西方民主中的修辞两面性——以韦伯和阿伦特为例

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 在讨论民主政治的修辞时，韦伯和阿伦特都对照西方古代政治思想来论证各自对现代问题的诊断。他们分别代表了两种面对修辞的典型立场，也就西方的民主困境给出了基于各自时代语境的答案。韦伯的贡献在于，他指出了政治修辞与现代社会整体危机之间的关系，即民主官僚制下的政治冷漠和大众参与缺失。在此基础上韦伯提出了两个具体的解决之道，即卡里斯玛领袖的引导以及代表型议会制。但韦伯将修辞作为一种手段的处理未能将其与合法性建立联系。阿伦特则认为现代资本主义社会遮蔽了自古希腊以来人作为一种言说和行动的存在。她补充了修辞的另一面，即共识的形成。阿伦特更看重修辞作为一种自下而上的政治组织形式，看重言说对具体主体的揭示及其与合法性权力之间的关系。韦伯和阿伦特面对修辞的立场有各自的时代语境与局限，但对这一主题都做出了突出的贡献。

关键词: 民主, 修辞, 真理, 意见, 政治煽动

Abstract: In discussing the rhetoric of democratic politics, both Weber and Arendt support their respective diagnoses of modern problems in comparison to ancient Western political thought. They each represent two typical positions in the face of rhetoric, and at the same time propose answers to the democratic dilemma in the West based on the context of their respective times. Weber's contribution lies in his identification of the relationship between political rhetoric and the comprehensive crisis of modern society, namely, political apathy and the absence of popular participation under a democratic bureaucracy. The two sides of rhetoric are revealed in Weber's discussion. On the one hand, rhetoric can operate in a top-down manner through leaders' incitement to the masses, and on the other hand rhetoric can also operate from the bottom up, serving as the basis for public discussion and dialogue. However, Weber's treatment of rhetoric as a means fails to connect it with legitimacy. Arendt, on the other hand, argues that modern capitalist society has obscured mankind exists as words and action since ancient Greece. Based on her reflection on Nazi politics, Arendt selected public opinion as her addition to the other side of rhetoric, that is, the formation of consensus. Arendt pays more attention to rhetoric as a bottom-up form of political organization, as well as to the revelation of the concrete subject by speech and its relation to the power of legitimacy. Both Weber's and Arendt's positions in the face of rhetoric have their own contemporary contexts and limitations, but both have made outstanding contributions to the subject. The last section of this paper aims to exhibit, using Habermas, a comprehensive stance that upholds Arendt's fundamental rhetorical standpoint, while also considering Weber's overarching analysis of contemporary society.

Key words: democracy, rhetoric, truth, opinion, political demagogue

沈垚. 西方民主中的修辞两面性——以韦伯和阿伦特为例[J]. 社会杂志, 2023, 43(3): 84-110.

SHEN Yao. Rhetorical Duality in Western Democracy: Taking Weber and Arendt as Examples[J]. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 2023, 43(3): 84-110.

