读书笔记：什么是公民？

原书及其作者:

是的这又是一本牛津通识读本系列作。本来这一本小书我只是想快速浏览一下的，然后读起来就自然而然的开始划记摘抄，有了摘抄就迅速发展成了笔记。

原书作者是英国伦敦学院的政治系教授，书的质量一如既往的平稳，但是总感觉没有什么特别值得强调的亮点。这个话题对于我平常关心的中国政治而言是很重要的，不过原书的视角完全是西方发达国家的内部视角，专注的问题对于中国而言还是太阳春了。虽然很多思考还是值得一看的。

---

Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction

chp0. Preface

pix There are many excellent general introductions to citizenship, but to my mind most have a tendency to suffer from one or more of the following three shortcomings. First, they are written either by academics who employ too much jargon to appeal to the general reader, or by non-academics who ignore or are unaware of the latest research on the topic. Second, they focus on the social, moral, or legal aspects of citizenship at the expense of its political dimension. Third, they offer a somewhat linear view of the history of citizenship as a steady progress from ancient Greece to contemporary notions of cosmopolitan citizenship, passing over the many problems in transferring ideas and assumptions that were indeed largely fashioned in the distant past and applying them today. In this book, I have tried to offer something of a corrective to each of these failings.

• 公民的概念涉及其法理定义，政治内涵，还有道德期许。

chp1. What is citizenship, and why does it matter?

• 某种程度上，可以把“公民身份”概括为一种让你有权拥有权利的身份（right to have rights）。这个国家应当服务于你，为你体贴，保障你的一些底线。
• 为了享受权利就必须承担义务，现代民主政体的运转完全依赖于每个公民的积极参与。
• 但是，生活在民主政体中的好处是无形弥散的，投票的麻烦却是真实可感的，为什么不做个搭便车的呢？（free-rider dilemma）坏消息是，更低的政治参与不仅本身就会降低民主的意义和韧性，也会进一步在这些不参与者心中产生对体制的不信任感，越不信任越不乐意参与、越不参与民主的质量越是降低，产生一个同时作用于个人和国家的恶性循环。

p25-26 Both social and economic changes and the political responses to them are challenging the very possibility of citizenship, therefore. This book explores these challenges further. We start in Chapter 2 by sketching the historical development of citizenship from the city states of ancient Greece to the nation states of the 20th century. In many respects, this history provides the resources for current thinking about citizenship. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 then examine membership, rights, and participation in turn, noting how each is being transformed in ways that are changing the character and perhaps the feasibility of citizenship today. Throughout I stress the need to see these three elements as a package, with political participation offering the indispensable glue holding them together.

Chp2. Theories of citizenship and their history

• 公民学理论主要关注：谁被认可为公民，公民可以且应该从国家身上期待些什么，国家可以且应该从公民身上期待些什么。

p27 Theories of citizenship fall into two types: normative theories that attempt to set out the rights and duties a citizen ideally ought to have, and empirical theories that seek to describe and explain how citizens came to possess those rights and duties that they actually have.

• 公民学理论主要分两个流派，规范性的和描述性的。规范性的（normative）指的是在道德理想和理性推演下的公民身份应该如何，描述性的（descriptive）则是描述和考察公民在现实政体中具有和行使了哪些权利。规范性的方法主要上溯到希腊和罗马的经典公民理想，描述性的主要聚焦于公民身份在欧洲民主国家中的实践。
• 在希腊，公民身份表示的是一种人与人之间共有的纽带联结，一种内心岿然不变的正义感，和理性思考的能力——简而言之，是作为国家的直接治理者所需要的能力和情操。
• 而对于罗马（帝国时期），由于国家疆域扩大，公民身份的政治意义和法理意义分离开来。政治意义就是作为国家治理者的意义（eg. 通过古希腊的直接民主，或今日的代议制民主），而法理上的意义则是指，身在罗马疆界里就自动获得司法上的平等地位。罗马公民和罗马政府分离，因此，对于罗马的公民身份而言，重点变为了：公私之间权利限度的划分，公权力和公权力之间的分立制衡，私人和私人之间的司法正义。

p29 The key feature of this (Greek) view was the equality of citizens as rulers or makers of the law. Along with the writings of defenders and analysts of the Roman republic of c. 510–27 BC, the Greek model and its Roman republican variants have inspired those theories of citizenship that stress political participation as its defining element. By contrast, Pocock identifies what he calls the Roman model of citizenship with imperial Rome. The key feature of this view of citizenship was equality under the law. As such, it could be extended to all subjects of the Roman Empire. This account inspires those later theories of citizenship that see equality of legal status as its main element.

