摘要
本文旨在爲儒家思想中的民主政治觀確認一種基礎。其所關注的三個方面均具有争議性,但卻又能在歷史争論及儒學政治思想實踐的發展過程中得到肯定與支援。本文指出,對于儒家政治思想的民主解讀,將會導向三個方面:首先,是對所有人都擁有"仁"的能力,從而都可以成爲政治生活中潜在的道德貢獻者的期望;其次,是對政治、社會和經濟生活制度能够運作的期望,由此作爲一個完人所具有的道德纔能够得以發展;第三,是對政治空間的期望,此一空間,可以容納政治批判和持續的争議。這些争議鎖定在個體領導者和公民的職責、行爲及其行爲教化機制的運行上。
This article aims to ensure a kind of foundation on which to build the outlook of democratic politics in Confucian thinking. The three aspects which it addresses all bear certain controversy; but they have been affirmed and won support in historical disputes and in the development of Confucian political thinking and practice. This article argues that the democratic reading of Confucian political thoughts would involve three dimensions. The first is to expect everyone of the capacity of "ren"(benevolence) so that everyone can be the potential moral contributor of political life. The second is to expect that institutions in political, social and economic life could be functional in order to enable the growth of morality of a whole person. The third is to expect the political space in which political polemics and constant controversy can be tolerated. Such controversy may concern the obligation and conduct of individual leader and citizens and the functioning of their civilizing system.
引文
Gilbert Rozman,“Center-Local Relations:Can Confucianism Boost Decentralization and Regionalism”,Daniel Bell&Hahm Chaibong ed.Confucianism for the Modern World,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003,pp.181-200;Robert D.Putnam,Bowling Alone:The Collapse and Revival of American Community,New York:Simon&Schuster,2000.
關于跨文化的儒學,參見John H.Berthrong,!Transformations of the Confucian Way,Boulder,Colo:Westview Press,1998.關于當代中國對民主(“人民的統治”)的熱情及當代儒學對它的支持,參見Thomas Metzger,“Sources of Resistance”,Journal of Democracy!9,no.1(1998):pp.18-26。亦可參見鄧小軍《儒家思想與民主思想的邏1結合》(成都:四川人民出版社,1995),他將“天下爲公”解讀爲一種人民主權論;以及蔣慶在《政治儒學》(北京:生活·讀書·新知三聯書店,2003)中對之所做的批判。
關于儒學的老套看法是,它要求自我爲群體犧牲。但此點並不在本文討論之中。相關研究可參見David L.Hall&Roger T.Ames,Democracy of the Dead,(Chicago:Open Court,1999)。
參見William Theodore De Bary&Tu Wei-ming ed.Confucianism and Human Rights,New York:Columbia University Press,1998;Joanne R.Bauer&Daniel A.Bell,The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999;Michael C.Davis ed.Human Rights and Chinese Values,Hong Kong:Oxford University Press,1995;Li Chenyang,The Tao Encounters the West:Explorations in Comparative Philosophy,Albany:State University of New York Press,1999;William P.Alford,“Making a Goddess of Democracy from Loose Sand:Thoughts on Human Rights in the People’s Republic of China”,Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im ed.Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspective:A Quest for Consensus,Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,1992;Daniel Bell,“Human Rights and Social Criticism in Contemporary Chinese Political Theory”,!Political Theory 32,no.3(2004):pp.396-408;William Theodore Bary,Asian Values and Human Rights:A Confucian Communitarian Perspective,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1998;Stephen C.Angle,Human Rights and Chinese Thought:A Cross-Cultural Inquiry,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002;Michael Davis,Human Rights and Chinese Values:Legal,Philosophical,and Political Perspectives,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995.
