话语商谈与政治公共领域的反思——哈贝马斯与达尔的民主思想之辩

Discourse Communication and the Reflection in Political Public Sphere: The Debate on the Democratic Ideas of Habermas and Dahl

在哈贝马斯看来,晚期资本主义公共领域发生结构转型的根本原因在于由国家干预市民社会和市民社会获取政治权力而导致的相互融合以及随之响应的市民社会结构的转换。因此,在晚期资本主义国家干预的语境中谈论公共领域的重建问题,最根本的应当是讨论国家和市民社会之良性互动关系的形成以及市民社会结构的改造问题。按照哈贝马斯的理解,如果我们把公共意见理解为是公民根据其自身的权利,在道德和法的公正性原则的框架内通过商谈和论辩形成的一种作为所有相关人员认可的意见,那么,公共意见也就不同于达尔的民主概念中的那种"公意"或非反思的统计学意义上的"大多数人"的意见。因此,公共意见形成于理性交往形式而构成的公共领域,而非有组织的或制度化的政治公共领域。达尔试图建立一种更加注重政治参与和更关心平等的公民自主性权利的民主,以达成一种能够彻底摆脱亚里士多德式的、以伦理的实质性权利为基础的民主政治。问题在于,达尔并没有意识到公民实质的权利只有通过以公正原则为根据的程序性的商谈才能实现。由此,现代民主法制国家只有充分意识到自身所具有的社会一体化的反控导的技能,并按照一种反思性的原则来引导政治公共领域内部的实践,才能把自己置于与经由交往理性织构的公共领域平行的地位上,并由此确定它作为一个民主的政治话语的主体的地位。

To Habermas, the root cause of the structural transformation in the public sphere of late capitalism was the the integration of the state's intervention in civil society and the political power from civil society as well as the structure changes of civil society. Therefore, talking about the reconstruction of the public sphere in the context of the intervention of the late capitalist countries, the most fundamental problem should be discussed was the formation of positive interaction between the state and civil society as well as the structure transformation of civil society. According to Habermas, if the public opinion was understood as the opinion approved by all relevant people by discussing and debating in the framework of fair principle of morality and law, then, public opinion is different from the kind of 'general will' or the opinion of ' majority' people in the democracy concept of Dahl. Therefore, public opinion was formed in the public sphere of rational intercourse, rather than organized or institutionalized political public sphere. Dahl tried to establish a kind of democracy which paid greater emphasis on political participation and more concerned about equal autonomous rights of citizens to rid itself of Aristotle's democratic politics which based on the substantive rights of ethics. The problem was that Dahl did not realize the real citizen rights only could be achieved by the procedural discourse on the basis of fair principle. Therefore, the modern democratic states was only fully aware of its own anti-control skills of social integration, and guided the practice in the public sphere in accordance with the principle of reflection, it could place itself in the parallel status of the public sphere that textured by the communicative rationality, and thus determined it as a subject of democratic political discourse.