p38 Underlying this (Roman) account was a distinctively realist view of citizenship, which would be more easily adaptable to modern democratic politics than the Greek view. Instead of viewing the private interest and the public interest as diametrically opposed, so that all elements of the first had to be removed from politics, the public interest emerged from the clash and balancing of private interests. Consequently, citizens had self-interested reasons to participate because they could only ensure their concerns figured in any collective decisions so long as they took part and were counted. Indeed, when we turn to the descriptive theories, we shall see how modern citizenship has largely developed from the struggles of different groups to have their interests addressed on an equal basis to others.

p43-44 The nation state had sufficient size to sustain both a complex economic infrastructure and an army, while being not so large as to make a credible – if less participatory – form of democracy impossible. As a result, it became subject to pressures to create a form of citizenship that could successfully integrate popular and legal rule by linking political participation and rights with membership of a national democratic political community. It is this development that informs the sociological theories of citizenship, to which we now turn.

2.2. The making of modern democratic citizenship

(T. H. Marshall and Stein Rokkan) They saw citizenship as the product of the interrelated processes of state-building, the emergence of commercial and industrial society, and the construction of a national consciousness, with all three driven forward in various ways by class struggle and war. (p.p. 46)

p47-49 The first period, roughly from the 17th to mid-19th centuries, saw the consolidation of the civil rights needed to engage in a range of social and economic activities, from the freedoms to own property and exchange goods, services, and labour required by a functioning market, to the liberties of thought and conscience necessary to attend a chosen church and to express dissent. The second period, extending from the end of the 18th century to the start of the 20th, coincided with the gaining of political rights to vote and stand for election, first by all property owners, then all adult males, and finally women as well. The third period, going from the end of the 19th to the mid-2 Oth century, involved the creation of social rights. Initially, these had consisted simply of’the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security’ but had gradually been extended ‘to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilised being according to the standards prevailing in society’.

• 除了对过去状态的回顾之外，这本书将很大比重的关注放在对公民身份的发展前景的忧虑。全球化的发展在不断削弱民族国家，而过往的公民身份很大程度上是存在于民族国家所划分的一定疆界之内的；超出了这个疆界以后，全球治理与其说是提供了一个解法，毋宁说是展现了更多问题。国际组织的效用和可靠性都很成迷。另一方面，基于人权来进一步扩展公民权的呼声日益高涨，但很多这些思想在现实中难以实现——现实是，过去几十年来的全球化进程大大加剧了全球的贫富分化水平，富裕人群的独立性和流动性都得到增强——现实情况不仅没有往我们理想的方向改变，反而在某种程度上而言是更加偏离了既往的理想。

Chp3. Membership and belonging

3.1. From subject to citizen: the internal dimension of inclusion and exclusion

p55 Three features of this condition were deemed important for politics. First, as I mentioned in the last chapter, it meant that citizens could devote themselves to their civic duties, being freed from the need to earn a livelihood. Less plausibly, they were also supposedly above any need to pursue their private interests. Second, they were not only freed from a dependency on things but also from being the dependants of other people. Indeed, they owned others. Of course, they still needed food and so on to survive, and relied on others to provide the necessary goods. But they could direct those others as they chose, sell them if they failed to act as they wished, and so on. Unlike their dependants, they were independent – able to act and think as they believed best rather than as those on whom they depended for their living directed. Finally, it meant they literally had a stake in the political community, with their fate – or at least that of their assets – intimately bound to its fate, to the extent of being willing to fight and possibly die for their country.

• 公民身份曾经的门槛之一是有一定的产业，用以在于筛选：有闲暇时间来锻炼思维、心怀公义，可以独立而不苟且的行事，在所处的政治共同体中有无法迁移的共同利益的人。虽然这些方向在今天仍然值得思考，但是以恒产作为筛选条件的做法已经逐渐过时，现在的公民权几乎没有再在这一维度上设限了。

p65-69 The first criticism is undeniable. Both in the past and to some extent today, men have turned women into personal dependants, whom they can treat as unpaid domestic servants and direct as they will. …… Control of women’s domestic labour allowed ‘male’ jobs, including politics, to be so structured that the maintenance of a home and raising a family became factored out as not being a post-holder’s responsibility. …… The claim that we require a new approach typically centres on the feminist slogan ‘the personal is the political’. …… The second feminist argument, that citizenship needs to be understood in feminine rather than masculine terms, is more controversial. …… The claim of some, though far from all, feminists is that reason, impartiality, and universalism are indeed masculine ways of thinking, and that women take a more ‘caring’ approach centred on affection and feeling for particular others.

