全球公民社会与国家

【作者】 周俊；

【导师】 郁建兴；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文梳理了英语学术界关于全球公民社会的理论成果，并以此为基础，围绕着“全球公民社会的存在和发展正在改变人们对国家及相关概念(主权、公民身份和民主)的认同，从而推动了传统国家理论的转型”这一论题，展开了全球公民社会与国家关系的讨论。论文共分为七个部分(引论、五章及结语)：第一部为引论。该部分从当今国家处境的新变化出发，指出后福利主义的到来以及由新自由主义所推动的全球化的展开导致了国家的危机；国家为提高在新形势中的适应性而谋求变革，变革的一个重要的维度是向公民社会转移部分职能。在这种情况下，公民社会获得了巨大的发展空间，以致几近与国家、全球资本鼎足而立，在这一基础上，全球治理结构也逐渐形成。该部分认为，全球公民社会是国家与社会关系转型的产物，也因此，对全球公民社会的认识必须要在它与国家的关系中去寻求，这进而带来了国家与社会关系理论的重构。该部分最后指出，尽管在重构后的国家与社会关系理论中，全球公民社会将在治理结构中扮演重要的角色，但是，国家仍然是治理的主导性力量，治理结构的存在和发展离不开国家“元治理”功能的发挥。第二部分为“全球公民社会的理论模式与研究框架”。该部分是对国内外全球公民社会研究的一个文献综述，主要介绍了英语学术界对全球公民社会的研究现状，明确了全球公民社会在英语学术界的基本理论模式与主要研究框架，并且指明了我国全球公民社会的研究需要在现有基础上进一步推进，尤其应该关注全球公民社会与国家的关系。该部分最后指出，本文的研究将围绕全球公民社会与国家最重要的三个维度——主权、公民身份和民主之间的关系而展开。第三部分讨论“全球公民社会”的兴起。该部分指出，新自由主义所推动的全球化加剧了现代性的危机并且使这一危机扩散到全球，我们正生活在一个“全球风险社会”之中。对此，各国都在积极应对，试图结合公民社会的力量促进国家变革和规制全球化的方向，这直接推进了自20世纪70年代开始复兴的公民社会理论的发展，促成了“全球公民社会”在90年代的形成。全球公民社会是“全球化”与“公民社会”相结合的产物，但又不限于此，它自身已经成为一个极具重要性的分析范式，既与公民社会理论相联系，又区别于它，既作为一种政治策略存在，同时也是一种综合的目标体系。该部分最后简要界定了本文所讨论的全球公民社会这一概念的内涵。第四部分讨论“全球公民社会”与“国家主权”的关系。该部分围绕国际政治理论、全球治理理论以及哈贝马斯的主权终结论三个向度，勾画了全球公民社会与国家主权关系的理论轮廓。国际政治理论的当代发展充分体现了全球公民社会在全球政治中不断增长的重要性，但是它对全球公民社会作用的认识还是处于初步阶段，还只是承认全球公民社会之于主权国家的影响和补充作用。全球治理理论视全球公民社会为未来治理结构中的三大支柱之一，赋予了全球公民社会与主权国家和全球资本相平等的地位，从而使全球公民社会获得了正式的权威，但是全球治理理论不否认主权国家在全球治理中的主导性地位，仍然坚持主权国家在治理体系中的特殊性。哈贝马斯提出了民族国家将终结于“世界公民社会”的观点，将“世界公民社会”的历史意义推向了顶端。虽然哈贝马斯的理论是在讨论一种理想的社会形态，但是即使抛开现实，仅从理论上分析，这种观点仍然难以自圆其说。本部分通过以上讨论试图说明，全球公民社会虽然对国家主权观念形成了挑战，但是这种挑战仍然是有限度的，主权国家在某些方面可能在退缩，但在有些方面正在加强自身的权力和能力。第五部分讨论“全球公民社会”与“公民身份”的关系。该部分指出，全球公民社会的发展复兴了“全球公民”这一概念，使对围绕全球公民身份的讨论更显乐观。全球公民身份意味着个体与其民族国家公民身份之间的一种剥离，它将对民族国家产生重大影响。在全球公民社会及众多因素的合力之下，公民身份跨越国界走向全球具有一定的历史必然性。在这一过程中，全球公民身份与民族国家公民身份之间的张力需要合理的处理，艾利斯·马瑞恩·杨的“差异性公民身份”和戴维·赫尔德的“复合公民身份”尝试着解决这一难题。但是，他们的方案仍然存在局限性。在当前及相当长的时期内，民族国家公民身份仍将主导公民的意识和行动。第六部分讨论“全球公民社会”与“民主”的关系。该部分从全球性的民主危机出发，着重论述了全球公民社会与民主的关系，指出全球公民社会因其凸显了价值领域的公民本体论与政治领域的公民自主性从而带来了改进传统政治民主的新希望，但是，全球公民社会自身也存在着民主赤字。即使这样，在全球民主的讨论中，全球公民社会也获得了重要的地位。但是，无论是自由主义的全球民主、世界主义民主还是草根民主，每一种全球民主模式都提出，最好将全球民主看作一个民族国家、全球公民社会和全球市场共同努力的过程，每一方都要克服自身存在的局限性，妥善处理合作共处中存在的冲突和斗争，以形成良性的互动关系。第七部分为结语。该部分在前文讨论的基础上指出，围绕着全球公民社会与国家的关系上存在两种对立的观点，一种认为民族国家终将消亡于全球社会，一种认为民族国家将与全球公民社会并存于全球治理结构之中。这两种观点决定了全球公民社会的未来。在第一种观点之中，全球公民社会无法超越现实和理论的局限性，因而只可能是一个遥不可及的乌托邦；在第二种观点之中，全球公民社会的历史意义在于获得与民族国家和市场相制衡的权力，以促使三方合作，共同实现人类发展与正义的目标。在这种意义上，全球公民社会能够在全球治理结构中获得实现，因而不会只是一个正义的乌托邦。该部分最后指出，全球公民社会理想的实现还有漫长的道路要走，在目前它必须更加积极地推动全球治理的形成并且在这一过程中不断克服自身的局限性。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis, based on the summarization of the theoretical fruits on Global Civil Society in the English academic field,unfolds the discussion on the relationship between global civil society and state, centering on the issue "the existence and development of global civil society are changing people’s identity with states and related concepts (sovereignty\citizenship\democracy ),and propel the transform of traditional state theory. The thesis consists of 7 parts (foreword,five chapters and epilogue) :The first part is foreword. In the light of new changes in the states’ situation,this part indicates the coming of post-Fordism and the globalization driven by Neo-Liberalism lead to crisis of states; States seek reforms in order to adapt to the new situation well, and an important dimension of the reforms is to transfer some functions to civil society. In this situation, civil society gets great developing space, resulting in the gradual formation of structures of global governance, coexistence with state and global capital. This part also points out that global civil society is an outcome