康有爲以來的中國民主激進人士和制度改革運動(1895-1898)已經使用儒學價值爲民主改革提供合法性,此點可參Wang Juntao,“Confucian Democrats in Chinese History”,in Confucianism for the Modern World,ed.Daniel A.Bell&HahmChaibong,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003,pp.69-89.中文語境下的當代討論包括蔣慶的《政治儒學》和鄧小軍的《儒家思想與民主思想的邏1結合》,在此亦感謝Li Mingyan同我討論這些文本。我對知識分子文化的重視與郝大維、安樂哲的Democracy of the Dead,Francis Fukuyama的Confucianism and Democracy,Journal of Democracy 6,no.2(1995):pp.20-33,以及Ronald Inglehart與Wayne E.Baker的“Modernization,Cultural Change,and the Persistence of Traditional Values”,American Sociological Review!65,no.1(2000):pp.19-51是一致的。我的認識論假設是,關注文化價值需要關注文化傳統下的不同聲音,並且承認歷代以來的文化守護者皆具有精通文學的能力,没有這種能力的人則不能用它來與將來的對話者分享他們的觀點。
有人可能會認爲這正是Michael Sandel在Democracy’s Discontent:America in Search of a Public Philosophy(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1996)中所要探索的。自由與平等在自由民主理論中既互補又相互競争。羅爾斯用公平來解讀正義提供了一個協調這些互相競争的標準的方法,此可參見John Rawls,Political Liberalism(New York:Columbia University Press,1993)和John Rawls,The Law of Peoples(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1999)。相比之下,Chantal Mouffe爲二者之間的張力在當代民主理論中所起的作用提供了一種有效的表達,此可參見The Democratic Paradox,New York:Verso,2000.
Michael Walzer,Spheres of Justice,New York:Basic Books,1983;SeylaBenhabib,The Claims of Culture:Equality and Diversity in the Global Era,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,2002;Susan Moller Okin,Justice,Gender and the Family,New York:Basic Books,1989;Sandel,!Democracy’s Discontent.
Mouffe批判自由民主制的特徵或者互補或者敵對,並認爲自由主義與民主主義視爲互相“染污”地協同運作。用Mouffe的話來說,儒學染污了民主正如自由主義染污了民主,民主染污了儒學正如民主染污了自由主義。與之相比,Li Chenyang在The Tao Encounters the West中認爲儒學與民主可以作爲獨立的價值體系共存。在解讀民主主義與自由民主主義時,蔣慶主張儒學與自由民主制是不能互相比較的的價值體系。他的理由部份地建立在對鄧小軍的批評上,他認指責鄧小軍企圖通過邏1去調和兩種政治實踐,而實際上這兩種政治實踐只能在各自的政治、社會、文化和宗教背景下進行理解。
郝大維與安樂哲的Democracy of the Dead,以及Tan Sor-hoon的Confucian Democracy:A Deweyan Reconstruction(Albany:State University of New York Press,2003)均主張儒學支持杜威式的民主。Bell描述了一種制度上的創新,它好比19世紀初的代表機構,精英通過這些機構來調解民主衝動;參見Daniel A.Bell,!East Meets West:Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,2000.
Chang Yun-Shik,“Mutual Help and Democracy in Korea”,見于Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.90-123.
Rawls,!Political Liberalism.以及Young尚在審稿中的Perspectives on Politics.
Robert A.Dahl,A Preface to Economic Democracy,Cambridge:Polity Press,1985,p.60.
Okin,Justice,Gender and the Family.
Iris Young,Justice and the Politics of Difference,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1990.
參見Susan Okin,!Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?(Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1999)及其相關的批判性争論。另見Nancy Fraser,!Justice Interruptus:Critical Reflections on the“Postsocialist”Condition(New York:Routledge,1997)及與Iris Marion Young有關的批判性争論。亦參見Patchen Markell,Bound by Recognition,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,2003;Nancy Fraser&Axel Honneth,Redistribution or Recognition?A Political-Philosophical Exchange,London:Verso,2003.以及相關討論。
比較Charles Taylor,“The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion”,Journal of Democracy 9,no.4(1998):pp.143-156.
