公益慈善史比较:史观、制度与主体选择——兼论“社会进化论”与“文化类型观”

Comparative Study in the History of Public Interest and Philanthropy:Historical View,System and Subjective Choice——and Investigating of Social Evolutionism and Culture Typology

公益慈善史比较,在"社会进化论"与"文化类型说"两种史观的影响下,形成了"公益—私利"与"儒教—耶教"的事实分野,以及"扬公灭私—褒私抑公"与"贬儒褒耶—贬耶褒儒—儒耶并褒"的价值分歧。应该说,上述理论在经验与逻辑上均有缺陷,并在实践中带来很多问题。但应该为此负责的,绝不是人们对理想主义或世俗主义的追求,而是不受制约的霸权制度借"理想主义"(不管是科学的还是道德的"乌托邦")或"世俗主义"(不管是社会公益至上还是民族利益本位)之名实行强制,造成科学与良知、理论与实践、公益与私益、个人利益与民族权益的多重灾难。追求"由劣而优"的制度变革,应当是人类的普世理想。但"普世的理想"并不等于"普世的客观进化规律",每一民族的历史道路都有其特殊性,它可能由劣而优,也可能由优而劣。阻碍人们实现由劣而优之制度变革的主要因素也不是某种"文化基因"、"客观规律"或"意识形态依赖",而主要就是"既得利益依赖",因此才会出现所谓"知其不应为而为之"(明知是劣的制度却去迎合)和"知其应为而不为"(明知是优的制度却不争取)的知行悖论。然而,所谓"既得利益依赖"也仅仅是"依赖"而并非"锁定",能够选择是人与动物的分水岭,虽然人们的选择在很多情况下不能完全自主,但人绝不是任何"决定论"程序锁定下的机器,用"普遍客观规律"或"特殊文化基因"为强权与犬儒开脱,是放弃选择权利、同时推卸社会责任的做法。制度的变革、社会的进步最终还是取决于作为历史进程参与者的每一个人的每一次选择所形成的努力之和。作为人类智力与精神产品的"社会进化论"或"文化类型观",是可以通过"能指革命"的方式,为中国现代化进程提供思想支援的。

Comparative study in the history of public interest and philanthropy is affected by social evolut-ionism and culture typology, has formed two kind of fact judgment about ＂private interest - public Inter- est＂ and ＂Confucianism - Protestantism＂, and has formed two kind of value judgment about ＂advocate public interest and destroy private interest -laud private interest and dispraise public interest＂ and ＂dis- praise Confucianism and laud Protestantism -dispraise Protestantism and laud Confucianism - laud both Protestantism and Confucianism＂. On experience and logic of above theory are flawed, and bring a lot of problems in practice. But the responsibility should be borne by totalitarian system, not to be borne by u- topian idealism or worldly benefits balance. Therefore, the system reform should become a universal ideal of human beings. However, ＂universal ideal＂ is not the same as ＂universal objective evolutionary laws＂, the historical road of every nation is special, it may be from inferior to superior, also may be opposite. Main factors that hinder the system reform is not ＂cultural genes＂, ＂objective laws＂ or ＂ideology＂, but ＂vested interests＂. It led to a paradox between knowledge and action. Using the ＂universal objective laws＂ or ＂special cultural gene＂ to make excuses for the totalitarianism and cynicism, is a cowardly be- havior of give up our right to choice and shift our social responsibility. The freedom of choice is the water- shed between people and animals. System reform and social progress will ultimately depend on join forces of every individual effort and pay in the face of every choice. As intelligence and mental resources of hu- man, social evolutionism and culture typology can support China＇ s modernization by way of ＂signal reform＂ .