【作者】 李婷婷；

【导师】 常健；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 行政管理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 作为一种承袭了传统文化、肩负国家用以治理社会功能的重要纠纷解决方式,中国的调解制度和实践在近代以来面临现代化问题挑战展现出独特的形态。国家权力的参与使得人民调解在社会治理场域中处于一种微妙的地位,它既不纯然是民间自组织的力量,也不完全依附于国家政权。因此,对人民调解制度的理解不应仅将其视作是一种普遍性的纠纷解决机制,而应当将其置于整体社会转型的纵向历史过程中、作为一个视窗来观察和理解现代性问题在中国展开过程中所面临的种种特殊问题。除了解决纠纷,作为一种社会治理机制的人民调解还具有充当司法补充、动员民众和整合基层社会的制度功能。人民调解的其他社会治理功能是既依附于纠纷解决功能,又可独立于具体的纠纷解决过程。在调解实践中可以观察和总结出人民调解这四种制度功能之间彼此联系,相互补充；但各治理功能之间也存在相互排斥的可能。作为同一制度的四个侧面,虽然彼此之间存在着紧密的联系,但这四种功能发挥效用的条件并不完全一致。人民调解纠纷化解功能的发挥需要以政权的支持、制度细节决定的制度能力、以及紧密的基层社会关系作为前提条件。人民调解司法补充功能的发挥则取决于国家法与民间知识规范之间是否存在距离感、以及正式司法的纠纷化解能力是否能够应对纠纷化解的需求。作为基层整合工具的人民调解,这种功能的发挥则需要以匹配政权治理结构的组织化外观以及具有相应资质的调解者作为条件。以人民调解动员基层的效用则取决于这种动员的介质是否适当、策略是否适宜。自20世纪80年代中后期开始,人民调解作为纠纷化解机制的存在合理性日益遭到质疑,并陷入发展的危机。这种制度效用危机的背后是国家主导的渐进式改革与宏观社会结构的变迁。现实社会呼吁非诉讼的纠纷化解方式能够及时有效地处理纠纷、维护社会良序。纵向控制社会结构的解体,基层社会关系紧密的互动网络被打破并日益松散,若要更好地适应新的社会条件,重新获得展开调解所必须的资源和权威,就需要对人民调解的制度进行再设计,使得人民调解能够作为一种独立的、能够得到社会认可的纠纷化解机制而存在和运行。而人民调解作为司法补充、尤其是在普法的实践中表现出来的困难是与基层治理结构的改变紧密相系的。城市社区改革与农村居民自治使得基层社区的治理结构更加灵活,基层治理自由程度的提高,传统的层级式管理在“自治的社区”一级面临困难。未来人民调解的司法补充功能将隐含于人民调解的纠纷解决功能中、间接实现和发挥作用。社会流动性不断增多的现代社会,社区将毫无疑问地成为容纳和聚集社会成员的最基本的空间和场域,社区人民调解也将因此而具有显著的社会整合意义。从调解的社区实践来看,人民调解整合功能发挥不明显的重要约束因素在于基层社区改革的缺位。发挥和加强人民调解的社会整合功能需要针对性地采取系列措施,创造有利功能发挥的效用条件。随着城市化进程的加快和现代居住格局的改变,过去人民调解发挥功能所依靠的地邻乡友、地方性知识规范等赋予其合法性和正当性的资源都在减少,动员能力随之下降。与之不相称的是,社会治安综合治理背景之下的调解所肩负的功能压力却在扩大。命令式、动员式的人民调解,可能路径是转变为“治理型的动员”,也即常态的整合模式。人民调解的动员功能应当在实现其整合功能时自然实现。问题在于,前存的制度框架会型塑后期社会变迁的轨迹。作为社会治理机制之一的人民调解也是如此,即便其发挥原初制度功能的社会条件已经消解或弱化,但制度设计仍然倾向于沿着旧有的模式再生、延展和维持。虽然粗略看来是有效的,但实际上这种变迁并没有真正置于新式社会结构之中与之适应。现有的人民调解通过层级的提升和政权的赋权仍走在试图加强纵向整合的老路上,而如何利用调解来帮助社会实现自身的、横向的整合仍未寻见适当的进路。对待这样一种已然存在、并且在某种程度、某些功能维度上仍在发挥作用的拥有庞大基层组织网络的社会治理机制,合乎理性的选择不是彻底废弃、而是对其进行制度再设计、使其更为契合社会发展需要。人民调解应当、并且能够在公民培养这一维度上发挥效用、获致助益社会发展的新工具价值。通过调解促进基层社会整合主要在于调解能够通过消除个体间的私利冲突与人际关系障碍,实现公平与正义,从而更大程度地促进个体对国家及社会的认同感；并且在调解过程中能够促进自治性秩序的生发,实现对社区的整合。调解同时也能够通过隐性扩张政权规制、中立冲突性质、并经由调解协议的合同形式构建基层社会与政权之间的“弹性”联结。这种弹性联结意味着国家政权与社会间能够建构起“合作式治理”的治理模式,这种模式的理想之处在于,分离进程中的中国国家与社会将在各守其界、相互赋权的同时,仍然能够保有有效的联结；这无疑为中国治理结构和模式的转型提供了一种可供选择的思路。更多还原

【Abstract】 Meditation is important as a kind of alternative dispute resolution since it carries both traditional cultural heritage and the function of social governance at the same time, but is caught in a delicate position when it came across modernization process. The interference of state authority makes meditation system neither completely self-organized nor completely attached to state power. So instead of treating it as a mere dispute resolution, we could place meditation system in a historical process of social transition and use it as a perspective to analyze what happened when modernization process runs into China’s unique context.First of all, a brief review on the traditional civil mediation shed some light on the social governing functions of people’s meditation, which are judicial supplementary, mass mobilization, grass root society integration and dispute resolution. The other three functions can be attached to or independent from dispute resolution and all of these four functions may be inter-connected or mutual exclusive.As the four aspects of one system, the four functions are interdependent and are conditionally effective in different ways. Dispute resolution function requires the support of state authority, institutional capability and close local social relations. Judicial supplementary function depends on the distance between public law and civil knowledge and the ability