權利意志的社會學分析：權利論述、公民身份與社會理論

本論文的主題，是現代社會中存在著對於權利概念所抱有的特定文化情結，並暫以「權利意志」一詞名之。對於權利意志與現代社會的關連，不同的研究方式與學科視角都有著不同的理解方式。其中可以發現兩種主要的類型，它們各自有其著重的研究焦點：一者，是著重規範性或理念性的法律與政治哲學，另一者是強調社會制度或社會團體的社會科學。處於這樣的研究脈絡中，本論文將自身設定於這兩種論述視角之間，並且從它們各自著重的關鍵論題（指，權利論述與公民身份）做為出發點。在重新考察這兩者的內在發展與可為之處以後，本論文（前三章，指第一至三章）嘗試透過社會理論的角度來提出關於「權利論述、公民身份與社會理論」的可能重建方向。依照這樣的研究角度與重建方向，本論文（後三章，指第四至六章）藉由考察「公民身份」概念的知識生產過程，來展示自身與既有兩種學科視角（指，法政哲學、社會學）的區別之處。對於「權利論述、公民身份與社會理論」的既有研究，本論文對它們進行重新安置的方式各自如下。首先，從權利論述的發展過程之中可以發現相關論者仍隱性地關切著社會理論的問題意識（第一章）。依此，我們可以一方面藉此翻轉社會科學對其抱有的刻板印象（指，認為權利概念具有各種反社會成分），另一方面將權利論述研究者所意欲發展的各種社會關連性（指，個體、團體、社會）連結至社會學研究與社會理論的相關成果之上。其次，公民身份社會學的發展過程本身也呈現出再度回歸於「規範性概念」之社會效果的研究趨勢（第二章）。此研究旨趣更展現在公民身份社會學重建計畫中，關於團體座落、主體形成與（團體與主體的）重新連結方式的三個概念主軸。公民身份概念的三個關鍵主軸既可以承接權利論述研究者所未竟的社會關連性，也可以同時引入社會學研究者對於當代社會理論資源的重新使用。第三，公民身份社會學者對於當代社會理論資源的各種使用方式中，仍然存在著可能進行重新安置的關鍵（第三章）。有別於「結構 / 能動」所呈現的理論對張典範，當代社會理論的相關反思一方面表現在研究者重新回到社會秩序提問的問題之上（指，規範論述、團體動態與秩序持存），另一方面，也表現在研究者同時重視當代社會理論呈現的雙重脈絡化（指，社會理論家本身的問題意識轉變脈絡、相關研究者所形成的評論與繼受脈絡）。建立在以上三章的重新安置，本論文試圖對於現代社會的權利意志問題提供相關的社會學分析，並且透過知識生產過程的角度進行之。依此，從知識生產過程的角度來進行分析時，我們較容易在不同主軸上刻畫出公民身份概念如何展現現代社會的知識性質。這樣的對照也更能說明本論文在第四、五與六章之間的相互關連。首先，不同社會團體之間的動態關係，在「權利授與 / 權利爭取」之間具有關鍵的知識作用（第四章）。不同社會團體對於整體社會秩序所可能展現的特殊貢獻（指，不論經濟性或道德性），在知識生產上構成了權利論述或公民身份的社會判準。可見，公民身份概念所關切的團體座落問題，並非指涉某種實存團體。第二，專業人士與專業知識（及其自身產生的轉變），對於「權利主體 / 公民性質」的形成具有關鍵的知識作用（第五章）。專業人士既取代了前現代社會之中關於公民形象的表率，也在現代社會中透過專業知識來建構出各種「現代主體」，進而匯集出現代公民應有的各種倫理特質。即使專業倫理與公民倫理之間未必仍具有關係，但是，這樣的知識生產過程卻指出了兩者之間的關連性。第三，現代社會的發展中，規範框架設定與集體學習過程的關係並非完全分化開來，也未必可以被二分地對應於法政論述與社會領域（第六章）。從知識生產過程的角度來考察公民身份概念的上述兩個軸線（指，團體、主體）時，我們可以發現，各種重新將兩種不同概念成分加以統合的理論化嘗試，既表現在各種社會中介領域的討論（指，市民社會、公共領域），也常見於各種法律政治框架的討論（指，權利論述、公民身份）。這樣看來，在團體動態、專業知識與集體學習方面，可以刻畫公民身份所具有的不同知識生產過程，也可以重新理解權利論述與現代社會秩序之間的關連性。建立在前述分析（指，社會理論的角度、知識生產的過程），本論文簡略提出三個反思，分別指向現代社會中的權利意志、社會學研究與社會理論批判（第七章）。首先，公民身份概念在現代社會之中呈現出兩個不同的樣貌（指，前現代與現代）。重新刻畫出前現代知識框架所投射的各種期望時，我們可以發現，權利意志對於現代社會來說，之所以呈現出某種文化焦慮的樣貌，其中關鍵在於各種現代知識框架所展現的理解方式，受到了相對的阻礙與限制。其次，社會學研究仍然受限於「規範 / 經驗」的二分，未能從自身所發展出的公民身份社會學走出，因而疏於從社會理論的角度來進行重建。從知識生產的角度看待權利意志時，社會學研究實則可能區分不同的概念成分與其發展、刻畫規範性期待所浮現的過程，甚至對於學科視角與研究傳統進行反思。最後，本論文嘗試著由權利意志的社會學研究，在現代性重估之中定位出社會理論批判的所在。既有的研究方式將權利意志視為現代性所伴隨的必然困境，或者以權利意志的正反並存性質來理解之，或者以現代社會的永恆內在對張來理解之。但是，本論文卻認為，權利意志的問題可以透過「社會秩序提問」的論述釐清，來同時重視「規範理念與社會團體」各自的雙重樣貌、彼此的簡化對立。將權利意志之於現代社會的論述整體加以釐清之後，重新解開其中的簡化與對張則正是社會理論的批判所在。

