【作者】 杨东东；

【导师】 傅永军； 余纪元； Jorge Gracia；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 外国哲学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 批判解释学是贯穿哈贝马斯批判理论始终的方法论原则。然而,一个不争的事实是,哈贝马斯只是在《认识与兴趣》和《论社会科学的逻辑》这两部早期著作中对批判解释学进行过集中思考,并在与解释学大师伽达默尔的有关论战中深化了这种思考。实际上,批判解释学从未成为哈贝马斯批判理论的核心。占据哈贝马斯批判理论核心地位的是他的交往行为理论及其衍生理论——话语理论、商谈民主和法哲学理论、后民族主义理论以及有关宗教和人类未来的思考。尽管如此,我们也不能因之而低估批判解释学在哈贝马斯博大精深思想体系中的地位与作用。仔细爬梳哈贝马斯的批判理论,就会发现,批判反思的解释意识作为方法论原则贯穿哈贝马斯批判理论始终。可以说,没有批判解释学的意识形态批判与语言批判功用,哈贝马斯的批判理论就缺乏与自己理论主旨相得益彰的批判方法,而失去自己的方法,也就意味着失去自己的问题意识和解决问题的“路径”和“手段”。由此观之,要全面把握哈贝马斯的批判理论,批判解释学就是一座绕不过去的“山峰”。作为西方马克思主义阵营中的一员大将,哈贝马斯从理论建构初期就坚定地走上从马克思到法兰克福学派前辈学者所坚持的社会批判道路,将消除现代社会中的异化现象、重建合理社会、实现人类解放作为终生事业。批判理论的这种诉求鲜明地体现在哈贝马斯对方法论的选择上。哈贝马斯承袭并重建了自霍克海默以来社会批判理论家的批判意识,强调理论的解放作用和方法的意义解释功能。因此,与早期社会批判理论家一致,他对自然科学实证方法在社会领域的僭越应用提出质疑,指出,正是这种方法导致传统社会理论的单面化,无法发挥理论所应具有的解放作用,用以祛除工具理性与意识形态宰制社会之异化状态。哈贝马斯从解释社会学理论中寻到了社会批判方法的新思路。借助对现象学社会学、语言学社会学的细致分析与考察,他强调作为研究人类社会现象的社会科学,必须对人类活动进行解释性理解,而非实证主义的因果说明。因此,解释学所应具有的批判与反思意识应该是社会科学研究的主要方法原则。在这个意义上说,哈贝马斯为自己批判理论选择的方法论是解释学,但不是哲学解释学,而是他所说的批判解释学,也就是所谓“深层解释学”。批判解释学承认哲学解释学的基本原则,但又有所发展。在哈贝马斯看来,伽达默尔的哲学解释学克服了之前现象学社会学等学科的解释方法的狭隘性,真正将解释学的“主体间”的思维模式和对“生活世界”(在伽达默尔那里是“传统”)的强调表达出来。对社会行动的解释过程,就是通过与行动者展开主体间的对话沟通,在传统平台中实现视域融合的过程。哈贝马斯并不否认这点,并以此作为批判理论解释方法论的起点。只不过,由于理论指向的不同,哈贝马斯提出哲学解释学因为对传统的过分拥护而失了批判精神,从而忽略了隐藏在传统中的意识形态统治要素。这就意味着哲学解释学并不能够满足批判理论进行社会批判的基本目的。批判理论要求的解释方法,应当是批判反思意识与解释精神并存的批判解释学。弗洛伊德的精神分析理论因为契合哈贝马斯批判反思的解释意识,从而成为批判解释学建构的范本。哈贝马斯指出,虽然精神分析依旧走上了唯科学主义的实证道路,但就它对“系统扭曲交往”的洞察、通过对话沟通启迪病人进行自我反思的做法而言,这种方法已经蕴含了充足的批判解释意识。更何况,弗洛伊德业已借助精神分析模式将触角伸到社会分析领域,并取得了良好的效果。因此,在哈贝马斯看来,只要对精神分析方法稍作改造,剥离其中的实证因子,一种适用于批判理论的批判解释方法就可以被建构起来。这种方法以伽达默尔的哲学解释学为基础和起点,以弗洛伊德的精神分析理论为范型,将“批判”和“反思”(“自我反思”)引入哲学解释学,集批判反思、沟通解释和应用实践于一体,由此促使解释学从意义的理解走向社会分析和意识形态批判,将解释学的批判与反思功能现实地落实到社会批判层面,变书斋中的解释学为现实生活中的解释学,真正成为一种能够实现社会理论批判功能的方法、原则。批判解释学的这种批判与反思的功能首先在哈贝马斯早期思想中显示出威力。我们从哈贝马斯第一部重要著作《公共领域的结构转型》(1961)和有关认识论的著作《认识与兴趣》(1968)中可以清楚地看到这一点。公共领域作为保护私人领域不受国家权力机关侵犯、同时又对后者展开批判的公共空间,无论是其建构过程还是职能发挥的过程,都离不开批判解释学的规范引导。批判解释学在这里表现出重要的意识形态批判作用。哈贝马斯对认识论的批评分析,不仅要在知识系统中为解放的知识寻找合法存在的领域,而且还承担着为批判理论建构认识论基础之重责。在《认识与兴趣》一书中,哈贝马斯指出,具有准先验特性的“兴趣”——它包括了技术的兴趣、实践的兴趣和解放的兴趣这三个分支——可以为经验分析科学、历史解释科学和批判社会科学提供基础支撑。哈贝马斯提出,兴趣范畴的发掘依旧离不开作为方法论的批判解释学。尽管实用主义者皮尔士和解释学家狄尔泰已经在分析过程中触及到认识和兴趣的关联,但是隐藏在他们内心深处的实证意识立即将此关联打断了。由此看来,只有承载着批判意识的解释理论,才能够打破实证主义的符咒,并且在反思精神的指导下寻到指导认识的兴趣观念。20世纪70年代,哈贝马斯实现了其哲学生涯中最重要的语言学转向。这种转向既与当时西方哲学界的整体背景有关,更是与他的早期批判理论所遭受到批判与质疑有关。哈贝马斯敏锐地意识到,他必须借鉴西方哲学语言转向所取得的成果,将批判理论建立在更坚实的交往理性基础之上,并且使研究重心从意识形态批判转向现代社会合理秩序的建构,才能保证批判理论获得充分的合法性。作为批判理论方法论原则的批判解释学受这种转向的影响,自身也发生了从意识形态批判的早期模式向后期的语言批判模式的过渡。通过普遍语用学,批判解释学不仅完成了自身的语言学转向,而且也取得了丰硕的成果。这些丰硕成果的取得,实际证明了批判解释学在哈贝马斯建构交往行为理论过程中发挥着关键性作用。首先,批判解释学是作为交往行为理论之雏形的普遍语用学的方法论原则。普遍语用学的基本目的,是要重构关于可能理解的普遍条件——即有效性要求——,为交往行动的合理性奠基。批判解释学的效用就表现在“重构”之中。重构的过程是反思地揭示现实中对话交往的前提条件或者前理论知识的过程,也就是语言批判的过程。其次,理想的言语环境的建构同样无法离开批判解释学的支撑。当哈贝马斯确立了交往行为的合理性之后,认为必须为其寻到理想的对话空间。这是保证沟通交往不受意识形态因素影响的必要条件。于是,在批判解释的反思原则的指导之下,哈贝马斯建构起了理想言语环境。这一环境作为理性批判和反思的“参照系统”、作为有效批判政治意识形态造成的“系统扭曲的交往”的规范与标准,自始至终都在批判反思的解释意识的指导之下发挥作用。这样,批判解释学最终在普遍语用学与理想的言语环境中证成自身。批判解释学作为对交往行为进行理解的方法、原则,其价值指向就是批判反思。借助对交往行为的批判与反思,交往行为理论才能够实现以交往理性抑制工具理性,重建自由、公正、合理社会的良好愿望。批判解释学的这种方法功能只有在一种交往行为理论的框架中才能得以充分展示和发展。因为,只有交往行为理论才‘能现实地把语言批判落实到社会批判层面。批判解释学把解释学的意义理解和对社会制度的批判与反思联系起来的做法,将解释学中的“应用”要素凸现出来,从而在自己的理解活动中恢复了亚里士多德的“实践智慧”,由此表明,批判解释学是一种综合了理论智慧和实践智慧的思维方式和方法论原则,这种包含着实践哲学批判与反思之基本要素的方法论原则,极有可能成为当代西方哲学未来发展中的、一种有希望的方法论范式。更多还原

