公共领域中理性沟通的可能性(5)
作者：佚名； 更新时间：2014-12-05
l）的判准。
Seyla Benhabib 认为西方的公共领域可以分成三种基本类型：\"竞技式的公共空间\"（agonistic model）、：\"法律式的公共空间\"（legalistic model）、\"对谈式的公共空间\"（discursive model），三者分别以鄂兰、艾克曼（Bruce Ackerman）、与哈伯玛斯为代表。但是如同下文所示，笔者认为鄂兰的理论并不只强调竞技的层面，事实上也有沟通合作与对谈。参见 Seyla Benhabib, \"Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas,\" in Craig Calhoun ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 73-98. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 26-31. Ibid., pp. 32-33. Ibid., pp. 179-180. 参见 Peter Fuss, \"Hannah Arendt\'s Conception of Political Community,\" in Melvyn A.Hill ed., Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World (New York: St. Martin\'s Press, 1979), pp. 172-173. Bhikhu Parekh, Hannah Arendt and the Search for a New Political Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1981), p. 177. The Human Condition, p. 180. Hannah Arendt, \"Philosophy and Politics,\" Social Research 57: 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 78. Ibid., p. 80. 详见Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. by Thomas Burger (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989). Jürgen Habermas, \"Hannah Arendt\'s Communications Concept of Power,\" Social Research 44:1 (Spring, 1977), pp.3-24. Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 65-66. 另外，哈伯玛斯也强调这么修正之后，人们的需要与利益都可以成为道德判断过程的要素，不会因\"纯粹动机\"的要求而被漠视。Ibid., pp. 66-68. Ibid., pp. 82-98. Ibid., pp. 88. 另见Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. by Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 56-58. Habermas, Justification and Application, p. 59. Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 169-172. Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), pp. 7-14, 79-80. John Gray, \"Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company,\" in Maria Baghramian and Attracta Ingram eds., Pluralism: the Philosophy and Politics of Diversity (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 87-88. See also John Gray, Enlightenment\'s Wake: Politics and Culture in the Close of the Modern Age (London: Routledge, 1995). George Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism (London: Continuum, 2002), pp. 2-3, 49-54. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, p. 11. Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism, pp. 45-46. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, pp. 14, 18, 80. Gray, \"Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company,\" pp. 86-87, 91, 93, 101. 对于Gray观点的反驳，可参见Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism, pp. 11-12. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, pp. 77-78
因此，笔者认为公共领域的产生需要四个条件：存在共同关心的议题、愿意了解他人的想法、以语言进行互动、接受较佳论证的效力。如果这四个条件存在，公共领域的成员就可以进行有意义的沟通。这种沟通或许不像哈伯玛斯等人所期待的那样，是\"理想言说情境\"下的\"理性沟通\"；但是它基本上还是理性的。它的有限理性虽然在理论上不特别吸引人，但是在实践上却可以适用于更多的对谈情境。我们知道这种理性沟通未必能够产生共识，不过\"没有共识\"正是人类多元性所预示的可能结果之一。在\"时有共识、时无共识\"的生命状态里，我们或许更能体会人类的潜能与限制。
Seyla Benhabib 认为西方的公共领域可以分成三种基本类型：\"竞技式的公共空间\"（agonistic model）、：\"法律式的公共空间\"（legalistic model）、\"对谈式的公共空间\"（discursive model），三者分别以鄂兰、艾克曼（Bruce Ackerman）、与哈伯玛斯为代表。但是如同下文所示，笔者认为鄂兰的理论并不只强调竞技的层面，事实上也有沟通合作与对谈。参见 Seyla Benhabib, \"Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas,\" in Craig Calhoun ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 73-98. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 26-31. Ibid., pp. 32-33. Ibid., pp. 179-180. 参见 Peter Fuss, \"Hannah Arendt\'s Conception of Political Community,\" in Melvyn A.Hill ed., Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World (New York: St. Martin\'s Press, 1979), pp. 172-173. Bhikhu Parekh, Hannah Arendt and the Search for a New Political Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1981), p. 177. The Human Condition, p. 180. Hannah Arendt, \"Philosophy and Politics,\" Social Research 57: 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 78. Ibid., p. 80. 详见Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. by Thomas Burger (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989). Jürgen Habermas, \"Hannah Arendt\'s Communications Concept of Power,\" Social Research 44:1 (Spring, 1977), pp.3-24. Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 65-66. 另外，哈伯玛斯也强调这么修正之后，人们的需要与利益都可以成为道德判断过程的要素，不会因\"纯粹动机\"的要求而被漠视。Ibid., pp. 66-68. Ibid., pp. 82-98. Ibid., pp. 88. 另见Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. by Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 56-58. Habermas, Justification and Application, p. 59. Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 169-172. Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), pp. 7-14, 79-80. John Gray, \"Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company,\" in Maria Baghramian and Attracta Ingram eds., Pluralism: the Philosophy and Politics of Diversity (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 87-88. See also John Gray, Enlightenment\'s Wake: Politics and Culture in the Close of the Modern Age (London: Routledge, 1995). George Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism (London: Continuum, 2002), pp. 2-3, 49-54. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, p. 11. Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism, pp. 45-46. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, pp. 14, 18, 80. Gray, \"Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company,\" pp. 86-87, 91, 93, 101. 对于Gray观点的反驳，可参见Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism, pp. 11-12. Berlin, The Crooked Timber, pp. 77-78