Ronald Dworkin,Sovereign Virtue:The Theory and Practice of Equality,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000;Amy Gutmann,Liberal Equality,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980;Ian Shapiro,State of Democratic Theory,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,2003;Okin,!Justice,Gender and the Family;Rawls,!Political Liberalism以及Walzer,Spheres of Justice.
James Bohman,Public Deliberation:Pluralism,Complexity,and Democracy,Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press,1996;Joshua Cohen,Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,SeylaBenhabib ed.Democracy and Difference:Changing Boundaries of the Political,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1996;John S.Dryzek,Deliberative Democracy and Beyond:Liberals,Critics,Contestations,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000;James S.Fishkin,Democracy and Deliberation:New Directions for Democratic Reform,New Haven,Conn.:Yale University Press,1991;Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson,Democracy and Disagreement,Cambridge,Mass.:Blknap Press of Harvard University Press,1996;SeylaBenhabib,Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy,Democracy and Difference.
Susan Bickford,The Dissonance of Democracy:Listening,Conflict,and Citizenship,Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell University Press,1996;Jürgen Habermas,“Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason:Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism”,Journal of Philosophy 92,no.3(1995):pp.109-131;Jürgen Habermas,Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,trans.William Rehq,Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press,1996.
Carole Pateman,Participation and Democratic Theory,Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1970.
Philip Petti,Republicanism:A Theory of Freedom and Government,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1997;Hanna Pitkin,Representation,New York:Atherton Press,1969;Bernard Manin,The Principles of Representative Government,New York:Cambridge University Press,1997.顯然地,我在注釋中列舉的這些只是當代民主理論家的一小部份。
Phillip Schmitter&Terry Lynn Karl,What Democracy Is and Is Not,!Journal of Democracy2,no.3(1991):pp.75-88;Robert D.Putnam,Robert Leonardi&Raffaella Y.Nanetti,Making Democracy Work:Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1993;Larry Diamond,Foreword,Suisheng Zhao ed.China and Democracy:Prospect for a Democratic China,New York:Routledge,2000,pp.IX-XV.
Daniel Bell,Which Rights Are Universal?Political Theory!27,no.6(1999):pp.849-856.
HahmChaibong,“Constitutionalism,Confucian Civic Virtue,and Ritual Propriety”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.31-53;Russell Fox,“Authority and Activity:The Politics of Puritan and Confucian Communities”(2004年9月于芝加哥舉辦的美國政治科學協會年度會議上遞交的論文).
HahmChaibong,“Constitutionalism,Confucian Civic Virtue,and Ritual Propriety”;Mo Jongryn,“The Challenge of Accountability:Implications of the Censorate”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.54-68;Wang Juntao,“Confucian Democrats in Chinese History”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.69-89.
Chang Yun-Shik,“Mutual Help and Democracy in Korea”,pp.90-123.
Gilbert Rozman,“Center-Local Relations”.
GeirHelgesen,“The Case for Moral Education”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.161-177.
David L.Hall&Roger T.Ames,Thinking through Confucius,Albany:State University of New York Press,1987;David L.Hall&Roger T.Ames,Democracy of the Dead;David L.Hall&Roger T.Ames,“A Pragmatist Understanding of Confucian Democracy”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.124-160.
Chen Albert H.Y.,“Mediation,Litigation,and Justice:Confucian Reflections in a Modern Liberal Society”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.257-287;Chan Sin Yee,“The Confucian Conception of Gender in the Twenty-first Century”,in Bell&Chaibong,Confucianism for the Modern World,pp.312-333.
