| Summary: | 博士 === 臺灣大學 === 社會學研究所 === 98 === This Dissertation focuses on the “Will to Right”(WR), a cosmopolitan but culturally-particular complex in modern society, which escapes from the dominant agendas. Concerning the linkage between the WR and Modernity, there are at least two major research agendas, framing the different rights discourses: juristic and political one that emphasizes the normative or ideal dimension of WR, whereas the sociological one that underlines the social effect coursed by institutions or groups. In this context, we try to make a critical reappraisal of the two dominant agendas, e.g. the “Rights Discourse thesis”(RD) and “Citizenship thesis”(CT) at first, so as to find out the underlying consensus and its drawback and to revitalize a possible synthesis. Thus, from chapter one to chapter three, the main issues respectively focus on RD, CT and social theory, and we try to elaborate a concept of the WR. From chapter four to chapter six, the conception formation “citizenship” is respectively analyzed by three parameters, which deal with group location, subject formation, and bridges between group-subject.
How to relocate the theoretical consensus and its drawback of the two dominant agendas can be summarized as follows. Firstly, concerning the development of modern rights discourses since nineteen century, there is a theoretical tendency: to bring all sorts of socialities back into rights formation (chapter one). Although this tendency does work, it still leaves sociologists a stereotype that RD is anti-social by nature. Despite the stereotype, RD indeed provides insights into the sociality of individual-group-society. Secondly, since 1980s CT sociologists emphasize the social effects of modern rights, which can be classified into three major axes of the “citizenship” conception: the group location, the subject formation, and the link between group-subject (chapter two). Through the three conceptual axes, CT sociologists overly explore social constitutes related to the modern rights, such as social settings, social institutions, and social agency. Thirdly, the RD or CT researchers seem to provide a perspective agenda, but some critical impasse block the further elaboration of WR. In chapter three, we try to draw on the studies of three contemporary social theorists (e.g. Bourdieu, Foucault and Habermas) to overcome the theoretical impasse mentioned above. As result, we propose a framework studying WR.
The framework I proposed, at least consisting of three conceptual axes (e.g. intergroup-dynamics, professional knowledge, and collective learning), will be clarified respectively in following three chapters. In chapter four, I argue that the inter-group dynamics are essential base of “rights-charter/rights-struggle” scheme. Different social groups seek to theorize their contribution to the whole society, which could be expressed in productive or moralistic form. In this knowledge production processes, RD or CT are not only for concrete social group or class, but also embedded with some modern social criteria. In chapter five, I argue that the professionals and their knowledge (with its transformation) make key impacts on the modern right-subject or citizenship. The modern professionals not only replace traditional gentry as social elite, but also remarkably contribute to the making of the modern subject-hood and its ethical attributes with different professional knowledge. To some extent, modern professionals are the prototype for modern citizen. In chapter six, I argue that the normative framework and collective learning are not totally differentiated, and at the same time they are still in overlapping between systems and practices. In the overlapping of system-practice, collective learning provide varieties of social-mediate mechanism, embodied as several social forms, such as inter-subject, inter-group, and subject to group ones. Above all, along with the intergroup-dynamics, professional knowledge, and collective learning, we can trace different conceptual axes of WR.
In sum, three consequences can be drawn. First, although citizenship conception is often regarding as an unsolvable complex, the modern citizenship contains different cultural and social forms, clearly distinguished from the pre-modern ones. Second, the development of CT sociology can go beyond the “normative/empirical” binary and be replaced with the process of knowledge production. In this way, CT sociologist could decompose those different conceptual axes, trace the emergence of the normative social effect, and rethink the disciplinary limits of citizenship study. Third, social theory is essential for sociologist to advance their critique of modernity. With the relocation of modern WR, we can elaborate RD and CT without the binary reduction (ex: normative ideals vs. social groups) of social-order-question.
|
|---|
