從德里達解構理論探討「行政中立」的認知弔詭

「行政中立」的認知弔詭表明，「行政中立」是一個本質上可爭議的概念，由此引申「行政中立」的意義可否被決定之問題。對此，本文引用德里達的前後期解構理論進行探討。前期解構理論從「差異」出發，認為吾人在決定「行政中立」的意義時，將會陷入「邏輯困境」。依此，「行政中立」的意義之「在場」與「不在場」之間，可以用「在場／不在場」弔詭圖式來表示。關鍵之處在於，「在場」與「不在場」之間只有一線之隔，但卻存有無限多種拉出方式。就此而言，「行政中立」的意義是不可被決定的。相反地，後期解構理論從「暴力的經濟」出發，認為對行政機關（及其承辦者）而言，「行政中立」與「行動性行政中立」（或稱解構性行政中立）之間，以及「行動性行政中立」與「行政中立機制」之間，存有不對稱性與暴力性斷裂。「行政中立」像是個「臉龐」，其要求「行政中立機制」服務它。對此，因為「行政中立機制」的「分延」效果是一種暴力式主體性，所以會主動提出下回合的「行動性行政中立」，用以回應臉龐的要求，並進而成為「行政中立」的意義。就此而言，「行政中立」的意義是可被決定的。

關鍵字

行政中立；認知弔詭；德里達；解構理論

並列摘要

The cognitive paradox of the 'Administrative Neutrality' reveals that the 'Administrative Neutrality' is an essentially contestable concept. And it leads to the question: is the meaning of 'administrative neutrality' decidable? This paper uses the viewpoints of Jacques Derrida's deconstruction theory, in order to answer the question. The early deconstruction theory starts with 'difference', and considers that we shall encounter 'aporia', when we determine the meaning of 'administrative neutrality'. Under the circumstance, because there are many different ways to de-paradox it, the meaning of 'administrative neutrality' is undecidable. The late deconstruction theory starts with 'economy of violence'. On the one hand, it considers that there are asymmetries and violent discontinuity among 'administrative neutrality', 'performative administrative neutrality' and 'administrative action'. On the other hand, 'administrative neutrality' is similar to a 'face', it require the 'administrative action' to have a response done in answer. The effect of the 'differance' turns into a 'violence', which is equivalent to 'subjectivity'. Consequently, 'administrative action' presents the 'performative administrative neutrality', in order to respond to the command of 'face', and the 'performative administrative neutrality' is equivalent to the meaning of 'administrative neutrality'. As far as that is concerned, the meaning of 'administrative neutrality' is decidable.