“道德人假定”与中国式公益问责的泛道德逻辑
|
摘要
公益问责不是一个简单的技术、法律或权利问题,而是一个具有复杂性和多样性的社会、政治及文化命题。流行理论将公益各方视为边界清晰、目标理性和权责明确的制度化关系,因而公益问责亦依循权利逻辑展开。当我们用西方理论关照中国公益的现实,便会发现理论与实践之间存在难以逾越的鸿沟。中国式公益问责的逻辑力量,很大程度上来源于公众对公益慈善及其行为主体的"道德人假定"。这一道德预设不仅将公益行动者置于道德镁光灯下,而且使不特定的公众立足于道德制高点,去居高临下地打量公益人士及其行为表现。公众对公益慈善本身及其行动者的德性完美的想象,成为基于道德的公益问责的逻辑起点。当老百姓的道德期待与公益领域的瑕疵两相遭遇时,公众便获得了道德的感召。在集体道德认同的支配之下,由公益问责所引发的集体行动会快速演变为一场轰轰烈烈的群众运动。泛道德的问责逻辑经过群众运动实践往往异化为一种道德暴力。因此,应该通过制度规制,建立多中心协同问责机制,将公益问责的集体情绪和道德感纳入理性轨道,实现硬机制(制度问责)和软机制(道德问责)的平衡。
Accountability of public interest isn't an easy problem about technology, law or right but a complex proposition that filled with the elements of society, politics and culture. The accountability of public interest unfolds by the logic of right because the different aspects of public interest are always regarded as a systematical relationship including the clean borders, reasonable aim and specific responsibility as well as right. There is a deep gap that can't be passed between theory and practice when we consider the reality of public interest in China by western theories. The logical power of public interest in china comes from a moral person hypothesis given to the public charity and behavioral agent by the public. The hypothesis not only puts the people contributing to public interest to the light of moral attention but also make the uncertain people reach moral high ground so that they could evaluate the behaviors of the people belong to public interest. It has become the beginning of accountability of public interest based on morality that a perfect moral imagination about charity and the pure ethical actors was formed by public. When expectations on moral from the public meet the flaws in public interest area, the public will get the moral recalls. The collective actions raised by accountability of public interest will turn into a serious mass movement under the dominance of identification on collective morals. Pan-moralization logic about accountability of public interest normally changes to moral violence by the practice of mass movement. So the balance between hard mechanism(institutional accountability) and soft mechanism(moral accountability) comes true which relies on regulation of system as well as the establishment of multi-centers corporate accountability, in addition put the emotions of mass and moral into the rational track.
Accountability of public interest isn't an easy problem about technology, law or right but a complex proposition that filled with the elements of society, politics and culture. The accountability of public interest unfolds by the logic of right because the different aspects of public interest are always regarded as a systematical relationship including the clean borders, reasonable aim and specific responsibility as well as right. There is a deep gap that can't be passed between theory and practice when we consider the reality of public interest in China by western theories. The logical power of public interest in china comes from a moral person hypothesis given to the public charity and behavioral agent by the public. The hypothesis not only puts the people contributing to public interest to the light of moral attention but also make the uncertain people reach moral high ground so that they could evaluate the behaviors of the people belong to public interest. It has become the beginning of accountability of public interest based on morality that a perfect moral imagination about charity and the pure ethical actors was formed by public. When expectations on moral from the public meet the flaws in public interest area, the public will get the moral recalls. The collective actions raised by accountability of public interest will turn into a serious mass movement under the dominance of identification on collective morals. Pan-moralization logic about accountability of public interest normally changes to moral violence by the practice of mass movement. So the balance between hard mechanism(institutional accountability) and soft mechanism(moral accountability) comes true which relies on regulation of system as well as the establishment of multi-centers corporate accountability, in addition put the emotions of mass and moral into the rational track.
引文
(1)李军:《非营利组织公共问责的现实考察---基于资源依赖的视角》,《学会》2010年第6期。
(2)(6)[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔:《非政府组织问责:政治、原则、创新》,康晓光等译,中国人民大学出版社2008年版,第1~2页。
(3)李勇:《非政府组织问责研究》,《中国非营利评论》2010年第1期。
(4)Joanne G.Carman,2010,The Accountability Movement:What’Wrong with This Theory of Change?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,39(2):256~274.
(5)L.David Brown and Mark H.Moore,2001,Accountability,Strategy,and International Nongovernmental Organizations.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,30(3):569~587.
(7)[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔:《NGO问责在政治风景中的权利与责任:介绍与概要》,载于[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔主编:《非政府组织问责:政治、原则、创新》,康晓光等译,中国人民大学出版社2008年版,第5页。
(8)(9)(12)(23)卢宪英:《当前中国公益组织网络问责现状研究》,载于黄晓勇主编:《中国民间组织报告(2014)》,社会科学文献出版社2014年版,第128、114、116、117页。
(10)刘威:《“好人好事”与中国人的慈善观》,《社会科学战线》2015年第8期。
(11)孙晓舒:《潘石屹向哈佛、耶鲁捐赠助学金惹争议》,载于杨团主编:《中国慈善发展报告(2015)》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版,第262~264页。
(13)胡小军:《问责,让行动更有力量---民间公益组织问责状况研究报告》,载于朱健刚主编《中国公益发展报告(2011)》,社会科学文献出版社2012年版,第31页。
(14)高丙中:《社会团体的合法性问题》,《中国社会科学》2000年第2期。
(15)Thompson,John B.The Media and Modernity:A Social Theory of the Media.Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1995:112~113.
