2014年4月30日 星期三

信任與社會資本

我始終堅信,一個國家必須以合作態度行動,才能解決國家的問題。政府是個正式機制,透過政府,人民才能集體行動。個人對於應該做什麼事,看法難免不同,這是集體行動那麼困難的原因。所以,需要妥協,而妥協必須建立在信任上:某個群體今天讓步,是因為他們曉得未來另一個群體也會讓步。人們必須懷有信任感,相信所有的人都會受到公平對待。
但是,群體成員的利益和觀點必須在某個方向看齊,共同行動才會比較容易;也就是說,在某種程度上,每個人都在同一艘船上……

有些社會學家試著以社會資本(social capital)來解釋信任對整體經濟造成的影響。一個經濟體如果擁有較多的社會資本,生產力會較高,就像擁有較多人力資本或實體資本的經濟體那樣。信任,正是社會資本所有概念的基礎;人們能夠滿懷自信,相信會在保有尊嚴的情形下受到公平對待。為此,他們會有所回報。

 社會資本有如將社會凝聚在一起的黏膠。如果個人相信經濟體系、政治體系不公平,黏膠就發揮不了作用,社會的運作便趨於不良。舉例來說,不丹政府為保護森林,限制每戶家庭只可砍伐一定數量的樹木供自己使用。但在這個散居各處的國度,如何執行這種法令?答案很簡單,靠的就是社會資本。談到環境保護,不丹人已經將對的行為內化;欺騙是不對的行為,所以他們不做這種事。再看另一個極端例子,在蘇聯解體後的烏茲別克,當地大部分的温室都沒有玻璃,亦因此失去效用。有人告訴我,由於烏茲別克經濟環境較差,很多人跑去偷温室玻璃,即使沒有人知道偷來的玻璃要做什麼,但似乎為了多一點安全感,反正他們不去偷,別人也會去偷……

最近有關社會規範方面的研究指出,許多人或甚至絕大多數人,不會為了個人的私利而做出傷害社會的行為,但前提是他們見到了大部分的人也這麼做。反之亦然。當人身邊的違規行為數目夠多,良好的行為很快就會退化。



摘錄自史迪格里茲  Joseph E. Stiglitz (2012),《不公平的代價:破解階級對立的金權結構》,頁154-156。台灣:天下。


何謂”社會創業精神”?

社會創業精神”Social Entrepreneurship”的一個翻譯。這裡說一個,是因為在台灣、大陸、新加坡,甚至在香港,也有其他譯法。這個名詞在英語世界的出現,也只有大約30年的歷史,一般公認是由美國愛創家基金會的創辦人------戴爾登(Bill Drayton)所創,意思是指運用創業精神來創辦事業去解決社會問題這裡有三個關鍵元素:

解決社會問題
社會創業者與一般創業者最大的分別,是前者針對一個特定社會問題,有一種明確的社會使命,而不像一般創業者,主要是追求財富的創造;

運用創業精神
包括擅於發掘資源(resourcefulness),願意承擔風險,敢為天下先等;

創辦事業

一般人有這樣的一個錯覺,以為社會創業者創辦的一定是社會企業,但事實並非如此。創辦的可以是志願機構、慈善機構、合作社、牟利機構,或是任何形式的混合型組織(hybrid organization)。簡單的說,社會創業者最關心的是社會問題的解決,會因地、因時制宜,選擇最適合的組織形式來實踐其社會使命。但話又得說回來,近年來世界各地不少社會創業者確實傾向採用社會企業這個形式,最主要的原因是它最有能力創造自己的收入及利潤,達至自我延續的作用,而不像其他組織形式,往往要靠捐款、贊助或資助來維持。

摘錄自仁人學社(2013)社創群英:以社會創新改變世界的人,香港:雲起文化。



2014年4月28日 星期一

哈佛公開課:正義---一場思辨之旅(第二講)

日期 2014 53日(星期六)[第二講]
時間:7:00PM9:00PM
地點:油塘 鯉魚門體育館活動室 (6:45 油塘地鐵站A出口集合)
聯絡:Desmond Chan 9033 4604

簡介:這是哈佛大學政治學教授Michael Sandel的公開課,全課程共12講。本課以一個十九世紀著名的船難法律案例,來介紹功利主義哲學家Jeremy Bentham的理論。案例講述在海上漂十九天後,船長決定殺死他們當中最孱弱的打雜少年,並以他的血肉維生。 (參加者請於出席前從網上Youtube觀看有關錄影片段)


(
報名請留下聯絡電話及姓名,聚會時間地點如有更改當另行通知。Please leave your name and mobile number for contact. Separate notice shall be given should there be any changes on gathering location and time.)