【Abstract】 Critical hermeneutics is a methodology throughout all of Habermas’s writings on critical theory. However, Habermas only discusses critical hermeneutics in two of his early works, i.e., On the Logic of Social Sciences and Knowledge and Human Interests, and deepens this study in his controversy with Gadamer. Frankly speaking, critical hermeneutics has never been seen as the core of Habermas’s critical theory. It is the theory of communicative action and its derivative theory, including discourse theory, discursive democracy, philosophy of law, theory of post-nationalism, and theory of religion, can be known as Habermas’s core concepts. In spite of this, we can’t undervalue the role which critical hermeneutics plays in Habermas’s whole theory. Critical hermeneutics is always the methodological underpinning of his philosophy. One might say that without critique of ideology and linguistic critique, Habermas’s critical theory may loses its suitable critical method, which is used to solve the present problems in our society. Therefore, critical hermeneutics cannot be avoided if one wants to have a comprehensive understanding of Habermas’s critical theory.As a major advocate of western Marxism, Habermas firmly follows the academic path of social critique initiated by Marx and Habermas’s predecessors in the Frankfurt School from his early career. As Marx and his predecessors, Habermas also takes the following aims as lifetime enterprise:to eliminate alienation, to re-construct reasonable societies, and to liberate the human race. Such aims are manifested in Habermas’s research on methodology. Habermas follows and reconstructs the critical consciousness coming from his predecessors in Frankfurt School, and emphasizes the function of emancipation of critical theory and function of meaning understanding of method. Following critical theorists, Habermas questions the application of positive methodology which is used in natural sciences to the problems in the social sphere. He believes that it is the positive method that leads to the one-sidedness of traditional social theory, and prevents social theory’s due function on social emancipation.Habermas finds a new way to pursue social critique in the theory of interpretive sociology. Through careful analysis and examination of social phenomenology and linguistic sociology, he emphasizes that social sciences must seek a hermeneutic understanding as opposed to a positive causal explanation of human actions. Habermas says the critical and reflective consciousness in hermeneutics should be the main methodological principle of social science research, so he chooses hermeneutics as his suitable method. This hermeneutics is not the philosophical one Gadamer insists. Instead, it is critical hermeneutics, or’depth hermeneutics’.Critical hermeneutics acknowledges the basic principle of philosophical hermeneutics, and the makes some new progresses on the later. In habermas’s view, Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics gets over the narrowness of the methods used in interpretive sociology and rightly puts emphasis on "inter-subjectivity" and "lifeworld" (or in Gadamer’s words, "tradition"). According to Gadamer, the process of interpreting social actions is a process of inter-subjective communication between agents, which ultimately reaches fusion of horizon on the platform of tradition. Habermas agrees to this point and takes it as a starting point of his critical theory. However, he criticizes that philosophical hermeneutics loses the spirit of critique in that the latter relies too much on tradition and fails to pay attention to the domination of ideology in tradition. This means that philosophical hermeneutics is inadequate for the aim of critical theory to pursue social critique. The method of hermeneutics required by critical theory should be one that incorporates both critical reflection and hermeneutics.Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis matches the interpretive trends of Habermas’s critical reflection and for that reason becomes the paradigm of constructing critical hermeneutics. Habermas points out that despite the fact that psychoanalysis finally takes the path of positivism; it still contains elements of critical hermeneutics. For psychoanalysis has an insight into "systematically distorted communication" and uses the method of communication to inspire the patients to reflect upon themselves. Furthermore, Freud has extended this model of psychoanalysis to the field of social analysis and achieved good results. According to Habermas, with a small alteration of the method of psychoanalysis-peeling off its positivist elements-we can construct a methodology of critical hermeneutics suitable for critical theory. This new method begins from Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, and makes Freud’s psychoanalysis as its paradigm. It brings’critique’and’reflection’(’self-reflection’) into philosophical hermeneutics, and combines critical reflection, communicative hermeneutics and practice together. Therefore, hermeneutics functions now as a method of social analysis and critique of ideology, instead of a way of meaning understanding. It is no more a theory in books, but a practical principle and method in the critique of present society.The function of critical hermeneutics, i.e. critique and reflection, firstly displaces in Habermas’s early thoughts. We can prove this from Habemas’s first book On the Logic of Social Sciences (1967) and his book on epistemology, namely Knowledge and Human Interests (1968). Critical hermeneutics provides normative guidance for the construction and function of public sphere, which protects the private sphere from the intervention of state authority and makes criticisms of the latter. Here, critical hermeneutics shows its role in making critique of ideology. Habermas’s critique of epistemology aims not only to find suitable sphere for empancipatory knowledge, but also to reconstruct the epistemological basis for critical theory. In Knowledge and Human Interests, he argues that quasi-transcendent "interests", including technological cognitive interests, practical cognitive interests, and empancipatory cognitive interests, can underwrite empirical-analytic science, hermeneutical science and critical social sciences. Also, Habermas points out that the development of the concept of interests still relies on the methodology of critical hermeneutics. Although Peirce (a pragmatist) and Dilthey (a hermeneutics theorist) touched the issue of the connection between knowledge and interests, their deeply-rooted positivist way of thinking stopped them from exploring this issue further. Thus, the only hermeneutics that can completely get over positivism is one with critical orientation, which can also develop an idea of interests to guide knowledge.In 1970s, Habermas completed the most important change in his philosophical career, that is, the linguistic