Fang Jue,“A Program for Democratic Reform”,Journal of Democracy 9,no.4(1998):pp.9-19;Joseph Chan,“A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights”,in Bauer&Bell,The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights,pp.212-237;Bell,East Meets West.David Bell和Joseph Chan已經爲中國提供了一些民主制度上的建議。William Theodore de Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China,New York:Columbia University Press,1983,以及Joseph Chan對適合維持中國民主制度的儒學價值進行思考,他們爲中國設想了一種自由主義的民主制,而Bell則預想了另一種由精英約束的民主。參閱Neil A.Englehart,“Rights and Culture in the Asian Values Argument:The Rise and Fall of Confucian Ethics in Singapore”,Human Rights Quarterly!22,no.2(2000):pp.548-568中對當代新加坡人民行動黨(PAP)統治的叙述,以及John Stuart Mill,Considerations on Representative Government(1861;reprint,New York:Primetheus Books,1991)中對議員性民主的叙述。
鄧小軍:《儒家思想與民主思想的邏1結合》,對其評論的文章見蔣慶《政治儒學》第三章。
例如,Joseph Chan發現儒學之仁與西方的人權觀相似。與之相比,Lee Seung-hwan更認同一種承認權利的實踐,此權利與西方的權利觀念一致,卻也並不把這些權利看成是儒學道德理論的基礎,此可參見Lee Seung-hwan,“Was There a Concept of Rights in Confucian Virtue-Based Morality”,Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19(1992):pp.241-261;亦參見注釋5;Joshua Cohen,“Minimalism about Human Rights:The Most We Can Hope For”,Journal of Political Philosophy!12,no.2(2004):pp.190-221;及De Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China.
Fukuyama在“Confucianism and Democracy”的討論注意到了描述儒家社會政治環境的範圍,以及作爲政治哲學的儒家,除了有一段時間對佛教的壓制外,表現出了伊斯蘭教和基督教難以匹及的包容性。
Li Chenyang ed.,The Sage and the Second Sex,Chicago:Open Court,2000.
Ian Shapiro,Political Criticism,Berkeley:University of California Press,1990;Michael Walzer,Interpretation and Social Criticism,Cambridge,Mass.,Harvard University Press,1987;Brooke Ackerly,Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
Li Chenyang,The Tao Encounters the West:Explorations in Comparative Philosophy;William Theodore de Bary在The Trouble with Confucianism(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1991)中叙述了後宋明學者呂留良(1629-1683)與方東樹(1772-1851)通過批判權力的濫用對新儒家正統地位的重申。參考Walzer,Interpretation and Social Criticism;以及Shapiro,Political Criticism。
參考Li Chenyang,The Tao Encounters the West.
Edward Slingerland,Confucius:Analects with Selections from Traditional Commentaries,!Indianapolis,Ind.:Hackett,2003,p.238.其他建議包括仁慈或善行;人道,共用的仁慈、同情或移情;人倫關係,社會關係或共用的目標。Arthur Waley,Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China,Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1982;Joseph Chan,“A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights”;Lee Seung-hwan,“Was There a Concept of Rights in Confucian Virtue-Based Morality”,p.252;以及Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of Neo-Confucianism:Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods,!Westport,Conn.:Greenwood Press,1999;Tu Weiming,“Foreword”,in Robert C.Neville,Boston Confucianism:Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World,Albany:State University of New York Press,2000.另見Li Chenyang,The Tao Encounters the West.
孟子也反駁楊朱的觀點,楊朱認爲人類是不受他人束縛的自主個體。
如無特別說明,本文所引《孟子》的翻譯來自James Legge,The Four Books(New York:Paragon Book Reprint Corp.,1996),此書包括《論語》、《大學》、《中庸》和《孟子》的翻譯。本文所引《論語》的翻譯來自Slingerland,Confucius。我極力推許此文本作爲儒家思想的入門書籍。相較于直譯,譯者對于傳統注疏的采用,使這一英語讀物與文本的關係更加有趣。安樂哲與羅斯文的翻譯顯示了對漢語的真知灼見,可參見Roger Ames&Henry Rosemont,The Analects of Confucius:A Philosophical Translation,New York:Ballantine,1998.這些文本的作者和歷史是學術的研究對象,雖有細微差別,但不會改變我對這些文本的解釋。一般稱呼有關孟子文本的術語爲“The Mencius”。
關于倫理學與政治學的關係,參見Tan Sor-hoon,Confucian Democracy,尤其是其第四章。
在西方女性主義內部,學者争論人倫關係是建立還是威脅了對于女性的公正。比較Carol Gilligan,In a Different Voice:Psychological Theory and Women’s Development(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1982)和Okin,Justice,Gender and the Family.女性主義對于仁的研究也存在一種類似的擔憂,可參見Li Chenyang,The Sage and the Second Sex中的文章。
關于孟子與荀子的人性觀,參見Philip J.Ivanhoe,Confucian Moral Self Cultivation,2ndedition,Indianapolis,Ind.:Hackett,2000.