参考文献

[1] 阿伦特, 汉娜. 2007. 论革命[M]. 陈周旺, 译. 南京: 译林出版社.
[2] 阿伦特, 汉娜. 2009. 人的境况[M]. 王寅丽, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[3] 阿伦特, 汉娜. 2012. 共和的危机[M]. 郑辟瑞, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[4] 阿伦特, 汉娜. 2014. 极权主义的起源[M]. 林骧华, 译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[5] 阿伦特, 汉娜. 2016. 政治的应许[M]. 张琳, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[6] 比瑟姆, 戴维. 1989. 马克斯·韦伯与现代政治理论[M]. 徐鸿宾、徐京辉、康立伟, 译. 杭州: 浙江人民出版社.
[7] 布克哈特, 雅各布. 2008. 希腊人和希腊文明[M]. 王大庆, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[8] 蒂塔尼克, 雷吉纳. 2014. 马克斯·韦伯政治思想中的民主、支配及合法性[G]//马克斯·韦伯的《经济与社会》评论指针. 查尔斯·卡米克、菲利普·戈尔斯基、戴维·特鲁贝, 著. 王迪, 译. 上海: 上海三联书店.
[9] 芬利, 摩西. 2016. 古代民主与现代民主[M]. 郭小凌、郭子林, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆.
[10] 哈贝马斯, 尤尔根. 2003. 在事实与规范之间: 关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M]. 童世骏, 译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
[11] 哈贝马斯, 尤尔根. 2019. 欧盟的危机: 关于欧洲宪法的思考[M]. 伍慧萍、朱苗苗, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[12] 霍克海默, 马克斯、西奥多·阿多诺. 启蒙辩证法——哲学断片[M]. 渠敬东、曹卫东, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[13] 玛丽安妮, 韦伯. 2002. 马克斯·韦伯传[M]. 闫克文、王利平、姚中秋, 译. 南京: 江苏人民出版社.
[14] 蒙森, 沃尔夫冈. 2016. 马克斯·韦伯与德国政治: 1890—1920[M]. 闫克文, 译. 北京: 中信出版社.
[15] 施米特, 卡尔. 2004. 政治的浪漫派[M]. 冯克利、刘锋, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[16] 施特劳斯, 列奥. 2017. 修辞、政治与哲学: 柏拉图《高尔吉亚》讲疏(1963年)[M]. 李致远, 译. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[17] 韦伯, 马克斯. 1997. 经济与社会(下)[M]. 林荣远, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆.
[18] 韦伯, 马克斯. 2004. 学术与政治[M]. 钱永祥, 等, 译. 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社.
[19] 韦伯, 马克斯. 2005. 非正当性支配: 城市类型学[M]. 康乐、简惠美, 译. 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社.
[20] 韦伯, 马克斯. 2010. 经济与社会(第2卷)[M]. 闫克文, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[21] 温顿, R.I. 、彼得·加西恩. 2016. 第三章政治理论[G]//希腊的遗产. 摩西·芬利, 著. 张强、唐均, 等, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[22] 亚里士多德. 2006. 修辞学[M]. 罗念生, 译. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[23] 亚里士多德. 2011. 修辞学: 英汉对照[M]. 蓝纯, 等, 译. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社.
[24] Adair-Toteff, Christophe. 2007. "Max Weber's Pericles—The Political Demagogue." Max Weber Studies 7(2): 147-162.
[25] Bastin, Gilles. 2009. "The Mediatisation and Anonymisation of the World in the Work of Max Weber." Max Weber Studies 9(1): 123-141.
[26] Bruhns, Hinnerk. 2009. "Scholarship and Political Commentary in the Day to Day in the Work of Max Weber: Some Historical Observations on the Theme of Value-Freedom." Max Weber Studies 9(1): 95-121.
[27] Chambers, Simone. 2009. "Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?" Political Theory 37(3): 323-350.
[28] Fitzi, Gregor. 2009. "Sovereignty, Legality and Democracy: Politics in the Work of Max Weber." Max Weber Studies 9(1): 33-49.
[29] Furedi, Frank. 2011. "The Authority of Public Opinion—Why Weber Declined to Take Part in the Conversation." Max Weber Studies 11(1): 119-139.
[30] Green, J. E. 2008. "Max Weber and the Reinvention of Popular Power." Max Weber Studies 8(2): 187-224.
[31] Habermas, Jürgen. 1977. "Hannah Arendt's Communications Concept of Power." Social Research 44(1): 3-24.
[32] Haskins, Ekaterina. 2013. "On the Term 'Dunamis' in Aristotle's Definition of Rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric 46(2): 234-240.
[33] Kraus, Manfred. 2012. "The Making of Truth in Debate: The Case of(and A Case for) the Early Sophists." In Rhetorial Citizenship and Public Deliberation. State College: Penn State University Press: 28-45.
[34] Lehne, Jakob. 2010. "Max Weber and Nationalism-Chaos or Consistency?" Max Weber Studies 10(2): 209-234.
[35] Palonen, Kari. 2001. "Was Max Weber a 'Nationalist'? A Study in the Rhetoric of Conceptual Change." Max Weber Studies 1(2): 196-214.
[36] Palonen, Kari. 2004. "Max Weber, Parliamentarism and the Rhetorical Culture of Politics." Max Weber Studies 4(2): 273-292.
[37] Palonen, Kari. 2008. "Imagining Max Weber's Reply to Hannah Arendt: Remarks on the Arendtian Critique of Representative Democracy." Constellations 15(1): 56-71.
[38] Taylor, Charles. 1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.