Title

我們沒有台上台下之分-代理孕母公民共識會議中的專家與常民關係

Translated Titles

"No Difference between Us": The Relationship between Experts and Lay Persons in the Surrogate Motherhood Consensus Conference in Taiwan

DOI

10.6448/TDQ.200709.0001

Authors

林祐聖(Yu-Sheng Lin)

Key Words

溝通型態 ; 情境註腳 ; 公民會議 ; 審議民主 ; styles of communication ; footings ; consensus conference ; deliberative democracy

PublicationName

臺灣民主季刊

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

4卷3期(2007 / 09 / 01)

Page #

1 - 32

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本文以代理孕母公民共識會議為例,說明專家統治與公共審議的關係。本文認為,專家與常民之間的權力不對等關係,是一種情境性的表現,行動者在不同的情境中,需要扮演與壓制某些身分與相對應的行為,以達成互動的平衡。在公共審議的情境中,專家與常民彼此建構出一種較為平等的溝通型態,專家在公共審議的情境中,壓制「專家」的身分,而嘗試以「公民」的身分參與討論。從本文的發現來看,專家與常民的身分與相應的行為模式並非連續不變的,行動者的多重身份、情境脈絡以及行動者所儲存的互動劇碼,使得行動者在不同的情境中,有著不同的溝通型態。也就是說,公共審議的情境與溝通型態,是由行動者共同製造的結果。

English Abstract

The author uses the Surrogate Motherhood Consensus Conference as a case study to illustrate the relationship between technocrats and public deliberation. The author argues that relationship between technocrats and ordinary people is a contextual phenomenon. Social actors need to adopt or suppress certain identities to adapt to different social settings. In public deliberation, experts and lay persons mutually construct a more equitable style of communication. Experts suppress their identity as ”experts” and instead adopt a ”citizen” identity in public deliberation. From the findings in this study, the identities of experts and lay persons, as well as the patterns of behavior corresponding to these identities, are not static. The multiple identities of social actors, different social settings, and the variety of social interaction that social actors experience determine the nature of what an adequate style of communication in a given social setting is. In other words, the setting and style of communication of public deliberation are constructed by social actors.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 政治學
Reference
  1. 林國明、陳東升(2003)。公民會議與審議民主:全民健保的公民參與經驗。台灣社會學,6,61-118。
    連結:
  2. Dahl, Robert A.(1998).On Democracy.New Haven & London:Yale University Press.
  3. DiMaggio, Paul J.,Walter W. Powell,Walter W. Powell,Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.)(1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
  4. Eliasoph, Nina(1996).Making A Fragile Public: A Talk-Centered Study of Citizenship and Power.Sociological Theory,14(3),262-289.
  5. Emirbayer, Mustafa(1997).Manifesto for A Relational Sociology.The American Journal of Sociology,103(2),281-317.
  6. Emirbayer, Mustafa,Mimi Sheller(1998).Public in History.Theory and Society,27(6),727-779.
  7. Fischer, Frank(2005).Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.Durham and London:Duke University Press.
  8. Friedland, Roger,Robert R. Alford,Walter W. Powell,Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.)(1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press.
  9. Gamson, Williams A.,Hank Johnston,Bert Klandermans (eds.)(1995).Social Movements and Culture.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
  10. Gaventa, John(1980).Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in An Appalachian Valley.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
  11. Goffman, Erving(1981).Forms of Talks.Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
  12. Goffman, Erving(1967).Interaction Ritual.New York:Pantheon Books.
  13. Habermas, Jurgen,Thomas McCarthy. (Trans.)(1973).Legitimation Crisis.Boston:Beacon Press.
  14. Heritage, John(1984).Garfinkel and Ethnomenthodology.MA:Polity Press.
  15. Jon Elster (ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.UK:Cambridge University Press.
  16. Jon Elster (ed.),James Bohman,William Rehg (eds.)(2002).Deliberative Democracy.Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England:The MIT Press.
  17. Lichterman, Paul(1999).Talking Identity in the Public Sphere: Broad Visions and Small Spaces in Sexual Identity Politics.Theory and Society,28(1),101-141.
  18. Luskin, Robert C.,James S. Fishkin,Jowell Roger(2002).Considered Opinions: Deliberative Poll in British.British Journal of Political Science,32,455-487.
  19. Mansbridge, Jane M.,Stephen L. Elkins,Edward Stolen (eds.)(1999).Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions.University Park, PA:The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  20. Mische, Ann,Mario Diani,Doug McAdam (eds.)(2003).Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action.New York:Oxford University Press.
  21. Skocpol, Theda(2003).Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life.Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
  22. Smith, Greg(2006).Erving Goffman.London:Routledge.
  23. Taylor, Verta,Nancy E. Whitter,Aldon D. Morris,Carol Mueller (eds.)(1992).Frontiers of Social Movement Theory.New Haven, CT:Yale University.
  24. Tocqueville, Alexis De(2003).Democracy in America and Two Essays on America.England:Penguin Book.
  25. Young, Iris Marion(2000).Inclusion and Democracy.New York:Oxford University Press.
  26. 杜麗燕、李少軍譯、Carnoy, Martin原著(1995)。國家與政治理論。台北:桂冠。
  27. 林國明(2004)。代理孕母公民共識會議與會後訪談逐字稿。「代理孕母公民共識會議」研究計劃。
  28. 林國明、林祐聖、葉欣怡(2005)。審議式民主公民會議操作手冊。台北:行政院青年輔導委員會。
  29. 國立臺灣大學社會學系「科技、民主與社會網站」
  30. 簡惠美(譯),Giddens, Anthony(原著)(1996).資本主義與現代社會理論:馬克思.宮爾幹.韋伯.台北:遠流.
Times Cited
  1. 邱智民(2010)。公民參與科技風險決策之評估:以英國基改作物與食品公共辯論為例。淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班學位論文。2010。1-150。 
  2. 吳澤玫(Tse-Mei Wu)(2014)。審議民主與多元社會的穩定。政治與社會哲學評論。(49)。1-58。 
  3. 李國正(2012)。公民審議之內容分析--以奇岩公民陪審團為例。臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文。2012。1-85。 
  4. 莊沛穎(2011)。媒體、公共與政治─ 公共新聞學在台灣之實踐與發展經驗之探討。臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文。2011。1-162。 
  5. 李宜卿(2010)。公民參與的機會與挑戰—台灣審議民主制度化之研究。臺灣大學國家發展研究所學位論文。2010。1-168。 
  6. 黃世團(2009)。公民會議與代議民主的制度連結-以「代理孕母」為分析個案。臺灣大學國家發展研究所學位論文。2009。1-249。 
  7. 莊千慧(2008)。審議式民主與地方政府政策規劃過程:新莊中港河廊通學步道願景工作坊個案研究。政治大學公共行政研究所學位論文。2008。1-143。
  8. 林心睿(2010)。利益團體與審議民主的互動:《核廢何從公民討論會》之個案分析。政治大學公共行政研究所學位論文。2010。1-128。
  9. 梁甄芸(2012)。北投地區空間形塑之研究-以北投社區大學推動之審議式民主為焦點。政治大學地政研究所學位論文。2012。1-192。