turn. Such a change is related to the whole background of the Western philosophy, but also due to the more and more criticism received by the theory of cognitive interests. Habermas notices that he should learn from the achievement of linguistic turn in Western philosophy, and build his critical theory on a more solid basis of communicative rationality. It means that he must change his focus from critique of ideology to construction of reasonable order of modern societies, so as to make sure the legitimation of critical theory. This change also influences the critical hermeneutics as the methodology of critical theory, which innovate itself to complete the transition from the critique of ideology to that of linguistics.The critical hermeneutics completes its linguistic turn in the universal pragmatics, and achieved good results which manifests that critical hermeneutics plays an essential rule in the construction of the theory of communicative action.First, it is the methodology of universal pragmatics which is the embryo of the theory of communicative action. The basic aim of general pragmatics is to reconstruct the general conditions of possible understanding--i.e., the validity claim-so as to provide the basis for the rationality of communicative action. The function of critical hermeneutics is shown in such a reconstruction. The process of reconstruction is to reveal the preconditions of discursive communication or pre-theoretical knowledge in reality, which is also a process of linguistic critique.Second, the construction of idealized speech situation cannot do without critical hermeneutics either. Once Habermas establishes the reasonableness of communicative action, he will have to seek for an ideal speech situation for it. This is the necessary condition to make sure that communication is not influenced by ideology. As such, under the guidance of the reflective principle of critical hermeneutics, Habermas constructs an idealized speech situation. This situation always plays a role in Habermas’s theory because it is a "reference system" of rational critique and reflection and a norm to effectively criticise the "systematically distorted communication" caused by political ideology.The theory of critical hermeneutics justifies itself in the context of general pragmatics and idealized communication. As the method and principle of understanding of communicative action, the value orientation of critical hermeneutics is critique and reflection. Only by virtue of this method of hermeneutics can the theory of communicative action achieve the following goals:to keep the over-developed instrumental rationality under the control of communicative rationality and to reconstruct a free, just and reasonable society. The critical hermeneutics as a method can only displays and develops itself in the context of the theory of communicative action, which carries out the linguistic critique in social critique. The combination of meaning understanding and critique of social institution, which has been done in critical hermeneutics, shows the applicative aspect of hermeneutics. It is the resurrection of Aristotle’s’practical wisdom’. Critical hermeneutics is a methodological principle which combines theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom, and its inclusion of critique and reflection opens a new and hopeful vision of paradigm of methodology in the Western philosophy.更多还原