(16)杨国斌:《连线力:中国网民在行动》,邓燕华译,广西师范大学出版社2013年版,第38页。
(17)Calhoun,Craig.Social Theory and the Politics of Identity.In Social Theory and the Politics of Identity,ed.Craig Calhoun.Oxford:Blackwell,1994:20,21.
(18)(19)(20)(21)[法]古斯塔夫·勒庞:《乌合之众:大众心理研究》,冯克利译,中央编译出版社2005年版,第14、24、33、36页。
(22)杨敏:《公民参与、群众参与与社区参与》,《社会》2005年第5期。
(24)(26)(30)程芬:《透明公益:政府与民间携手规划信息公开边界》,载于王振耀主编:《现代慈善与社会治理》,社会科学文献出版社2014年版,第203、207、208页。
(25)程芬:《壹基金、天使妈妈遭质疑,公信力建设任重道远》,载于杨团主编:《中国慈善发展报告(2015)》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版,第258页。
(27)孙乐涛:《警惕群众运动式的道德审判》,《时代周报》2013年7月25日。
(28)参见褚松燕《中外非政府组织管理体制比较》,国家行政学院出版社2008年版。
(29)参见埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆《公共事物的治理之道:集体行动制度的演进》,上海译文出版社2012年版。
(31)王名:《民间组织的发展及通向公民社会的道路》,载于王名主编:《中国民间组织30年:走向公民社会》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版,第9页。
(32)康晓光等:《依附式发展的第三部门》,社会科学文献出版社2011年版,第328页。
(2)(6)[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔:《非政府组织问责:政治、原则、创新》,康晓光等译,中国人民大学出版社2008年版,第1~2页。
(3)李勇:《非政府组织问责研究》,《中国非营利评论》2010年第1期。
(4)Joanne G.Carman,2010,The Accountability Movement:What’Wrong with This Theory of Change?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,39(2):256~274.
(5)L.David Brown and Mark H.Moore,2001,Accountability,Strategy,and International Nongovernmental Organizations.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,30(3):569~587.
(7)[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔:《NGO问责在政治风景中的权利与责任:介绍与概要》,载于[美]丽莎·乔丹、[荷]彼得·范·图埃尔主编:《非政府组织问责:政治、原则、创新》,康晓光等译,中国人民大学出版社2008年版,第5页。
(8)(9)(12)(23)卢宪英:《当前中国公益组织网络问责现状研究》,载于黄晓勇主编:《中国民间组织报告(2014)》,社会科学文献出版社2014年版,第128、114、116、117页。
(10)刘威:《“好人好事”与中国人的慈善观》,《社会科学战线》2015年第8期。
(11)孙晓舒:《潘石屹向哈佛、耶鲁捐赠助学金惹争议》,载于杨团主编:《中国慈善发展报告(2015)》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版,第262~264页。
(13)胡小军:《问责,让行动更有力量---民间公益组织问责状况研究报告》,载于朱健刚主编《中国公益发展报告(2011)》,社会科学文献出版社2012年版,第31页。
(14)高丙中:《社会团体的合法性问题》,《中国社会科学》2000年第2期。
(15)Thompson,John B.The Media and Modernity:A Social Theory of the Media.Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1995:112~113.
(16)杨国斌:《连线力:中国网民在行动》,邓燕华译,广西师范大学出版社2013年版,第38页。
(17)Calhoun,Craig.Social Theory and the Politics of Identity.In Social Theory and the Politics of Identity,ed.Craig Calhoun.Oxford:Blackwell,1994:20,21.
(18)(19)(20)(21)[法]古斯塔夫·勒庞:《乌合之众:大众心理研究》,冯克利译,中央编译出版社2005年版,第14、24、33、36页。
(22)杨敏:《公民参与、群众参与与社区参与》,《社会》2005年第5期。
(24)(26)(30)程芬:《透明公益:政府与民间携手规划信息公开边界》,载于王振耀主编:《现代慈善与社会治理》,社会科学文献出版社2014年版,第203、207、208页。
(25)程芬:《壹基金、天使妈妈遭质疑,公信力建设任重道远》,载于杨团主编:《中国慈善发展报告(2015)》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版,第258页。
(27)孙乐涛:《警惕群众运动式的道德审判》,《时代周报》2013年7月25日。
(28)参见褚松燕《中外非政府组织管理体制比较》,国家行政学院出版社2008年版。
(29)参见埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆《公共事物的治理之道:集体行动制度的演进》,上海译文出版社2012年版。
(31)王名:《民间组织的发展及通向公民社会的道路》,载于王名主编:《中国民间组织30年:走向公民社会》,社会科学文献出版社2008年版,第9页。
(32)康晓光等:《依附式发展的第三部门》,社会科学文献出版社2011年版,第328页。