社会转型与秩序变革：潜规则盛行的社会学阐释

【作者】 吕小康；

【导师】 汪新建；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 社会学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文从规则与生活的互动视角,以现代性对中国社会的重新组织化过程为观察纵轴,重新审视了潜规则在中国社会中的悠久历史与现实状况,并从社会学角度阐释了当下社会潜规则盛行的文化心理根源与社会结构动力。本研究始于对潜规则的大众语义和学术语义的考察,并将静态的、规则实体意义上的潜规则定义为未被局外人察觉、或不具备正当性的规则,其中正当性则是指普遍认同和服从的状态。正当性又分为形式正当(符合规则制定程序)与实质正当(得到规则应用范围内的成员的主动认同)两个维度,只有同时符合这两维度的规则,才是理想状态下的规则,才不会被人怀疑其背后存在某种潜规则。同时,潜规则也作为对一种关系状态的归因,即当实际行为与形式正当的口号、纲领、法律等不一致时,人们就会将此归结为存在潜规则。因此,是否存在名实分离、形式主义等情形是判断社会是否存在潜规则的重要标志。“潜规则”的产生是一个普遍现象,古今中外,概莫能外;但是潜规则的盛行却是一个特殊的文化现象,只有在适宜的土壤里才能繁衍成林。传统中国文化持有的是一种和谐而非整合的秩序观,社会秩序不是一个高度整合的实体,而是充满弹性的宽松状态。作为核心价值观念的儒家思想,实际上鼓励行动者在内守仁义等价值的基础上通权达变,而不拘泥于法条或规则,从而维持社会的和谐。由此出发的传统中国的秩序实践体现出如下特点:以等级差序的存在而不是成员的权利平等作为秩序建立的前提;遵循从内而外的秩序建立方式,即匡正与维持秩序始于人心收拢与修养;在秩序的正当性保证上,遵循动机优于程序的观点,如果行为满足实质正义的要求,就不必追究程序正当与否而作出决断。在这种秩序观的笼罩下,不公开挑战价值共识、但却在运用中加以变通的行为,不仅被容许,甚至被鼓励,而且不可或缺。在个体层面上,它形成了中国人普遍的拿捏分寸、而不是严守某一行动原则的思维方式与行为倾向;在社会层面上,它可以容许阳礼阴谋、外儒内法等社会秩序的阴阳面的存在。这种秩序观与传统中国的经济生产方式、政治统治方式相互匹配,互相齿合,形成一种极具弹性的超稳定结构,使得当时的中国社会可以在经济整合和技术整合力量不够的情况下达到文化整合的结果,从而维持了中国社会两千年的社会秩序,并塑造了中国人独特的文化心理结构和行动惯习。在近代中国社会被迫地开启了现代化进程之后,这种结构体系才遭到了强有力的瓦解。在1949年后,随着强控制、一体化社会的建成和意识形态的高度统合,潜规则曾一度隐匿,或通过显化为各种政治运动“规则”。建国后三十来年的社会秩序虽总体稳定,但缺少自由,是以权利缺失和制度失位为代价的。只有在改革开放以后,社会秩序出现了根本性的、异质性的趋向,传统社会向现代社会的转型也正式开始影响到每一个个人。传统依赖于意识形态控制的整合手段开始部分失灵,经济整合、制度整合的功能得到彰显,传统秩序观中过分依赖价值共识进行整合的方式也转变为价值共识、利益共识和权利共识并重的状态。在追求静态稳定的传统秩序转向追求动态和谐的现代秩序的转变过程中,潜规则迅速浮出水面,成为社会关注的重点议题之一。规则正当性标准的多重性,无疑扩大了潜规则这一概念所对应的事件集合,因为只有完全符合这三重标准的规则才是完美的规则,否则很容易被人们怀疑是某种潜规则作用的结果。同时,现代传媒无孔不入的力量,使得原先封闭的地理疆界遭到了技术力量的消解,社会的后台行为不断被揭穿,原本分散于各区域内的行动惯习显得无处容身,日益曝光于媒体与大众目光之下,从而形成整体社会潜规则盛行的状况。而社会和个人对发展的极度渴求和对落后就要挨打的这一事实的普遍恐惧,更使得潜规则获得了结构性的动力,当发展的目标压倒了遵守规则的要求,而文化观念中又存在实质正当可以绕过程序正当、结果可以为手段辩护的传统时,潜规则就成为了当事人(或组织)的不二选择。另外,某些正式规则本身的不正当性和不合理性,更是成为潜规则的触发器,逼迫人们选择潜规则行事以争取自身利益,这与其说个体的理性选择,不如说是弱者的反抗,因为阳奉阴违往往比直接反抗的代价要小得多。在潜规则从生的表象之下,实际上体现出现代性对社会的重新组织化过程。在现代与传统交织搓揉的过程中,大量的潜规则得以形成和显现。口号的提出、政策的制定、法律的通过乃至价值观的转变,都远比行为倾向和文化心理的改变容易,当两者之间存在差距时,潜规则很容易找到自己的容身之所。只有建立一个尊重个体权利、合理调节利益关系的制度公正的社会,才能切实缩减潜规则的作用范围,而这也将是一项长远而艰巨的任务。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Covert Rules" is a newly coined word which has gained its popularity among Chinese society since the late 20th century. Yet the behaviors and phenomena it represents could find their deep roots in Chinese history. Defining covert rules as the unaware rules or illegitimated rules, this paper focuses on an age-old problem in China: the discrepancy between the name and the reality.This problem derives partly from our cultural propositions. Pre-assuming the priority of aesthetic order thinking to the logical order of thinking, the ancient Chinese society emphasized substantive legitimacy while neglecting procedural legitimacy, and underlined motivation while neglecting results. On the specific way of constructing social order, the ancient Chinese chose the individual’s heart as the origin: only those who had been adequately educated could qualify themselves as an eligible member