Shun Kwang-loi,Mencius and Early Chinese Thought,Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1997;Li Chenyang,The Tao Encounters the West;Hall&Ames,Democracy of the Dead.
Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of Neo-Confucianism.
Huang Siu-chi,Essenfials of Neo-Confucianism,p.71,p.118.
Ibid.pp.70-80.
程顥:《識仁篇》,同前引,第92頁;亦見Joseph Chan,“A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights”,pp.223-224.
Huang Chun-chieh,Mencian Hermeneutics:A History of Interpretations in China,New Brunswick,N.J.:Translation Publishing,2001.
De Bary,The Trouble with Confucianism.
Wang Juntao,“Confucian Democrats in Chinese History”.
例如,Neville,Boston Confucianism;參考HahmChaibong,“Constitutionalism,Confucian Civic Virtue,and Ritual Propriety”.
Joel Kupperman,“Xunzi:Morality as Psychological Constraint”,in Virtue,Nature,and Moral Agency in the Xunzi,ed.T.C.Kline III&Philip J.Ivanhoe Indiannapolis,Ind.:Hackett,2000.
一些在其他方面少有雷同的西方政治思想皆認爲,壓榨性的等級制對于民主、自由、平等和它們的結合而言是一種挑戰。參見Walzer,Spheres of Justice;Catharine MacKinnon,“Crimes of War,Crimes of Peace”,Stephen Shute&Susan Hurley ed.,On Human Rights:The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993,New York:Basic Books,1993,pp.83-109;Philip Pettit,Republicanism:A Theory of Freedom and Government,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1997;Johan Galtung,The True Worlds:A Transnational Perspective,New York:Free Press,1980.
例如,R.P.Peerenboom,“What’s Wrong with Chinese Rights?Toward a Theory of Rights with Chinese Characteristics”,Harvard Human Rights Journal!6(1993):pp.29-57;Roger T.Ames,“Rites as Rights:The Confucian Alternative”,in Human Rights and the World’s Religions,ed.Leroy S.Rouner Notre Dame,Ind.:University of Notre Dame Press,1988;Lee Seung-hwan,“Was There a Concept of Rights in Confucian Virtue-Based Morality?”
Shun Kwang-loi,Mencius and Early Chinese Thought,p.63;Li Chenyang,“The Tao Encounters the West”,尤其是第一章與第四章。
如同幾個世紀後王陽明(1472-1529)對此進一步的發展,君子和小人都有對于善的直覺良知。參見Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of Neo-Confucianism,pp.200-201.Legge與Liu對此段的翻譯與本文所引類似。然而,Ivanhoe的則重點有所不同,認爲該段的關鍵在于强調其他聖人會同意他對楊墨的批判,可參見Philip J.Ivanhoe,Ethics in the Confucian Tradition:The Thought of Mengzi and Wang Yangming,2ndedtion,Indianapolis,Ind.:Hackett,2002,p.118.造成不同解讀的原因是哲學上,並非因爲所采用譯文的不同。亦見Li Chenyang在“The Tao Encounters the West”中關于“人”的討論,第146頁及其後。
Legge,The Four Books,p.678.
從非儒學的視角,Onora O’Neill主張義務是權利與人類平等的基礎,可參見Onora O’Neill,Bounds of Justice,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
《西銘》的全部英文文本見Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of Neo-Confucianism,pp.69-70.
Ibid.,p.151,p.158.
Ibid.,p.180.
例如,Tu Weiming,“Foreword”;Neville,Boston Confucianism.