of formal legal mechanism to cope with the need of dispute resolution. Local integration function has to be compatible with the organizational appearance of governance structure and calls for qualified mediators; and mass mobilization function relies on the properness of its mobilizing media and strategy.Since1980s people’s mediation has been stuck in evolutional crisis, and behind this crisis is the transition of broad social context and gradualism reform. Society needs alternative dispute resolution to be effective in dealing with disputes and keep the society well-ordered, while the vertical control of social structure had breakdown and made local social relation fragmented. As a result, people’s mediation needs to be reinvented to fit in this new circumstance, and get necessary resource and authority to make itself an independent and acceptable dispute resolution.As a judicial complement, the dilemma people’s mediation met has something to do with the changes in local governance structure. Governance structure becomes more flexible because of community reform and village autonomy, which makes the hierarchical management more difficult in "autonomy community" level. So the author suggests that judicial supplementary function be packed with dispute resolution function to work indirectly for the future to come.Modern community has become a most basic arena for community mediation to function as social integration mechanism, but in its practice an important constraining factor is the absence of local community reform, and it needs more detailed and specific reform steps.With the acceleration of urbanization and rapid change of modern living structure, the resource and legitimacy of neighborhood and local knowledge are declining, and so is its mobilization ability. At the same time, its functional pressure is increasing. One available path is to turn it into a type of governance mobilization, i.e. regular integration.However, social transition trajectory is shaped by existing institutional framework, and it is especially the case when it comes to people’s mediation as a social governance method. Even if the social condition for its original function has faded away, institution design still inclines to recreate, extend and maintain its original path. This dependence appears to be effective, but since it is not embedded in the new social structure, it keeps reinforcing the vertical integration as it used to be. How to use mediation to help the society find a horizontal integration is still a question to answer. For an existing social governance mechanism like people’s mediation that are still working in some way, the rational option is not to abandon it unconditionally, but to reinvent it to fit in the context of social transition, because people’s mediation should and could be useful in cultivating civil society and promoting social development.Besides, mediation promotes local social integration and justice because it serves to resolute interest conflict and relationship barriers between individuals, and to weave their identification into the net of state and society. Mediation also serves to extend state regulation indirectly, to neutralize conflict and to connect society and state in a resilient way. This connection implies "cooperative governance" between them and its value lies in both their inter-dependence and independence, which implies an alternative for the transition of governance structure approach as a whole.更多还原