pp.195–216.
• [17] John Fincher,Chinese Democracy:Statist Reform,the Self-Government Movement and Republican Revolution,Tokyo:Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa,1989,p.231.
• [18] [45]Daniel A.Bell,Beyond Liberal Democracy:Political Thinking for an East Context,Princeton:Princeton University Press,2006.
• [19] Cheng,Transforming Confucian Virtues;林毓生.中国传统的创造性转化[M].北京:三联书局,1988.
• [21] William Theodore de Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China.
• [22] Andrew J.Nathan,China’s Crisis:Dilemmas of Reform and Prospects for Democracy ,New York:Studies of the East Asian Institute,Columbia University,1990,pp.308–11,384.
• [23] Friedman,Democratization:Generalizing the East Asian Experience,pp.11–12.
• [24] Liang Chi-Chao,The Confucian School,in History of Chinese Political Thoughts:During the Early Tsin Period,London:Kegan Paul,1930,pp.150–152.
• [25][28] Baogang He,Rural Democracy in China,New York:Palgrave,2007,pp.222–227.
• [26] Hung-yok Ip,Liang Shuming and the Idea of Democracy in Modern China,Modern China,17,no.4 (1991),pp.481–487.
• [29] Chen Shengyong,The Native Resources of Deliberative Politics in China,” in Ethan Leib and Baogang He ed.,The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China,New York:Palgrave,2006.
• [30] Baogang He,Deliberative Democracy:Theory,Method and Practice,Beijing:China’s Social Science publishers,2008.
• [31] Joseph Chan,Legitimacy,Unanimity and Perfectionism,Philosophy and Public Affairs 29,no.1 (2000),pp.5–42.
• [33][40] 蒋庆.政治儒学:当代儒学的转向特质与发展[M].北京:三联书局,2003.
• [34] Chua Beng-Huat,Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore,London:Routledge,1995,p.197.
• [35] William Theodore de Bary,Ch’ien Mu Lectures:The Liberal Tradition in China,Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press,1983,p.9.
• [36] Lin Yu-sheng,The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen and the Confucian Concept of Moral Autonomy,Monumenta Serica 31 (1974–5),pp.172–204.
• [37] Joseph Chan,Asian Values and Human Rights:An Alternative View,in Larry Diamond & Marc Plattner eds.,Democracy in East Asia,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1998.
• [38] Yu-wei Hsieh,The Status of the Individual in Chinese Ethics,in Charles A.Moore ed.,The Chinese Mind,Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,1967,p.313.
• [39] Jeremy Waldron,A Right to Do Wrong,Ethics,92 (1981),pp.21–39.
• [41] Fox,Confucian and Communitarian Responses to Liberal Democracy,The Review of Politics 59,no.3(1997).
• [42] Joseph Chan,An Alternative View,Journal of Democracy 8,no.2 (1997),pp.35-48.
• [43] Young-Bae Song.Crisis of Cultural Identity in East Asia:On the Meaning of Confucian Ethics in the Age of Globalisation,Asian Philosophy 12,no.2 (2002).
• [44] Sor-Hoon Tan,Confucian Democracy:A Deweyan Reconstruction,Albany:State University of New York Press,2003,p.201.
• [46] Chung-ying Cheng,Preface:The Inner and the Outer for Democracy and Confucian Tradition,Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34,no.2 (2007),pp.152,154.
• ① 本文最早发在英文的《中国哲学》期刊上 (Baogang He,“Four Models of the Relationship between Confucianism and Democracy”,Journal of Chinese Philosophy,Vol.37,No.1,March 2010,pp.18-33),由赵依译为中文,作者在译稿基础上作了修改和增补,在此一并对译者致谢。
• ① Russell Fox 对作为必要权威手段的儒家思想作出了批判。见他的Confucian and Communitarian Responses to Liberal Democracy,The Review of Politics 59,no.3 (1997),p.561–92.
• ① 如果Isaiah Berlin关于消极自由的观点是对的话,那么儒学关于积极自由的观点具有很大的弱点。
• ① 牟宗三.正道与治道[M].台北:学生书局,1974.Lin Anwei批评牟宗三没有说明民主是如何在儒学以外发展。见Makeham,Lost Soul,p.179.