論梁啟超「國民」概念的兩面性：以Bluntschli國家學說作為背景的考察

The Two Faces of Liang Qichao's Concept of ＂Volk＂: A Perspective from Bluntschli's Theory of the State

楊尚儒(Shang-ju Yang) ； 林奕蒼(Yi-tsang Lin)

《政治科學論叢》 79期 (2019/03) Pp. 1-39

https://doi.org/10.6166/TJPS.201903_(79).0001

摘要

梁啓超的政治思想在1903年赴美之後出現巨大的轉變。在此前，梁啓超比較傾向於民權和政治體系的變動；在之後則趨於保守、反對共和革命。而無論是在思想轉變之前或之後，其論述都是以「國民」這一間接從Bluntschli繼受而來的概念爲核心。本文試圖藉由脈絡主義的研究方法來指出，梁啓超是基於當時的情勢和不同的立場，取其所需的部分來使用Bluntschli的國民概念。而之所以他能夠如此使用此一概念，則是因爲這一概念源於19世紀的德國國家學。後者的特點是，其本質爲人民主權與君主主權之爭的妥協方案，因此具有兩面性，亦即同時包含了有利於民權的部分亦具有有利於君主制的部分。

關鍵字

梁啓超 ； Bluntschli ； 國家學 ； 國民 ； 脈絡主義

並列摘要

Liang Qichao's political thought took a dramatic turn after his travels to the United States in 1903. Previously, Liang had tended to emphasize the importance of political rights and the transformation of the political system. Later, his attitude became more conservative, and he began to stand against the Republican revolution. What remains constant throughout his writings, however, is the core concept of the ＂people＂ (Volk), which Liang indirectly took from Bluntschli. Using the contextualist method, this article attempts to point out that Liang merely took the parts of Bluntschli's concept of Volk which served his purposes well, depending upon the situation and political goal. It was possible for him to use the term for opposing purposes as it originated from 19th century German political theory, which was essentially shaped by political compromise between the ruler and popular sovereignty. It, therefore, had a double meaning, which contained arguments both in favor of civil liberties and in support of the persistence of the monarchy.

並列關鍵字

Liang Qichao ； Bluntschli ； Theory of State ； Volk ； Contextualism

參考文獻

中國國民黨中央委員會黨史史料編纂委員會編，1968，《國民報彙編》，臺北: 中國國民黨中央委員會黨史史料編纂委員會。Zhongguo Kuomintang zhongyang weiyuanhui dangshi shiliao bianzuan weiyuanhui ed. 1968. Guomin bao hui bian [Compilation of The Chinese National]. Taipei: Zhongguo Kuomintang zhongyang weiyuanhui dangshi shiliao bianzuan weiyuanhui.

巴斯蒂，1997，〈中國近代國家觀念溯源一關於伯倫知理國家論的翻譯〉，《近代史研究》，4: 221-32。Marianne Bastid-Bruguière. 1997. “Zhongguo jindai guojia guannian suyuan- Guanyu Bluntchli guojialun de fanyi” [Trace the source of the Idea of State in Modern China: about the Translation of the theory of State by Bluntchli]. Modern Chinese History Studies 4: 221-232.

亓冰峰，1966，《清末革命與君憲的論爭》，臺北: 中央研究院近代史研究所。Chi, Bing-feng. 1966. Qingmo geming yu junxian de lunzheng [The Controversies between Revolutionists and Constitutionalists in the Late Ch’ing Period]. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.

朱浤源，1985，《同盟會的革命理論：【民報】的個案研究》，臺北:中央研究院近代史研究所。Zhu, Hong-yuan. 1985. Tungmenghui de geming lilun: “Minbao” de gean yanjiu [Tongmenghui’s Theory of Revolution: A Case Study of “Minbao”]. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.

沈松僑，2002,(國權與民權：晚清的「國民」論述，1895-1911〉，中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》，73(4): 685-734。Shen, Sung-chiao. 2002. “Guoquan yu minquan: Wanqing de ‘guomin’ lunshu, 1895-1911” [State Sovereignty and Popular Sovereignty: The Discourse of “Guomin” during the Late Qing, 1895-1911]. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 73(4): 685-734.