參考J.Chan,“A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights”.
在西方,關于後者的擔心支撑了一系列的政府保護和個人權利,有人可能會認爲荀子的人性觀與自由制度是一致的。
Neville,Boston Confucianism.
參見Tu Weiming,“Foreword”;Tu Weiming,Humanity and Self Cultivation:Essays in Confucian Thought,Berkeley,Calif.:Asian Humanities Press,1979;Tu Weiming,Confucian Thought:Selfhood as Creative Transformation,Albany:State University of New York Press,1985;Berthrong,!Transformations of the Confucian Way.
亦可參見Fukuyama,“Confucianism and Democracy”.
歐陽修,《本論》,由David S.Nivison引用,見于David S.Nivison,“Introduction”,in Confucianism in Action,ed.David S.Nivison&Arthur F.Wright,Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1959,p.6.在Alan Wood,Limits to Autocracy:From Sung Neo-Confucianism to a Doctrine of Political Rights(Honolulu:University of Hawaii,1995)中,Wood提供了宋朝新儒家的這一解讀。
Hoyt Cleveland Tillman,Utilitarian Confucianism:Ch’en Liang’s Challenge to Chu His,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1982,pp.30-31.亦見Hoyt Cleveland Tillman,Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy,Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,1992.Chen Jie與Zhong Yang提供了一種當代流行觀點,認爲對中國民主主義人士來說,社會秩序是民主的一個重要目標,此可參見Chen Jie&Zhong Yang,“Valuation of Individual Liberty vs.Social Order among Democratic Supporters:A Cross-Validation”,Political Research Quarterly 53,no.2:pp.427-439.
亦見《論語》之《八佾》、《顔淵》、《子路》及《衛靈公》諸篇。Joseph Chan,“A Confucian Perspective on Human Rights”持與家長式統治相似的觀點。Fukuyama認爲政治家長式統治主義已經成爲日本儒學的一部份,可參見Fukuyama,“Confucianism and Democracy”.
Slingerland對此段的討論頗具啓發性,他寫到:“此處藴含了君子的處境性反應。他們依靠自身的內在道德感,而非約定俗成的社會偏見,來評價人或事。在《論語·公冶長》中,孔子對于被傳統所禁忌的女婿的接受,以及《論語·子路》中,對于未經檢驗的社會判斷的懷疑,皆可作爲……此原則的實踐詮釋。”(第32-33頁)
Tillman,Utilitarian Confucianism,p.29.
《荀子》,出處同上,第28-29頁。
張載(1020-1077),早期新儒家學者,因爲批判王安石(1021-1086)的新政而丟掉官位。見Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of NeoConfucianism,p.59.
Ibid.,p.125,pp.154,pp.181.
De Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China,p.3.
Huang Siu-chi,Essentials of Neo-Confucianism,p.192.
De Bary,The Liberal Tradition in China,pp.91-98;亦見Mo Jongryn,“The Challenge of Accountability:Implications of the Censorate”.
借用Mouff的概念,它們互相“染污”了對方(見注釋5)。
Tu Weiming,“Foreword”.
Neville,Boston Confucianism.
Ackerly,Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism.
Ames&Rosemont,Analects.
Chan Sin Yee,“The Confucian Conception of Gender in the Twenty-First Century”.
Chan Sin Yee,“The Confucian Conception of Gender in the Twenty-First Century”,p.323-325.
例如,如前所引Ames,Berthrong,Li Chenyang,Huang Chun-chieh,De Bary,Hall,Ivanhoe,Neville與Tu Weiming之文本。以及Irene Bloom,Knowledge Painfully Acquired:The K’un-chih chi by Lo Ch’in-shun,trans.,ed.,and intro.Irene Bloom(New York:Columbia University Press,1987)和Alan K.L.Chan,Mencius:Contexts and Interpretations(Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,2002).
參見Fred Dallmayr,“Beyond Monologue:For a Comparative Political Theory”,Perspectives on Politics 2,no.2:pp.249-257.