of society. Besides, if a government lost its control over its citizen’s minds and thoughts, a total chaos would be predicted and the society would be out of order.Following such a conception of social order, the discrepancy between the name and the reality became a normal status of social order in traditional Chinese society. It was covertly encouraged, at least tolerated by the society’s moral value and thus contributed to the harmony of society without having to be integrated into a logically self-contained entity. Thus, covert rules gained their popularity in traditional Chinese society. However, the rules and regulations seldom interfered with the ordinary life in ancient China due to technological and economical inadequacies at that time. Consequently, a harmonious but non-integrated society and empire sustained itself over two thousands years.However, with the forceful intrusion of modernity in middle of 19^th century, Chinese society began its modernization process, which constituted an underlying thread in the following century, under fierce national and international wars and conflicts. Finally, with the establishment of People’s Republic of China, a highly organized, rigidly controlled yet minimally integrated society was build. Quantities of covert rules found nowhere to hide while many of others were deliberately developed as the normal regulation method which we could see in the highlighted episodes in the first three decades of this newly establish country. It was a highly ordered society, yet there was little room for personal freedom and privacy.Since the reform and open-up policy, the traditional social integration method has been suffering substantial challenges. Value consensus, interest consensus and right consensus, gradually became the three pillar of a legitimatized social order system. Hence, covert rules find themselves everywhere due to the multi-criteria of legitimatized rules. Besides, the structural contraction between the pursuing of social and individual development and the restriction of legal order compels individuals and organizations to strive to success, ignoring the procedural justice. Thus, covert rules serve as the weapon of the weak which one would like to take to win the social resources one need.It is no doubt that many covert rules are undermining the legitimacy of laws and governmental regulations. Yet there are no easy solutions to the problem. A feasible recommendation would be that we should try to build a institutional justified society which embraces individual rights and interests and co-ordinates relations with different interest groups so that the spacious room for covert rules could be minimized. Besides, a dynamic harmonious conception of social order should be introduced to replace the rigid, instrumental one, which had helped China maintained decades of stability, but would contributes little to social development under new circumstances.更多还原