• 公民身份曾经的另一重门槛是性别，认为女性的思维更低劣、更感性，这让她们不适于政治参与。这一道门槛基本是通过女权主义者的大量论述和不断的运动逐渐冲开的。当然也有其他的历史原因，比方说一战和二战期间女性大量进入劳动力市场、家用电器和避孕药的发明之类。只把目光限缩在政治思想方面的话，这一过程的两条主要理念首先是 “个人的即是政治的” ——把家庭中的无偿劳作和夫对妻的绝对支配也纳入政治话语中；其次是 社会应该更多的接纳女性思维方式 ——认为男性确实更擅长“理性”的思维方式，但这种思维方式并不更优越，社会需要更多的“感性”思维方式来变得更好。

3.2. From alien to citizen: the external dimension of exclusion

p70 Solidarity and trust are vital to any cooperative endeavour and are mutually reinforcing. Democracy assumes a people, or demos, who feel sufficient solidarity with each other to accept collective decisions and enough mutual trust to cooperate. Without solidarity, individuals would be tempted to obey only those collective decisions that benefited them and even then might be inclined to free-ride. Majorities may be unwilling to accommodate minorities, minorities to accept majority decisions. Without trust, the fear will be that nobody will play their part – that, for example, if an incumbent government concedes defeat in an election their successors will prevent their ever winning again, thereby justifying their rigging or halting the electoral process themselves to stay in power.

• 公民身份曾经的再一重门槛是族裔背景，认为移民会导致国家认同的解体和政治愿望的不可调和之分裂。这一重担忧本身的出现和它的演变过程都比前二者发生的要晚，所以争议和不确定之处也相对更多一些。但是实际上，这本书论证，凡是在保持了负责任的移民引进策略和充分的接纳措施的国家，移民往往都没有导致这些想象中的问题。如果考察种族背景导致政治分裂的例证，不如说还是一些地域性集中的少数群体（比如魁北克之于加拿大，苏格兰之于英国这样）和民粹政治的兴起，带来了更加严重的问题。
• 但是，原文没有提，仅仅是在我心中引起的一个联想是，近十几二十年来，很多国家可能基于一厢情愿的理想而过度开放了，在基础设施跟不上的时候就批准了过多的移民，然后又没有用心探索新移民所真正需要的社会支持，而是采取了一种几乎放任自流的文化策略，到最后放任就变成了放弃。但是由于提起移民问题很容易被打成种族主义者，这个问题又缺乏讨论，直到全球都开始出现民粹反扑和右转浪潮。

Chp4. Rights and the ‘right to have rights’

4.1. Human rights and cosmopolitan citizenship

p80 On the one hand, therefore, rights seek to constrain what we may do to other people. Such rights include the standard civil rights against such acts as being assaulted or tortured, or being detained or punished without a due process. On the other hand, rights indicate the need for support rather than just forbearance. Socio-economic rights to minimum standards of health, education, and subsistence are often characterized in this way.

• 这个理念很像我在另一本书里看到过的政治权利和社会权利之分：

  《中國民運反思》，p190-191 另一個重要區分是所謂政治權利與社會權利，以聯合國大會一九四八年通過的世界人權宣言為例。該宣言所列舉的三十條人權項目，明顯可分為兩種。像言論權、集會權、遷徙權，屬於「原始性」的權利，只要公共權力承認其合法性並不加阻攔，它們便可得到實現。這裏依然是要求政府必須「有所不為」。另一部分權利，如受教育權，社會基本福利權，則是一種「擴展性」的權利，它們的實現需要有國家權力的積極干預。比如說「人人有權享受為維持他本人和家庭的健康和福利所需的生活水準」這一條，怎樣才能保證它兌現呢？假如一個人失了業，或者喪失了工作能力，或是遇上嚴重的天災人禍而生計無着，誰來給他及其家屬提供「健康與福利所需的生活水準」呢？言外之意很明顯，那就是要求政府承擔起這一責任。 這又是在要求政府「有所為」了。我們不妨把前一類權利叫做政治權利，把後一類權利叫做社會權利。

4.2. The ‘right to have rights’: state citizenship and global justice

p96 To summarize: a right to citizenship does imply certain rights, but these need not be such as to exhaust the whole concept of citizenship, as legal conceptions of citizenship propose. Rather, it is through being a citizen in a fuller, political sense that we generate rights.

• 这两种权利并不完全平等，被充分运用的政治权利可以催生并保障公民的社会权利。

p96 Although, for all practical purposes, the exercise of political citizenship is best pursued at the state level, this does not negate the notion of a global or cosmopolitan citizenship. Instead, it places an obligation on states and their citizens to secure the possibility for the exercise of citizenship within self-governing political communities for all. On the one hand, this duty involves not undermining the capacity of citizens in existing polities to govern themselves by exploiting or dominating their countries. On the other hand, it requires that non-citizens be allowed access to membership on non-discriminatory terms.

