理性、制衡与统治:“国家作为机器”的意义和谱系
作者简介:许松影,华中师范大学政治学与国家治理研究院讲师 (湖北武汉 430079);黄雄英,华中师范大学社会学院博士研究生 (湖北武汉 430079)。
基金项目:
[本文系华中师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目 "自主知识体系建构视域下当代国家理论的镜鉴与重述"(CCNU25XJ046)的阶段性成果
关键词:
- 政治理论 /
- 思想史 /
- 隐喻 /
- 国家 /
- 机器
摘要: 国家作为机器"的隐喻在现代政治思想史中拥有独特地位。17世纪机械论哲学兴起后,相继出现了三种"国家作为机器"的思想传统,即国家作为自动运行的理性机器(以霍布斯、官房学和韦伯为代表)、国家作为权力制衡的复杂机器(以孟德斯鸠和联邦主义者为代表),以及国家作为阶级统治的动力机器(以马克思主义为代表)。不同理论传统对国家机器的理解大相径庭,对国家也未有一致的价值判断,它们构成了略有交叉但基本独立的三条政治思想谱系。澄清"国家作为机器"的发展历程,不仅有助于理解该隐喻在理论上的濒死状态和实践中的假死状态,也促使人们公允审视其思想史地位和当代价值。
Rationality, Balance, and Domination: The Meaning and Genealogy of “The State as Machine”
Abstract: “The state as machine” metaphor has a unique place in the history of modern political thought and among the theories of the state. Three genealogies of “the state as machine” emerged after the emergence of mechanistic philosophy in the seventeenth century: (1) the state as a rational machine that operates autonomously, as represented by Hobbes, Cameralism, and Max Weber; (2) the state as a complex machine of checks and balances on power, as represented by Montesquieu and the Federalists; (3) the state as a dynamic machine of class rule, as represented by Marxism. Clarifying the history of the development of “the state as machine” not only helps us to understand the metaphor's theoretical near-death and practical pseudo-death, but also prompts us to fairly examine its place in intellectual history and its contemporary significance.