關鍵字

權利意志；權利論述；公民身份；社會理論；知識生產過程

並列摘要

This Dissertation focuses on the “Will to Right”(WR), a cosmopolitan but culturally-particular complex in modern society, which escapes from the dominant agendas. Concerning the linkage between the WR and Modernity, there are at least two major research agendas, framing the different rights discourses: juristic and political one that emphasizes the normative or ideal dimension of WR, whereas the sociological one that underlines the social effect coursed by institutions or groups. In this context, we try to make a critical reappraisal of the two dominant agendas, e.g. the “Rights Discourse thesis”(RD) and “Citizenship thesis”(CT) at first, so as to find out the underlying consensus and its drawback and to revitalize a possible synthesis. Thus, from chapter one to chapter three, the main issues respectively focus on RD, CT and social theory, and we try to elaborate a concept of the WR. From chapter four to chapter six, the conception formation “citizenship” is respectively analyzed by three parameters, which deal with group location, subject formation, and bridges between group-subject. How to relocate the theoretical consensus and its drawback of the two dominant agendas can be summarized as follows. Firstly, concerning the development of modern rights discourses since nineteen century, there is a theoretical tendency: to bring all sorts of socialities back into rights formation (chapter one). Although this tendency does work, it still leaves sociologists a stereotype that RD is anti-social by nature. Despite the stereotype, RD indeed provides insights into the sociality of individual-group-society. Secondly, since 1980s CT sociologists emphasize the social effects of modern rights, which can be classified into three major axes of the “citizenship” conception: the group location, the subject formation, and the link between group-subject (chapter two). Through the three conceptual axes, CT sociologists overly explore social constitutes related to the modern rights, such as social settings, social institutions, and social agency. Thirdly, the RD or CT researchers seem to provide a perspective agenda, but some critical impasse block the further elaboration of WR. In chapter three, we try to draw on the studies of three contemporary social theorists (e.g. Bourdieu, Foucault and Habermas) to overcome the theoretical impasse mentioned above. As result, we propose a framework studying WR. The framework I proposed, at least consisting of three conceptual axes (e.g. intergroup-dynamics, professional knowledge, and collective learning), will be clarified respectively in following three chapters. In chapter four, I argue that the inter-group dynamics are essential base of “rights-charter/rights-struggle” scheme. Different social groups seek to theorize their contribution to the whole society, which could be expressed in productive or moralistic form. In this knowledge production processes, RD or CT are not only for concrete social group or class, but also embedded with some modern social criteria. In chapter five, I argue that the professionals and their knowledge (with its transformation) make key impacts on the modern right-subject or citizenship. The modern professionals not only replace traditional gentry as social elite, but also remarkably contribute to the making of the modern subject-hood and its ethical attributes with different professional knowledge. To some extent, modern professionals are the prototype for modern citizen. In chapter six, I argue that the normative framework and collective learning are not totally differentiated, and at the same time they are still in overlapping between systems and practices. In the overlapping of system-practice, collective learning provide varieties of social-mediate mechanism, embodied as several social forms, such as inter-subject, inter-group, and subject to group ones. Above all, along with the intergroup-dynamics, professional knowledge, and collective learning, we can trace different conceptual axes of WR. In sum, three consequences can be drawn. First, although citizenship conception is often regarding as an unsolvable complex, the modern citizenship contains different cultural and social forms, clearly distinguished from the pre-modern ones. Second, the development of CT sociology can go beyond the “normative/empirical” binary and be replaced with the process of knowledge production. In this way, CT sociologist could decompose those different conceptual axes, trace the emergence of the normative social effect, and rethink the disciplinary limits of citizenship study. Third, social theory is essential for sociologist to advance their critique of modernity. With the relocation of modern WR, we can elaborate RD and CT without the binary reduction (ex: normative ideals vs. social groups) of social-order-question.

並列關鍵字

Will to Right ； Rights Discourse ； Citizenship ； Social Theory ； the Process of Knowledge Production

參考文獻

D'Entrèves, A. P. 1951. Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Finnis, John. 1998. Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal theory. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press.

Maritain, Jacques. 2001. Natural Law: Reflections on theory and Practice. Edited and Introduced By William Sweet. South Bend, Ind. : St. Augustine's Press.

Dumm, Thomas L. 2002. Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1964 "Introduction." Pp. V-Xx. In Class, Citizenship, and Social Class, Edited By T. H. Marshall. New York: Doubleday.

國際替代計量

權利意志的社會學分析：權利論述、公民身份與社會理論

主題瀏覽