美国财产法理念的变迁

【作者】 王铁雄；

【导师】 何勤华；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 法律史， 2006， 博士

【副题名】走向个人与社会的利益平衡

【摘要】 本文在科学知识和文化思想模式的视野下,审视美国财产法理念的变迁路径。揭示美国财产法理念的演变规律及其发展新趋向:美国财产法理念的变迁是建立在近代科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的,并向现代新的整体论思想模式发展。在科学知识和文化思想模式的主导下,美国财产法理念的变迁主要表现为:18、19世纪,美国财产法理念强调个人财产绝对权利;进入20世纪后,则强调个人财产权的社会责任。但文章通过论证表明:在美国财产法理念的发展史上,原子论与有机论、个人自由主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益在每个时期都是共存的。它们之间决非绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话。虽然在历史发展的每个时期会有所偏重,但其基本趋势则是寻求个人与社会的利益平衡。全文由导论、三个部分(共八章)及结语组成。导论:主要阐明本文的研究方法、研究对象及基本创新。具体说明在科学知识和文化思想模式的演变历程中,人类对于自然界的思考从来就不是完全一元化的。它总是像一对舞者,原子论和有机论,在并不舒服的哲学舞蹈中起舞。两种想法虽不和谐却始终共存,但只有一种模式――主流模式占领导地位。一部分是有机论,主导了几个世纪;直到个体主义,反映了有关世界运行方式更为精确的科学知识的时候,原子论才在17世纪的思想模式的变革中占据了领导地位。而今天,我们正处于又一次思想模式变革的中间,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识的基础上,即主导地位正在转向整体论,这是一种不那么绝对的有机论。确切地说,这一思想模式更多地表现为有机论与原子论的综合平衡。在科学知识和文化思想模式的大背景、大视野下,探讨和审视美国财产法理念变迁的历史及其规律,才能使本课题的研究高屋建瓴,更具科学性。第一部分:扼要介绍古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式与有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,人类关于自然和社会的世界观,是以有机论为主导的世界观,即强调宇宙为一个不可分割的有机整体。体现在古代和中世纪的财产法理念上,就是在有机论文化思想模式主导下的有机财产法:即财产法是以社会性为其目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任,以公共福祉观点为财产法理念的核心。然而,尽管在古代和中世纪,有机论思想模式与财产法中的社会利益占主导地位,但原子论思想与财产法中的个人利益却始终是与有机论及财产法中的社会利益同时存在的。本部分包括:第一章与第二章。第一章:简洁地说明古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式。在古代和中世纪,无论是在宗教层面上还是在知识层面上,不论是对自然界,还是对人类社会的看法,都是以有机论文化思想模式占主导地位的。即认为宇宙是一个不可分割的有机统一整体。所以,在古代和中世纪,尽管原子论与有机论是同时存在的,但原子论思想却处于极其次要的地位。第二章:简要地说明以社会利益为主导的有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,以有机论为主导的思想模式,体现在早期财产法上,则是以其社会性为目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任。所以,有机论主导思想模式对早期财产法主要影响在于:中世纪人们普遍认为私有财产权受到社会义务的制约。公共福祉的观点成为中世纪占主导地位的托马斯财产观的核心。因此,尽管财产法中的个人利益与社会利益始终是同时存在的,但个人方面的利益,在很大程度上,却受到不应有的忽视。第二部分:详细探讨近代机械-原子论思想模式与美国财产法理念。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。近代机械-原子论赞同那种强调组成部分而非整体的世界观,这种世界观是原子论而非有机论,是机械论而非关联论。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。反映在近代财产法理念上,则是主张个人财产绝对权利,强调个人利益的支配地位。但在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,财产法理念中的个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的。个人利益与社会利益之间不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话。本部分包括:第三章、第四章与第五章。第三章:简要阐明近代机械-原子论主导思想模式。随着宗教改革和市场经济的出现,宗教领域和世俗领域的有机论走向衰落。同时科学革命促使古代原子论复苏,并在近代发展为机械-原子论思想模式,在随后长达三百年的时间,一直是西方世界的主流文化思想模式。第四章:具体而详尽地论述了近代美国财产法理念中的个人主义支配地位。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。而自然财产权理论作为近代机械-原子论文化思想模式在法律方面的副产品,其“全部思辨的主导线索始终是个人主义”的。因此,与格劳秀斯、普芬道夫自然财产权理论一脉相承并深受强调个人权利的英国法律传统影响而作为近代科学革命及机械-原子论文化思想模式直接产物的洛克个人主义财产权理论,就成为近代财产法理念的一贯特征,并在那个时代占据了统治地位。而布莱克斯通主要就是继承了洛克的个人主义自然财产权理论中的观点,并具体化为绝对财产权观念与“独有的和专断的支配权”主张。随着布莱克斯通的《英国法释义》传播至美国,他们的个人主义财产权理论和绝对财产权利理念就成为18世纪美国财产法的理论来源和中心特点。由于清教主义把个人主义观念烙进了美国人的理论和实践之中,这样,在19世纪,洛克的个人主义财产权理论对美国财产法理念的影响就更为全面而深刻。同时,19世纪边沁的个人功利主义与斯宾塞的自由放任主义使洛克的个人主义绝对财产权理论获得了长足的发展。到19世纪的最后25年,美国财产法理念将洛克个人主义财产观推向了巅峰。因此,在近代机械-原子论文化思想模式的主导下,近代美国财产法理念主张的是个人财产的绝对权利,强调的是个人利益的支配地位。第五章:具体阐述近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素。在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,从来没有单一的政治理论,相应的也没有单一的财产理论,在那个时代占绝对统治地位。虽然洛克与布莱克斯通的个人主义财产权理论在近代美国财产法理念中一直占据支配地位,但它决不是那个时代唯一的财产权理论,因为在近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素也起着重要作用。在近代美国财产法理念中,个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的,个人主义财产权理论也总是与共和主义财产权理论相互促进的。共和主义者认为,社会应该具有互相依赖性……在社会统一体中,每个个体应该参与到整体之中,而整体又应该与每个个体相连。这种连接是带有义务性的,因为它们是双向的。一个没有参与到整体中的个体就不是社会的一员。因此,人类在本质上是社会性的,私有财产是一种社会创制,是社会中的人类劳动创造出来的,而不是先政治权的存在物。作为一种社会产物,它最终要服务于社会需要和社会价值。可见,在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益总是连接在一起的。虽然它们之间总是存在着并还将继续存在着冲突,但在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益之间决不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话的。第三部分:具体论述现代整体论思想模式与美国财产法理念。进入20世纪后,人类正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。它强调自然的整体关联性,整体对部分的影响就像部分对整体的影响一样。在现代整体论思想模式的主导下,现代美国财产法理念作为对近代抽象个人自然财产权利理论和个人自由主义的反作用,重视社会整体利益,强调个人财产权的社会责任。但个人主义作为美国民族精神,在现代美国财产法理念中依然存在并将继续存在。文章指出:现代美国财产法理念的核心是寻求个人利益与更占优势社会利益之间的动态平衡。本部分包括:第六章、第七章与第八章。第六章:简要说明现代整体论主导思想模式。进入20世纪后,一度作为主流文化模式的机械-原子论走向衰败,我们正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。作为智识历史的一部分,传统的洛克观点亦有其自身的时代缺陷。成就了洛克财产理论的机械-原子论思想模式几乎瓦解了,而洛克的个人主义已经不能与更具整体意义的观点相调和。并正为这些观点所取代。第七章:详尽地阐述现代美国财产法理念中的社会化趋向。进入20世纪后,美国从拓荒的、农业、乡村社会向定居的工商业且城市化的社会转变;个人突出的理想移向彼此合作的理想。