{"title":"什么是儒家精英政治?","authors":"Ouyang Xiao 欧阳霄","doi":"10.1080/02549948.2021.1910174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Daniel A. Bell’s searching for possible alternatives to liberal democracy in light of the political progress in the Asian countries spans two decades, culminating in his proposal of the so-called Chinese political meritocracy or xianneng zhengzhi. This article indicates the conceptual asymmetry between xianneng zhengzhi and “meritocracy” in three aspects. Firstly, in their respective cultural traditions, xianneng zhengzhi remains at the brighter end of the spectrum of political ideas while “meritocracy” is bogged down in a highly polarized reception. Secondly, “meritocracy” lacks the quintessence of xianneng zhengzhi, namely, an explicit stress on priority of moral worthiness. Thirdly, “meritocracy” is built upon foundational individualism and focuses on the individual performance and achievement. Although Confucian political tradition and the Western conception of meritocracy share some functional similarities, using the synthesized term “Confucian meritocracy” to introduce the Confucian political tradition may commit a cross-cultural hermeneutic fallacy.","PeriodicalId":41653,"journal":{"name":"Monumenta Serica-Journal of Oriental Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"243 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is Confucian Meritocracy?\",\"authors\":\"Ouyang Xiao 欧阳霄\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02549948.2021.1910174\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Daniel A. Bell’s searching for possible alternatives to liberal democracy in light of the political progress in the Asian countries spans two decades, culminating in his proposal of the so-called Chinese political meritocracy or xianneng zhengzhi. This article indicates the conceptual asymmetry between xianneng zhengzhi and “meritocracy” in three aspects. Firstly, in their respective cultural traditions, xianneng zhengzhi remains at the brighter end of the spectrum of political ideas while “meritocracy” is bogged down in a highly polarized reception. Secondly, “meritocracy” lacks the quintessence of xianneng zhengzhi, namely, an explicit stress on priority of moral worthiness. Thirdly, “meritocracy” is built upon foundational individualism and focuses on the individual performance and achievement. Although Confucian political tradition and the Western conception of meritocracy share some functional similarities, using the synthesized term “Confucian meritocracy” to introduce the Confucian political tradition may commit a cross-cultural hermeneutic fallacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monumenta Serica-Journal of Oriental Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"243 - 255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monumenta Serica-Journal of Oriental Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02549948.2021.1910174\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monumenta Serica-Journal of Oriental Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02549948.2021.1910174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
丹尼尔·贝尔(Daniel A. Bell)根据亚洲国家的政治进步,历时二十年寻找自由民主的可能替代方案,最终提出了所谓的中国贤能政治或贤能政治。本文从三个方面说明贤能政制与“贤能政治”概念上的不对称。首先,在他们各自的文化传统中,贤能正治仍然处于政治思想光谱的光明一端,而“精英政治”则陷入高度两极分化的接受中。其次,“贤能政治”缺乏贤能政制的精髓,即明确强调道德价值的优先性。第三,“精英主义”建立在基本的个人主义基础上,注重个人的表现和成就。虽然儒家的政治传统与西方的贤能政治概念在功能上有一些相似之处,但用“儒家贤能”这一综合名词来介绍儒家的政治传统可能会犯跨文化解释学谬误。
Daniel A. Bell’s searching for possible alternatives to liberal democracy in light of the political progress in the Asian countries spans two decades, culminating in his proposal of the so-called Chinese political meritocracy or xianneng zhengzhi. This article indicates the conceptual asymmetry between xianneng zhengzhi and “meritocracy” in three aspects. Firstly, in their respective cultural traditions, xianneng zhengzhi remains at the brighter end of the spectrum of political ideas while “meritocracy” is bogged down in a highly polarized reception. Secondly, “meritocracy” lacks the quintessence of xianneng zhengzhi, namely, an explicit stress on priority of moral worthiness. Thirdly, “meritocracy” is built upon foundational individualism and focuses on the individual performance and achievement. Although Confucian political tradition and the Western conception of meritocracy share some functional similarities, using the synthesized term “Confucian meritocracy” to introduce the Confucian political tradition may commit a cross-cultural hermeneutic fallacy.