Barefoot College

Since its inception, the long term objective of the Barefoot College has been to work with marginalized, exploited and impoverished rural poor, living on less than $1 a day, and lift them over the poverty line with dignity and self respect. The dream was to establish a rural college in India that was built by and exclusively for the poor.

What the rural, impoverished and marginalized think important is reflected and internalized in the beliefs of the College. The Barefoot College is one of the few places in India where Mahatma Gandhi’s spirit of service and thoughts on sustainability, are still alive and respected.

Barefoot Approach:


Sophisticated technology be used in rural India
The Barefoot College has demystified technologies and decentralised their uses by transferring the access, control, management and ownership of sophisticated technologies to rural men and women, who can barely read and write. The College believes that even uneducated poor have the right to use technologies to improve their life and skills.

Difference between Literacy and Education
The Barefoot College believes that ‘literacy’ is what one acquires in school, but ‘education’ is what one gains from family, traditions, culture, environment and personal experiences. Both are important for individual growth. At the College, everyone is considered an education resource, the teacher as well as the student and the literate as well as illiterate. Therefore, the Barefoot College is a radical departure from the traditional concept of a ‘college’.

A Belief in the Equality of Women.
The Barefoot College has struggled to train village women, in areas that have traditionally been dominated by men. Since 1972, more than 6,525 unassuming housewives, mothers & grandmothers, midwives, farmers, daily wage labourers and small shopkeepers, who represent the profile of rural women from poor agricultural communities, have been trained as Barefoot midwives, handpump mechanics, solar engineers, artisans, weavers, balsevika (crèche teachers), parabolic solar cooker engineers, FM radio operators and fabricators, dentist, masons, and day and night school teachers. Women who are single mothers, middle-aged, divorced, physically challenged or illiterate are prioritised for training over others because they need the employment opportunity and income the most.


Irrational Desires

Although the pleasure derived from the satisfaction of genuine physiological needs and of irrational psychic needs consists in the relief from tension, the quality of the pleasure differs significantly. The physiologically conditioned desires such as hunger, thirst, and so on, are satisfied with the removal of the physiologically conditioned tension, and they reappear only when the physiological need arises again; they are thus rhythmic in nature. The irrational desires, in contrast, are insatiable. The desire of the envious, the possessive, the sadistic person does not disappear with its satisfaction, except perhaps momentarily. It is in the very nature of these irrational desires that they can not be “satisfied.” They spring from a dissatisfaction within oneself. The lack of productiveness and the resulting powerlessness and fear are the root of these passionate cravings and irrational desires. Even if man could satisfy all his wishes for power and destruction, it would not change his fear and loneliness, and thus the tension would remain. The blessing of imagination turns into a curse; since a person does not find himself relieved from his fears, he imagines ever-increasing satisfactions would cure his greed and restore his inner balance. But greed is a bottomless pit, and the idea of the relief derived from its satisfaction is a mirage. Greed, indeed, is not, as is so often assumed, rooted in man’s animal nature but in his mind and imagination.

We have seen that the pleasures derived from the fulfillment of physiological needs and neurotic desires are the result of the removal of painful tension. But while those in the first category are really satisfying, are normal, and are a condition for happiness, those in the latter are at best only a temporary mitigation of need, an indication of pathological functioning and of fundamental unhappiness. I propose to call the pleasure derived from the fulfillment of irrational desires “irrational pleasure” in contradistinction to “satisfaction,” which is the fulfillment of normal physiological desires.


Erich Fromm (1947) Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. p.188-189.


2014年4月27日 星期日

Unfolding human potentialities

The aim of humanistic ethics is not the repression of man’s evilness but the productive use of man’s inherent primary potentialities. Virtue is proportional to the degree of productiveness a person has achieved. If society is concerned with making them productive and hence with creating the conditions for the development of productiveness. The first and foremost of these conditions is that the unfolding and growth of every person is the aim of all social and political activities, that man is the only purpose and end, and not a means for anybody or anything except himself.

The productive orientation is the basis for freedom, virtue, and happiness…As we have shown, the wish to make productive use of his powers is inherent in man, and his efforts consist mainly in removing the obstacles in himself and in his environment which block him from following his inclination. Just as the person who has become sterile and destructive is increasingly paralyzed and caught, as it were, in a vicious circle, a person who is aware of his own powers and uses them productively gains in strength, faith, and happiness, and is less and less in danger of being alienated from himself; he has created, as we might say, a ’”virtuous circle.” The experience of joy and happiness is not only, as we have shown, the result of productive living but also its stimulus…Every increase in joy a culture can provide for will do more for the ethical education of its members than all the warnings of punishment or preaching of virtue could do.