of relationship’s transformation between state and society, which renewedly advances the theory reconstruction of this relationship. At last, this part shows although in the reconstructed theory global civil society will play an important role in global governance, states are still the major power in structures of governance,the existence and development of governance structures can not live without the function of meta-governance of states.The second part includes" theory modes and study frames of global civil society". This part is a literature review on the domestic and foreign research of global civil society .It mainly introduces the current researches into global civil society in the English academic field, clarifies the basic theory modes and main study frames of global civil society in the English academic field, and suggests: our China’s research into global civil society is in need of further development and it needs to focus on the relationship between civil society and states in particular. This part at last points out that the research of the thesis goes on circling the three most important dimensions—the relationship among sovereignty, citizenship, and democracy.The third part discusses the bloom of "global civil society". This part indicates that the globalization driven by Neo-Liberalism aggravates the crisis of modernity and spreads this crisis around the world; we are living in "global risk society". Towards this, all states are reacting actively, trying to help state reform and control the direction of globalization combining the power of civil society, which directly advances the developing of civil society theory having revived since 70s in the 20th century and helps form global civil society in the 90s.Global civil society is the combination of "global" and "civil society", but more than that, it itself has become a significant analyzing category, which is not only related to "civil society" theory, but also different from that; which exists as a kind of political tactics and a kind of integrated target system. This part lastly briefly defines the connotation of the concept" global civil society" discussed in the thesis. The fourth part discusses the relationship between "global civil society" and "state sovereignty". This part outlines the theory of the relationship between "global civil society" and state sovereignty, circling the three dimensions of Theory of International Politics, Theory of Global Governance and Harbermas’ Sovereignty Ending Theory. The current development of Theory of International Politics fully reflects that global civil society is playing an ever-increasing part in global politics, however , its knowledge about the function of global civil society is still at the primary stage, yet only admits the influence and implementing function of global civil society on states. Theory of Global Governance regards global civil society as one of the three supporting pillars in the future governance structures, equaling the status of global civil society, states and global capital, authorizing global civil society formally. However, the global governance theory never denies the leading role of states in global governance, still sticking to it that states are special in the governance system. Harbermas puts forward the viewpoint that states will end in a "World Civil Society", heightening the historical significance of "World Civil Society" to the top. Although Harbermas’ theory is discussing an idealistic society form, yet even though it is analyzed only