弗雷泽与福斯特:正义的哲学基础之争

Fraser and Forst:Debate on the Philosophical Foundation of Justice

当代西方法兰克福学派的两位批判理论家南茜.弗雷泽与瑞尼尔.福斯特围绕是参与平等之正义框架还是合理性证明原则更适于担当正义的哲学基础展开了一场政治哲学论辩。他们试图在规范上将正义的本质概念化,在操作层面将正义的理论与实践统一起来,但他们在关涉正义的批判的对象、形式、范围和社会本体论等方面产生重大分歧。二者的正义构想之异同及其争辩所打开的话语空间,一方面向我们昭示了西方批判理论家致力于社会解放的理论与实践斗争一直在路上,另一方面也表明他们囿于自身理论资源的潜能而未能深层有效挑战当代资本主义制度本身。

Nancy Fraser and Rainer Forst, two contemporary critical theorists of Frankfurt schools, launched a political philosophy argument on which one is more suitable for bearing the philosophy foundation of justice between Participatory Parity and Rationality Justification. They tried to conceptualize the essence of jus- tice and unify justice theory and practice in the operational level, but they have great differences on the target of criticism, forms, scope, social ontology, etc. Their ideas and discourse scope, on one hand, tell us west- ern critical theorists have long been devoting to social liberation in both theory and practice, on the other hand, show us they have failed to effectively challenge contemporary capitalism itself conditioned by their theo- retical resources.