法律需要淡化个人主义色彩,更多地关注社会整体的利益,尤其是消费者及社会弱者的利益。现代财产法理念变迁的主线即是财产所有人社会责任的增加和个人权利相应地减少。因此,当前个人利益和更占优势的社会利益之间的平衡构成了现代美国财产法理念的核心。随着美国财产法理念由强调个人财产权绝对化向个人财产权的相对化和社会化方向发展,这种平衡也就从一种过分强调个人权利向更占优势的社会利益转变。第八章:具体说明现代美国财产法理念中的个人主义精神。历史从来不是绝对的、一元化的。个人利益和社会利益之间尽管一直存在着冲突,但更多时候是“一方主导另一方同时也存在”式的对话,而不会是反映相反两极之间“一方绝对支配或另一方绝对不存在”式的争斗。虽然进入20世纪后,我们维护和承认所有个人和团体利益的根本原因是基于社会利益,这并不是说对上两个世纪人们苦苦追求的个人利益可以漠视。恰恰相反,社会利益最终是存在于个人生活之中的利益,个人利益与社会利益息息相关。尤其是在美国,自清教主义者把个人主义传统带入后,个人主义精神就是“美国精神”。因此,在美国财产法理念中,个人自由原则始终作为现代财产法平衡功能的一项指导原则同时促进个人和社会福利的最大化。因而从总体上来说,在20世纪,个人利益仍然是法律保护的一个重要方面。结语:主要是水到渠成地总结与概括出在科学知识与文化思想模式的主导下美国财产法理念的变迁规律。美国财产法理念的整个变迁过程充分表明:人类的思想与历史的发展从来都不是直线的、绝对的、一元化的;而是曲线的、相对的、多元化的。原子论与有机论、个人自由主义与共和主义在美国财产法理念变迁的每个时期都是共存的,对个人利与社会利益的强调在历史的每个时期也都是不可偏废的。17世纪那些拒绝透过伽利略望远镜看世界的教士们和现今拒绝透过现代科学,或者从更本质上来说,法制史的望远镜来看世界的新洛克主义者们是同样片面的、错误的。历史是发展、变迁、有机统一和不可分割的“绵延”。社会进步既不是梅因“从身份到契约的运动”;亦不是亚伦、施瓦茨“从契约到身份”的相反运动。而是个人和社会两方面的因素在每个时代的人类利益中都同时存在。只是两者的地位、强弱在不断地变化。其变化趋向则是个人最大限度扩张性自我主张和社会保证每个人过上人类应有生活,即个人利益与社会利益的动态平衡。因此,文明的理想,应该是个人自由和社会合作的结合。在科学知识和文化思想模式发展历史的大视野下,审视美国财产法理念的变迁路径。我们发现,美国财产法在其理念演进过程中,既始终坚持个人主义的民族精神,又力图贯通在个人利益和社会利益之间寻求平衡的传统。尽管在历史的不同时期有所偏颇。从社会心理学角度看,实质上反映的是人的扩张性自我主张本能和社会本能即利已本能和合作本能之间的冲突和重叠,而文明的标志正是在两种本能之间维持均衡。所以,财产法既应是保证天赋、机遇好且勤奋的人开创个人成功的助动器,又应是保障每个人获得幸福的平衡器。因此,我们可以说,全部财产法的发展历史,到目前为止,是一部走向个人与社会利益平衡的历史,其最终目的在于追求每个人的幸福。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis focuses on the developing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, indicating the evolving rule and new development trend of American property law: the development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, and this so-called mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm has developed into the Holism ideological paradigm. With the guide of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the changes of the theory of American property law are as follows: in the 18,19 centuries, the theory of American property law stresses the absolute right of individuals, since the 20 centuries, however, social responsibility of individual property right has been emphasized. After research, however, this thesis points out that during the history of the development of the theory of American property law, atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit could coexist in each era. They are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. While individual advantage and social benefit may be stressed differently at different stage of the times, the general trend is tending towards the balancing of interest between individual and society This thesis consists of introduction, three main parts (, eight chapters) and the concluding remarks.Introduction: this part presents the research methods, research objects and innovations of this thesis. This part demonstrates that during the evolving history of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the thinking of human about nature has never been completely one-dimensional. It has always resembled a pair of dancers, atomism and organicism, engaged in an uncomfortable philosophical dance. Awkwardly paired and bickering the whole time, the two ideas coexisted for centuries, though, as dancers, only one - the dominant paradigm - could lead. One partner, organicism, led for centuries until atomism, reflecting a more refined scientific knowledge about the way the world worked, emerged to take the lead in the seventeenth-century paradigm shift. Today, we are in the midst of another paradigm shift in which, based on even more sophisticated knowledge, the lead is passing to holism, a less comprehensive version of organicism. Precisely speaking, this paradigm mainly embodies the balance of organicism and atomism. Exploring and examining the developing history of American property law and its rule under the background of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm makes this research more scientific.The first part compendiously introduces the organicism paradigm and organic property law in ancientry and in the Middle Ages In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organicism was the leading Weltanschauung of human about nature and society, which emphasized that the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Organic property law reflects organicism paradigm, namely the purpose of property law is for the sociableness, and social obligation and responsibility of private property are much stressed and the core theory of property law is for common good. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though organicism paradigm and the theory of social benefit in property law were in dominant position, the atomism paradigm and the theory of individual advantage in property law coexisted. This part consists of chapter I and chapter II.Chapter I concisely introduces the organism paradigm In ancientry and in the Middle Ages. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organism paradigm dominated in the fields of religion and knowledge, in the views about nature and human society- the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Therefore, in ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though atomism coexisted with organism, atomism was in an extremely subordinate position.Part II concisely introduces organic property law dominated by the theory of social benefit. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, the early property law which embodied the paradigm dominated by organicism stressed the social obligation and responsibility of private property and aimed at sociableness. So, the main influence of paradigm dominated by organicism on the early property law consisted in that people in the Middle Ages generally held that private property should be restricted by social obligations. The viewpoint of common good became the core of Aquinas’view of property which was in the leading position in the Middle Ages. Therefore, though individual advantage and social benefit coexisted in property law, the individual benefit was unfortunately paid less heed.The second part explored modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm and the theory of American property law in detail. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages The modern mechanistic-atomism espoused a world view that emphasized constituent parts rather than the whole, that was atomistic rather than interconnected, mechanical rather than organic It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The theory of modern property law embodied such thought-absolute individual property right was claimed and the dominant position of individual advantage was emphasized. In America, however, ideology has never been one-dimensional, the individual and the society are always connected closely in the theory of property law. The individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. This part consists of chapter III, chapter IV and chapter V.Chapter III concisely introduces the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm. With the emergence of religion reform and market economy, religious and social organism declined. At the same time, scientific revolution resuscitated the ancient atomism, which became mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in modern times.Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm had been the leading cultural ideology paradigm of the West for more than 300 years since.Chapter IV detailedly discusses the dominant poison of individualism in the theory of American property law. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The entire leading clue of thinking and analyzing of the theory of Natural property law, which is a by-product of the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in law, is individualism. As was deeply influenced by England law tradition stressed individual rights and came down in one continuous line with natural property theory of Grotius and Pufendorf, Lockean individualism property theory which was the direct product of modern scientific revolution and mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm characterized modern principle of property law and was in the dominant position at that era.Absorption the points of individualism natural property theory of Locke, Blackstone took shape the concepts of absolute property and“exclusive”right of control. With the spread of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England to America, such theories of individualism property and absolute property became the theoretical sources and core features of the eighteenth-century American property law.As individualism concepts took roots in American theory and practice