Polar Models of Culture-Regressivism Versus Progressivism

The culture wars that simmer within any nation may have been escalating recently;but regardless of their national settings or milieus,many of these wars are informed by two opposing paradigms of culture.This paper analyzes two of these leading paradigms,designated here as Regressivism and Progressivism.Other theorists have long chronicled the differing strengths and weaknesses of these paradigms,taking the former as expressing more conservative,traditional,and nationalistic values,and the latter as expressing more liberal,pluralistic,and cosmopolitan values.Going beyond these perennial distinctions,I argue that Progressivism is more benign and beneficial than the former-by meeting basic human needs better and supporting more effective adaptation to changing exigencies.I also argue that Progressivism does not express merely subjective or relativistic preferences and values,but objectively preferable and quantifiable ones,that benefit not only our personal lives more but also our global village and communal lives more.

Atomism,Communitarianism,and Confucian Familism

Charles Taylor criticizes many liberal theories based on a kind of atomism that assumes the individual self-sufficiency outside the polity.This not only causes soft-relativism and political fragmentation but also undermines the solidarity of the community,that is,the very condition of the formation of autonomous citizens.Taylor thus argues for communitarian politics which protects certain cultural common goods for sustaining the solidarity of the community.However,Brenda Lyshaug criticizes Taylor’s communitarianism as suppressing plurality and enhancing hostility among cultural groups.In the face of such controversies,I argue for modern Confucian familism which emphasizes the family as a common good that provides a safe,stable,and nurturing environment for nurturing children and cultivating civility for future generations with a sense of community and autonomy.I also defend Confucian familism from four possible criticisms:insufficiency of familism,hierarchical relationship in the family,the danger of nepotism,and challenge from postmodern families.I argue that unlike traditional Confucianism,modern moderation of the Confucian family can greatly reduce the hierarchical problem;its emphasis on the family as one of the foundations of politics can avoid the danger of being atomistic liberalism and suppressive communitarianism.

Communitarianism and Media Ethics

The future of media ethics in the global age depends on the sophistication of its theoretical foundations.Theories are not abstract theorems,but include presuppositions and that deep level needs to be understood.Communitarianism is a social philosophy that aims to ground a media ethicsthatisinternational, cross-cultural, andgender inclusive.Modern-day communitarianism is a form of liberal democracy that began as a critical reaction to John Rawls’A Theory of Justice.One of communitarianism’s historic roots is community as a normative ideal in Confucianism.These two social philosophies are united by the idea that the community is ontologically prior to individual rationality.They yield the ethical principle of human dignity.Two applications,civic transformation and interpretive sufficiency,result from theories of media ethics based on communitas.

Liberals, Communitarians, Republicans and the Intervention of the State in the Private Sphere

The aim of this paper is to discuss whether the increasing intervention of the state in the private sphere-as is evidenced in labor laws, consumer rights, bioethics, and Internet crimes-is compatible with the liberal ideal of neutrality, or, on the contrary, whether it can be seen as a turning point towards the position of communitarian or republican authors, for whom the state must endorse a substantive good. Such a turning point could lead to a reformulation of the public and private spheres, and of course, raise questions over which values justify which kinds of intervention. This paper will cover these debates in three parts： First, by presenting briefly the history of the liberal conception of rights, I will try to show that, from a starting point based mostly on individual protection, the liberal tradition has become more interventionist, which can be seen through the notion of ＂claim rights.＂ Departing from John Rawls＇s work, I will argue that this notion allows for some level of intervention, without betraying liberal neutrality. Subsequently, I will discuss the difference between this kind of intervention and the ones proclaimed by communitarians and republicans authors： The former will be illustrated by Michael Sandel＇s criticism of Rawls in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, and the later by Richard Dagger＇s position in Civic Virtues, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. Finally, in the third part, we＇ll discuss whether liberal principles can be harmonized with the republican and communitarian focus on civic virtues and good life.

意识形态与公司法的变迁——兼论公司立法理念的演进

任何一种思想若想占据主导,就必须首先确立一种概念装置:它诉诸我们的直觉和本能、诉诸我们的价值和欲望、诉诸我们居住的社会世界所固有的种种可能性。如果成功的话,这一概念装置就能牢固确立在常识中,以至于被视为理所当然、毋庸置疑。[1]意识形态与公司法的关联度,在以往的研究中常常被忽略。自由主义、社群主义、集体主义、民粹主义等意识形态不仅影响着经济社会的发展,其对公司价值观、公司法理念的形成,也起到了莫大的作用,潜移默化地影响着公司法的基础结构。人们信奉的诸多公司理念,各国当下公司法发展的现状。

Individual Human Rights and Obligations Towards Communities

Tensions and oppositions between the individual and community have accompanied the discourse on human rights from the beginning. I want to first recall how in the UDHR （1948） and in the major human rights treaties, the rights and obligations of individuals are regulated towards communities. I then want to investigate whether the talk of ＂collective human rights＂, understood as ＂third- generation＂ rights, are of equal value to be set with individual human rights. Against communitarian arguments for the primacy of community-related duties one can stress an expansion of a liberal concept of human rights by the inclusion of justice demands and social human rights. To show that special community needs can be protected and promoted through individual human rights and national col- lective rights, I used the example of the protection of minorities. Finally, I will explain why human rights are not a comprehensive theory of the good and illustrate with this the limits, and also the original strength of human rights. We should not overestimate human rights, but also we should be aware that a sober understanding of human rights is philosophically reasonable, legally possible and politically of great importance.

Liberal and Communitarian Discourse: An African Perspective

The issue addressed in this essay is what constitutes the most appropriate type of relationship between the individual and society. Because African countries have generally not been successful reconstructing their societies in a manner that can significantly help their peoples to realize their human potential, they are in need of social reconstruction. In their attempts to find a solution to this problem, African scholars—both post-colonial African nationalist leaders and contemporary African philosophers and scholars of African culture—have fixed on the idea that a liberal or communitarian ideology can reverse the collapse of shared values. Many of these scholars claim that the roots of communitarianism go back to indigenous African societies. Others, meanwhile, have discovered something in the African way of life that makes African society effectively liberal. This essay holds that none of these attempts to solve the problem of the dislocation of African values succeed, due to the inadequacies inherent in both liberalism and communitarianism. I suggest instead that the only solution to Africa’s social problem is the provision by the government of an essential foundation for the pursuit of such public benefits as peace, welfare, and the opportunity for the individual to pursue his or her own happiness.