Erich Fromm (1947) Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (p.231-232)


2014年4月26日 星期六

Economic and Social Criteria of Social Enterprise

OECD identified a set of key economic and social elements that help define social enterprise across national differences:

Economic Criteria:

  1. Unlike traditional non-profit organisations, social enterprises are directly engaged in the production and/or sale of goods and services (rather than predominantly advisory or grant-giving functions)
  2. Social enterprises are voluntarily created and managed by groups of citizens. As a result, while they may receive grants and donations from public authorities or private companies, social enterprises enjoy a high degree of autonomy and shareholders have the right to participate (‘voice’) and to leave the organisation (‘exit’);
  3. The financial viability of social enterprises depends on the efforts of their members, who are responsible for ensuring adequate financial resources, unlike most public institutions. Social enterprises therefore involve a significant level of economic risk; 
  4. Activities carried out by social enterprises require a minimum number of paid workers, even if they may combine voluntary and paid workers. 


Social criteria:
  1. Social enterprises are the result of an initiative by citizens involving people belonging to a community or to a group that shares a certain need or aim. They must maintain this dimension in one form or another
  2. Decision making rights are shared by stakeholders, generally through the principle of ‘one member, one vote’. Although capital owners in social enterprises play an important role, decision-making power is not based on capital ownership;
  3. Social enterprises are participatory in nature, insofar as those affected by the activities (the users of social enterprises’ services) are represented and participate in the management of activities. In many cases one of the objectives is to strengthen democracy at local level through economic activity;
  4. Social enterprises include organisations that totally prohibit the distribution of profits and organisations such as co-operatives, which may distribute their profit only to a limited degree. Social enterprises therefore avoid profit maximising behaviour, as they involve a limited distribution of profit.
  5. Social enterprises pursue an explicit aim to benefit the community or a specific group of people. By doing so, they directly and indirectly promote a sense of social responsibility at local level.





2014年4月25日 星期五

女工合作社

2008年《女工合作社特集》中,介紹了這所本地新潮會所,它以國際合作社運動的原則和理念營運,是一個有抱負立場的團體:

一)  招收對象:自願入社,不論年齡、宗教、社會地位、學歷、背景,只要參與者接受作為社員的責任、皆可入會。
二)  決策權威:民主式經營。合作社是個民主的組織,完全由社員來經營。社員共同參與與制訂社內的方向、發展,並一同決策。依從一人一票實踐民主精神。
三)  財產:有部分的資金,應為合作社員共同的財產。社員通常只收取工資,而把多出的盈餘轉用到以下方向,包括:設立儲備基金來促進合作社的發展;提供社員的學習活動、捐贈社會上有需要的團體、舉辦推廣活動等。
四)  自主與自立:合作社是由社員所主導的,是一個自主又自助的團體。即使與其他組織合作,也會維持本身的自主性。
五)  發展前景、機遇及培訓:合作社為社員提供教育及培訓的機會,這樣她們可對合作社發揮更多的心力。合作社也會讓一般社會人士、大學師生了解合作社的性質及有益之處。
六)  强大聯盟:各合作社會相互合作,來强化合作社運動,積極參與由多個合作社組成的香港合作社聯盟。
七)  關心社會:合作社致力於社區的永續發展,其方針由社員認可,而女工合作社的方向就是關心基層工友權益,推動婦女平等參與的機會,及為社會注入關心基層的元素。


摘錄自: 陳鳳儀 (2013) <女工合作新天地>,《不一樣的香港社會經濟:超越資本主義社會的想像》,頁111-130,商務印書館:香港。

2014年4月20日 星期日

香港社會經濟宣言

我們認為,經濟發展要為人民服務,而並不是倒過來要巿民大眾為大資本賺取暴利和不理性的經濟發展而犧牲,經濟發展必須立足社會,服務社群。我們提倡發展社會經濟凸顯當下巿場經濟的不足,主張經濟發展不應完全依賴及交託給大企業與大資本,而應將經濟活動釋放、拉闊、盤活,重新以巿民大眾的福祉作依歸。