Chp5. Participation and democracy

5.1. What is democracy, and why is it important for citizenship?

p103-104 Seen in this light, the core purpose of democracy can be aligned directly with the underlying rationale of citizenship given in this book – namely, the establishment of a condition of civic equity. …… Regarding democracy as a system of self-rule denies the very need for such common structures because it suggests we all ought to be able somehow to get what we want – that it would be ‘undemocratic’ for John and Paul, in my example above, to compromise at all. Worse, it potentially subverts the search for equitable solutions by allowing individuals to hold out against any changes that might threaten their existing privileges. By contrast, a more citizenship-centred view of the democracy regards it as a fair process whereby we settle our differences and pursue our collective ends on an equal basis – accepting that of necessity this involves ruling and being ruled in turn.

• 简而言之，民主意味着在决策机制中，每位公民的声音都有着同样的分量（一张选票），但是这并不表示每位公民的诉求都必须且必然得到满足。如果决策程序是公平公正的，公民应该做的是接受这个结果。
• 这样一来，在无穷无尽的决策中，所有人都可能在上一个议题中是多数派，在下一个议题中是少数派。包容和被包容，妥协和要求妥协，对每个人来说是等价的。

p106 (Plato) He maintained that democracy was analogous to handing the running of a ship to the passengers rather than entrusting it to a captain. …… The difficulty is that this analogy breaks down at a number of places. First, there is no ‘objective’ science of either the ends that governments should pursue, or necessarily of the best means to realize them. Both are subject to often contentious and fallible judgements. Human reasoning has proven incapable of defining with certainty the most appropriate course of action in all circumstances for all human beings. …… Consequently, though the captain may deal with the technicalities of sailing the ship, it is the passengers who rightly determine its destination.

• 技术问题可以有技术上的最优解，但是决定是否解决某个问题、给每个问题分配多少资源的问题几乎从来不是技术问题，而是变成一种政治问题。技术理念虽然可以有自己的伦理和理想，但它最终还是要服务于现实问题，现实问题中复杂的利益分配对所有人来说都是平等的痛痒相关，这种问题就不是技术理性能解决的了。人类因此而需要政治。

p108 What democracy provides in this instance is an impartial process for resolving the dispute. ‘One person, one vote’ recognizes each citizen as equally entitled to have their view given as much weight as anybody else’s. Of course, equal weighting in the decision-making process offers no guarantee that the decision itself will be one that treats all with equal concern and respect. Yet the very fact that majorities usually have to be constructed by winning the support of millions of citizens, with most citizens finding themselves in a minority on some issues and a majority on others, creates an egalitarian bias within democracy. Because everyone is involved in making all decisions, there is an incentive on the part of citizens to give equal consideration to the views of others for fear that they will not receive it themselves.

5.3~4. Citizenship and democracy today

• 下面这一段里提到的纵向分歧和横向分歧，考虑到对于有些中文读者而言可能陌生，我尽量把原文例子也截进来了，用斜体标出。简而言之，可以认为横向的分歧是观念之争，今天持有理念A的人也许一年后就变成了理念B的拥趸；纵向分歧则可以认为是基于更不可改变的属性而产生的分歧，比如说种族、性别、祖籍地。纵向分歧很容易演变出一种“非我族类其心必异”的论述模板，而且比横向分歧更缺乏流动性，往往也更难调和。

p117-118 What the growing divide between rich and poor, and the cultural split between minority nations or ethnicities and the majority national political culture, share in common is that both represent developing segmental or vertical divisions within contemporary societies. Democracy works best when the main disagreements among the population are cross-cutting or horizontal divisions. In these cases, politically important divisions cross over each other. So there will be socialists among the rich and conservatives among the poor, there will be poor and rich Catholics who oppose abortion, and poor and rich people who are pro-choice, there will be men and women who favour and oppose affirmative action, and in both cases some will be black and others white, with rich and poor and those pro- and anti-abortion on each side, and so on. …… When vertical divisions predominate, such inclusiveness is harder to achieve. Although many cross-cutting issues may exist, the prime identity will be ethnicity, religion, or nationality and all other issues will be subordinated to it.

These two groups have gradually come to inhabit different worlds, with the former tempted to see the latter as a problem to be contained rather than as fellow citizens within a shared system of social cooperation. (p.p. 116)

p121 By and large, patterns of civic engagement or disengagement are created at an early age. Studies have shown that voting or not voting in the very first election for which one is eligible is a good guide to one’s likely participation or lack of it in later life. So, the more young people can be informed about and interested in democratic politics prior to their first opportunity to vote, the better. Civic engagement is also likely to be improved by attempts to devolve power to more local communities. Shared values and common purposes are likely to be stronger in such settings, and with them the willingness to engage in collective programmes.

---

原书信息：Bellamy, R. J. (2008). Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280253-8