theoretically regardless of realities, this viewpoint still can not hold water. Through the above discussion, this part seeks to indicate that although global civil society challenges the concept of sovereignty, such challenge is still limited; states maybe draw back in some aspects, but strengthen their own power and ability in some other aspects.The fifth part discusses the relationship between "global civil society" and "civil identity" .This part points out that the development of global civil society revives the concept of "global citizen", and makes the discussion on global civil identity more positive. Global civil identity means that a kind of split between individual and the nation, and the identity affects states greatly. To some degree, it is historically necessary for civil identity to go globally, influenced by global civil society and many factors. During this process, we should properly manage the tension between global civil identity and sovereignty civil identity. "Different Civil Identity" of Iris Marion Young’s and "Compound Civil Identity" of David Held’s are trying to solve this problem. But their solutions still have some limitations. For the time being and in a long time to come, sovereignty civil identity will determine citizen’s consciousness and actions.The sixth part discusses the relationship between "global civil society" and "democracy". This part focuses on expounding the relationship between global civil society and democracy from the angle of global democracy crisis and it points out that because global civil society highlights citizen ontology in the field of value and citizen self-determination in the field of politics, it brings about new hope to improve traditional political democracy, but global civil society itself also has democracy deficits. Even so, in the discussion on global democracy, global civil society also gains significant status. However, no matter liberal democratic global democracy、cosmopolitism democracy or grass-rooted democracy, every global democracy mode puts forward that we had better consider global democracy as the process of working together of states, global civil society and global market, in which every part must overcome its own limitations, manage the conflicts and fights in the cooperating coexistence in order to form a good interactive relationship.The seventh part is summarization. This part further points out that there are two opposite viewpoints on the relationship between global civil society and states, one of which holds that states will end in global society, and the other of which holds that states and global society co-exist in global governance structures. Such two viewpoints determine the future of global civil society. As for the first viewpoint, global civil society can not surpass the limitations of reality and theory, therefore it is only a Utopia out of reach. As for the second viewpoint, the historic significance lies in gaining the rights counter-balancing with states and market to further the three parts’ cooperation, realizing the aims of human development and justice. In this sense, global civil society can be realized in global governance structure, thus it can not be just a righteous Utopia. The thesis supports the second viewpoint, optimistic about the future of global civil society. At last, this part indicates achieving the goal of global civil society is a long way, at the present time, global civil society should accelerate global governance more actively and overcome its limitations ceaselessly.更多还原