推行社會經濟,要旨應包括:
一)  以人為本:經濟為人人,人人做經濟,每一個人也可得到有保障及尊嚴的生活,也可自主地參與經濟活動,免受高地價等不公平競爭所制約;
二)  立足社區、互助合作、民主參與:社會經濟提倡社群間互助合作及團結精神,反對當下巿場經濟為追求大資本利益而犧牲社群生計,一方面復原經濟活動的社群元素,另一方面讓經濟活動呈現多元、開放及創造性;
三)  我們重視人與土地的各諧共生,創造共同永續富裕,實行多元化的社群所有制。

一句話,經濟發展不是為了少數人的暴利,生產不是為了無謂的消費,而是為了解決民生,共同致富,締造尊嚴生活和理想社會。


摘錄自: 香港社會經濟聯盟 (2013) <香港社會經濟>,《不一樣的香港社會經濟:超越資本主義社會的想像》,頁2-11,香港:商務印書館。

2014年4月19日 星期六

公共領域 (Public Sphere)

公共領域的概念是哈伯瑪斯(Jürgen Habermas)提出的,哈伯瑪斯認為要用絕對標準來衡量現代社會,什麼是真、善、美等等是很困難的。那我們能怎麼做?我們只能夠創造一個好的環境讓人對某些問題作對話。在對話的過程裡,儘量把身分地位拿開,只看彼此講話的內容與論據,不以人廢言。過程中要真誠平等的對話。他覺得現代社會這些很重要,因為沒有絕對標準,只能透過對話慢慢形成共識。如果對話沒法產生共識,才去投票,少數服從多數。對他來講民主不單是投票的過程,更重要的是投票之前,我們對問題有沒有更好的理解,用比較理性的態度去投票。

Public sphere (Öffentlichkeit)

Habermas argued that the essential characteristic of the Öffentlichkeit culture was its "critical" nature. Unlike "representational" culture where only one party was active and the other passive, the Öffentlichkeit culture was characterized by a dialogue as individuals either met in conversation, or exchanged views via the print media. Public sphere is a space for the development of a public-minded rational consensus.



參考資料 Reference:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas
2. 陳健民,〈大學與公民兩地社會建設:中港兩地的經驗〉。江明修編(2011),《社會企業與公益創新:邁向公民社會》,頁34,台灣:airiti press

2014年4月17日 星期四

公民社會

公民社會由自主與多元開放的民間組織所構成

我們所談的公民社會究竟是什麼樣的公民社會?廣義來講很簡單,就是由公民組成的社會。在這樣的定義下,國家必須尊重公民的權力,反過來,公民也有必須實踐的責任和義務。比如排隊不要插隊等等,這是我們公民應有的美德。雖然我覺得這麼廣義已經很有意義了,但學者一般不會用這麼廣義的定義,學者關注的是公民美德的問題。一般來說,社會學家所定義的公民社會是由自主與多元開放的民間組織所構成的公共領域。通過這個領域,公民可進行對話、聯繫與合作促進公共利益,解決公共問題。這是屬於政府的架構以外的,所以我們說非政府組織,這是大家所理解的NGO。在此我想强調「多元開放」,也就是參加與不參加、離開或加入都是自由的、自願的。因此,在同樣的領域裡會有不同類型的團體; 同一類型的團體也很多互相競爭的。



摘錄自: 陳健民,〈大學與公民兩地社會建設:中港兩地的經驗〉。江明修編(2011),《社會企業與公益創新:邁向公民社會》,頁12-13,台灣:airiti press

2014年4月16日 星期三

推展”工賑”並不等同發展社企

雖然發展社會企業是有助推展及落實工賑”(平安鐘服務及明途的零售業務都聘請了不少低技術人士及弱勢社群),但是提供就業往往只是成功社會企業的副產品,如果政府的目的是希望所有工賑類的社會企業都能達致自負盈虧而不需要政府的經常性資助,並能成功協助政府以工賑取代福利模式的就業支援服務,那政府不是刻意的把社企的概念扭曲,就是相關的官員根本還未能掌握推展工賑與社企發展之間的關係。當然我們應該支持政府撥出更多的資源支援工賑類社企於香港發展,但是政府狹隘的將社企等同於工賑,將就業融合看成是社企的唯一目標,這不單會窒礙一些可能的社會創業家以社創精神創立更多元化的社會企業;而一個更差的局面,就是大部分推展就業融合的社會企業都會在數年後政府資助完結後統統結業,最後的結果是經過熱烘烘的討論和實踐以後,並沒有太多像樣的社會企業能留下來繼續為社會的福祉作出貢獻。



