- 學位論文
論霍布斯社會契約論中之性別角力
On the Gender Competition in Hobbes' Social Contract Theory
摘要
社會契約論，從17世紀以降，承先啟後地對全世界之立法政策、政府權力來源 均發生重大影響，甚至推動近三百年來全球之民主化運動，並落實於各國之憲法或成文、不成文法之中。在此理論下，人與人之間如同原子序列般必然彼此平等，且擁有一定程度之天賦權利，政府或國家若欲對人民進行任何支配行為，均需符合社會契約論所制；人們脫離了血統、身分的束縛約束，而成為一個完整的、展新的個體。我們甚至可以說一個社會的法律是否進步，可端視其是否已從囊昔之封建地、重血統身分起源的法體制，蛻變到重平等性的新契約公民社會。 縱然理想是如此，然而在社會契約論風起雲湧三百年後，我們可發現社會不平等與階級專政仍四處可見。以性別關係為例，與社約論概念互斥的父權（或夫權）制度是否消失了？恐怕不然，女性與男性地位相較，仍不能在法體制規定上並駕其驅、分庭抗禮 。如同美國學者Carole Pateman所言，三百年來社會契約理論之爭議及延續發展上，雖是眾聲喧嘩、百家爭鳴，然若論及其中之性別角力關係則是一片沉寂。為彌補此缺憾，本文復加入先於社約論的父權體制理論，細述其內涵、起源，如何將君權與神權類比於家庭中，使得父親獲得如同君王、上帝一般的地位；又，其如何被社約論取代而崩解，社約論如何稱霸數百年，又如何取得法律政治體制上的主導地位，以及其後女性主義者發現其缺失，且如何改進之，該等理論是如何改良社約理論而應用於現制。 霍布斯之所以為本文論述代表，主要著眼於霍布斯極端的個人主義；若是即便在霍布斯此等極端的社約論主張之中，男女之間尚存在著對照鮮明的不平等，那麼不平等的來源究竟為何？若是先天而來且無法抹滅，則社約論假設之立約平等恐怕有錯；若是後天透過社會制度形塑的，那何以社會執意重製父權制的壓迫，而再現於當今社約論的體制中？若以上之問題，均未能獲得完滿的解釋，我們將發現即便連最極端的社會契約論－－在性別關係裡最恪遵平等的霍布斯，仍不能剷除父權制的肇害。而以上問題之闡述，當乃本文之重心。
並列摘要
Social contract theory, has a significant influence to legislative policy and the source of government power from the 17th century. It promote the democratization movement, and implement among in the Constitution, written and unwritten law in the world. We even can say that the movement of the progressive societies has hither to been a movement from feudal status system to new civil world of contract. Although the ideal is the case, we found that social inequality and class dictatorship is still found everywhere in three hundred years later. As an example of gender relations, mutually exclusive with social contract theory, does the patriarchy disappear nowadays? I am afraid not. The status of women compared with men, still cannot keep abreast in the legal system. As an American scholar Carole Pateman said that while on the theory of social contract is controversial constantly, but Academia still keep a deep silence once deal with gender relations. To compensate for this omission, this thesis added to a patriarchal theory which prior to social contract theory. Hobbes has become the focus of this thesis, mainly because of his extreme individualism. But If even in such extreme Hobbesian social contract theory claims that inequality still exist between men and women, then what is the source of inequality? If the result of such unequal from birth, and could not be undone, then the assumption by social contract theory about individual equality maybe wrong. If this inequality is acquired through the shaping of the social system, then why such society bent on to reproduce patriarchal oppression? If the above issues, are unable to obtain a satisfactory explanation, we will find that even the most extreme social contract theory -- Hobbes , abiding by the principle of equality, still unable to eradicate the oppression of patriarchy.