owing to Puritanism, Lockean individualism property theory, in the 19 centuries, furthered its influence on the theory of American property law. At the same period, Bentham‘s utilitarianism and Spencer’s laissez faire facilitated great development of Lockean individualism property theory. During the last 25 years of the 19 centuries, Lockean individualism property theory reached the highest level in the theory of American property law. Therefore, led by mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm, modern American property law stresses the absolute right of individual property and the dominant position of individual advantage. Chapter V detailedly discusses the social elements of American property law. In America, Ideology has never been one-dimensional. Neither any single political theory nor any single property theory absolutely dominated at that time. Though individualism property theory of Locke and Blackstone has taken the leading position in modern American property theory, it has never been the only property theory at that times, social elements has also played an important role in the development of American property law theory. In American property law theory, individual elements connect with social elements, in addition, individualism property theory and republicanism property theory have always mutually facilitated. Republican holds that society is interdependent……in the social union, each individual shall join the whole and the whole shall connect with each individual. These connections shall bear obligation, for they are bi-directional. An individual who hasn’t joined the whole shall not be a member of society. So, human being is of sociableness in essence. Private property is a kind of social creature derived from human practice and is not the existence prior to society. As a social product, it finally serves society needs and society value. So, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit connect with each other. Though conflicts between them will not end, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation.The third part presents the modern holism ideological paradigm and American property law theory. After entry of the 20 centuries, human is now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism which is the balance of organicism and atomism. It emphasizes the total connection of the nature; the whole affects the part just as the part affects the whole. With the guide of modern holism ideological paradigm, modern American property law theory, which as the counteractive of modern absolute individualism natural property theory, pays much attention to the entire social benefit and the social responsibility of individual property. Individualism as the nation spirit of America, however, will continue existing in the theory of modern American property law. This thesis points out that modern American property law theory seeks for the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. This part consists of chapterⅥ, chapter VII and chapter VIII.ChapterⅥconcisely introduces the ideology paradigm of modern holism. After entry of the 20 centuries, mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was once the lead became decline, we are now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism balanced by organicism and atomism. As a part of the history of intellect, the traditional Lockean theory has its own defect. Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which made the success of Lockean property theory almost collapses, Lockean individualism can not conciliate with theory of holism theory and is being replaced by such theory.ChapterⅥdiscusses the socialization trend of modern American property law theory in detail. After entry into the 20 centuries, the America changed from agricultural, countryside society to commercial, urbanization society and individualism dominated ideal turned to mutual cooperation ideal. Law shall weaken the feature of individualism and pay much attention to entire benefit of the society, especially the welfare of consumer and the weak in society. The main change of modern property law theory is to add the social responsibility of property owners and properly reduce individual right. So, at present, the balance of individual advantage and social