從「社會關係結構圖」再現中國和平崛起的迷思

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 社會科學院 > 政治系暨政治學系碩博士班 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/25307

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/25307

题名:	從「社會關係結構圖」再現中國和平崛起的迷思 Representing Myths of China’s Peaceful Rise in Yan’s Social Relational Structure diagram
作者:	王羚 Wang, Ling
贡献者:	政治學系
关键词:	體制性反思超現代社會關係結構圖共和主義中國模式 systematic reflection social relationship structure diagram ultra-modern、republicanism China mode
日期:	2013-06
上传时间:	2013-09-26 14:36:35 (UTC+8)
摘要:	為了認識「中國和平崛起的迷思」，建議採用布迪厄方法論中對集體無意識作體制性反思的策略，並以此將「中國和平崛起」議題進行「迷思學」的處理。迷思首先可以針對現實事例，這就涉及時代語境的集體無意識：當西方以其「超現代」語境看待中國崛起時，常要遺忘其進入現代時期的帝國殖民利益與漫長民主進程。相對的，當中國以其正在進入「現代化」語境看待自己崛起時，一方面就時代變遷而言，一則仍繼續糾纏於對其前現代歷史的馬克斯成見，二則無知或無感於後現代與超現代的西方經驗；另方面就中共黨政而言，一則還迷惑於當權合法化的起源詮釋控制，二則不了解其變體式貴族共和實含有傳統士民政治的元素。迷思其次可以針對方法論問題，這裡涉及對符號學研究法及共和論述方法論的體制性反思。對於做為論文主要方法的〈社會關係結構圖〉，原先是閻嘯平藉符號學而對美國國關理論作出體制性反思的成果，這裡則要再藉學科互涉方法學對該圖的合理性進行反思、應用和再反思。至於對共和論述方法論的體制性反思，則先是就孟德斯鳩對中華帝國的政體歪論，對他進行在認識論無意識上的反思；然後就西方源遠流長的共和論史作出反思性描述，從而一則得以自然呈現出各思想家偏見後無視它論的無意識問題，繼則得以理出共和論內容的歷史變遷，而能為後頭論及中共政體時提供參照。迷思最後可以針對關於中國和平崛起的論述內容，這裡分別涉及西人對中國的論述及國人對自己的論述。西方論者選出國安場域的杭廷頓和奈伊、經濟場域的貝克和奈斯比、政治場域的福克斯和奧蒙以及文化場域的哈爾波和賈克；中國論者則在四個場域依次選出代表軍方的李而炳、新右派何迪與新左派王紹光這三人主編的文集，以及里歐納德對中國論者的採訪綜論。他們對中國和平崛起的論斷或是直就議題，或是針對如「中國模式」等變體，還或是透過如「全球主義」等旁涉語境；關鍵在於他們作出論斷的理由，常隨其所涉方法的意識型態根源，如文明主義、馬基維利主義、新自由主義等等；但那些理由連同論斷的內容都能呈現於〈結構圖〉的所屬場域，並能反思性地對該圖原先名目要素作出若干適當修正。 In order to understand “the myth of China’s peaceful rise,” it is suggested to use the strategy in the methodology of Bourdieu that has systematic reflection on group unconscious. Thus, the subject of “China’s peaceful rise” is being handled by “mythology”. First of all, myth can be aimed on reality facts. This involves the group unconscious of the context of the times: when the west sees the rise of China with the context of “ultra-modernism,” it often forgets the imperial colonial interest in the modern period and the long process of democracy. On the contrary, when China sees its own rise with the context of entering “modernism,” on one hand, to the change of the times, it stills tangled with Marxism of the previous history or it ignores the western experiences of the post modern and ultra modern. On the other hand, in the opinion of China Communist Party, it is still wondered in the origin interpretation control of power legitimacy and it does not understand that the deformed aristocratic republic actually includes the factors of traditional scholar politics. Secondly, myth can aim on methodology issues. This involves the systematic reflection of the research method of semiotics and republic methodology. As for the “social relationship structure” of the main method of the paper, it was originally the systematic reflection outcome of Hsiao-ping Yen on international relationship theory through semiotic. Here, this diagram is going to be reflected, applied, and re-reflected through the disciplines intertextuality methodology. As for the systematic reflection on republic methodology, first is the distorted theory of Montesquieu on China Empire and unconsciously reflect his Epistemology. Then the long originated western republic theory is being discussed in reflection. Then naturally, the unconscious issue of each thinker after bias ignorance is presented. Later, the historical changes of the context of the republic theory can be sorted out as the references of the China Communist Party, which will be discussed later. Finally, myth can aim on the content of China’s peaceful rise. Here it involves the description of western people to China and the description of our national people. Huntington and Nye of the national security field, Becker and Naigbitt of the economic field, Fox and Almond of the political field, and Halper and Jacques of the cultural field are the representatives of the western theorists; for China theorists, the collection edited by the military representative Lee Er-Bin, New Right Wing Ho Di, and New Left Wing Wang Shao-Guan and the interview summary of Leonard on China theorists are chosen to represent the four fields respectively. They make comments on the subjects of China’s peaceful rise or the deformation of “China mode” or the context of “globalism.” The key is the reasons of their judgment often follow the origin of the conscious such as civilizationism, Machiavellism, and neoliberalism. However, these reasons are presented in the fields of the “structure diagram” with the content of the judgment and make appropriate reflective adjustment of the factors of the original items of the diagram.
显示于类别:	[政治系暨政治學系碩博士班] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
fb130926143359.pdf		16942Kb	Adobe PDF	2682	检视/开启
index.html		0Kb	HTML	355	检视/开启

检视Licence

在CCUR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

数据加载中.....