benefit with more advantageous comprise the core of American property law theory. With the change of American property law theory from emphasizing the absolutization of individual property to the relativity and socialization of individual property, such balance correspondingly has changed from too much stress on individual right to social benefit with more advantageous.Chapter VIII points out the spirit of individualism in the theory of American property law in detail. History has never been absolute and one-dimensional. Though the conflicts between individual advantage and social benefit always exist, More often the dialogue has not so much reflected an all-or-nothing warfare between polar opposites as a one-and-the-other-at-the-same-time.After entry into the 20 centuries, the fundamental reason that we safeguard and acknowledge the advantage of individual and group lies in social benefit, however, that is not to say we can despite individual advantage sought by people during the last two centuries. On the contrary, social benefit exists among the benefit that people live with, individual advantage and social benefit closely connected. Particularly in America, since the Puritanism brought in individualism, the spirit of individualism has been the spirit of America. So, in the theory of American property law, the principle of individual freedom has always been the guiding principle of the balancing function of modern American property law, which also facilitates the maximization of individual and social welfare. In general, individual advantage has still be an important aspect protected by law in the 20 centuries.The concluding remarks naturally summarize the developing rule of American property law guided by scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm. The changing path of American property law theory indicates that human thought and history development has never been linear, categorical and one-dimensional but curvilinear, relative and multi-dimensional. Atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism coexist in each era, neither individual advantage nor social benefit could be omitted in each times. To the churchmen of the early seventeenth century who refused, literally and metaphorically, to look through Galileo’s telescope and to the new Lockean who refuse look through modern science and more essentially through the telescope of legal history, they may make mistakes in the same way. History is the duration of development, change, and organic unit and indivisibility. the progress of society is neither what Maine called”the movement from status to contract”nor what Schwartz called the counter-movement“from contract to status”, but the coexistence of elements of individual and society in the human welfare in each era. but the continuous change of the status of the two aspects. The trend is to safeguard the maximum of individual self-assertion and guarantee everybody a normal life deserved, that is to say, to realize the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. So, the combination of individual freedom and social cooperation shall be the ideal civilization.By examining the changing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural Paradigm, We can find that during the development of the theory of American property law, it not only always insists on keeping the nation spirit of individualism but also tries to maintain the tradition of seeking for balance between individual advantage and social benefit, though there was divergence from this tradition in different times in history From the eye of social psychology, this reflects the conflicts and overlap between the human instinct of the expansion of self-assertion and social instinct (i.e. the self-interest instinct and cooperation instinct), and the balance of which is the symbol of civilization.Therefore, property law shall be a“booster”which guarantees the success of individual with talent, good opportunity and diligence and also shall be a“balancer”which guarantees the happiness of each individual. Therefore, the entire history of the development of property law so far, we may say, has been the history of balancing individual advantage and social benefit, and the final aim of which is to seek and realize the happiness of each human being.更多还原