摘錄自: 阮耀啟 (2008) 社會企業帶來甚麼轉變?青年研究學報,第十一卷,第一期(總第二十一號)

2014年4月15日 星期二

社會經濟的基本特徵

美國社會學家、2012年美國社會學會會長賴特(Erik Olin Wright),早在2006年就提出建設另類社會主義方案的指南針。他指出,資本主義社會過於依賴巿場力量來發展經濟,而國家社會主義又過於依靠國家力量調控生產與資源和成果分配,唯有一種新的經濟模式------社會經濟,才能建立社會力量,重新把資源配置、生產和再生產,把流通和勞動成果的權力交回勞動人民身上。

社會經濟,或稱團結式經濟社區經濟,是主流巿場以外的另類經濟實踐,是一場要求參加者透過自我提升以達致經濟生活模式改變的社會運動。有別於主流巿場的運作模式,社會經濟運動極度重視隱藏於經濟活動背後的各種社群關係,提倡社群之間的互助合作及團結精神,反對資本主義只著眼於狹隘個人利益和利潤的追求。

社會經濟的參與者都有着共同的信念和願景,即反對資本主義經濟底下的剝削與不義,這些社會經濟實踐包括生產者合作社、消費者合作社、公平貿易、社會企業、社區貨幣、良心消費、集體購買、社區支持農業、社區內生性經濟、內置金融、集體所有制經濟等。

整體而言,社會經濟運動的參與者均認同以下共同價值觀:
一)  注重合作及互惠互補:以互助合作的精神替代放任競爭;
二)  重視個體與集體:社會公益由人民議決而非專家所訂定,並凌駕利潤與資本累積;
三)  經濟公義與社會平等:運動的重點是要為終結各動社會及經濟不公義而進行抗爭;
四)  對生態及環境的保護:對大自然生態系統的敬畏與尊重,是運動其中一個着眼點:
五)  民主參與及持份者的民主管理:民主參與須落實於不同社會層次及經濟組織之中;
六)  多元發展及多樣性:相信發展並不是單一,而是可以有眾多不同的路徑,而這些路徑必須由人民作為主體以團結互助及民主參與的精神開創出來。


摘錄自: 潘毅、陳鳳儀 (2013) 社會經濟在香港-超越主流經濟的多元性實踐,載於《不一樣的香港社會經濟:超越資本主義社會的想像》第三章,89-90頁,商務印書館:香港。


2014年4月14日 星期一

創建世界公民社會

每個人都在追求幸福快樂,然而很多人並不快樂,亦不幸福。我們有的迷失了身分,失去了自己,失去了自由,只為換取別人的肯定而盲目追求金錢與權力;有的被社會邊緣化,因未能滿足社會需要而被否定或淘汰,就如許多殘疾人士和長者一樣。但人類本來無須如此,只因我們遺忘了一個重要的身分。作為全人類的一分子,其實我們每個人都擁有一個共同的身分,即「世界公民」。在這身分上,我們意識到個人與整體人類的結連,認識到我們每個人既是獨特和自主的,卻又是彼此相繫的。我們雖各有不同,卻同樣是人。作為人,我們可以享受一些平等的待遇,無分彼此;作為人,我們其實不比誰高、亦不比誰低,我們同樣是人。作為世界公民,我們共同守護著人的尊嚴。

人在追求幸福上要學習的東西有很多,不論是個人成長或與人相處的藝術,其實都需要知識、磨練和持續不斷的學習和自省的。透過組織世界公民社群,我們共同創造並維繫一個平等和互助的社群,我們學習如何彼此尊重,如何溝通及處理衝突,如何處理情緒,如何與人分享,如何共同參與,如何做成熟的決定。在大小不同的社群裡,個人以世界公民的身分得到肯定、支持和鼓勵,在有歸屬感的環境發展個人潛能;同時亦透過社群,參與不同的活動和服務,支持扶貧及可持續發展等社會責任。儘管我們會遇上許多失敗,只要不放棄,我們還是可以有進步的。

透過對協作領袖持續的培訓,我們將學習如何建立自己、造就別人,學習欣賞自己和別人的價值和重要性,提升自尊,並在對己對人負責的前提下發展個人身心潛能。透過發揚協作精神,我們培養民主素養,求同存異,彼此接納,並通過持續的訓練提升社群溝通及協作能力,共同參與並履行社會責任,帶著自由、真誠、勇氣、創意、智慧和希望去面對種種困難和挑戰,共同創造更人性化、和諧和平衡的社會。

陳汝達

國際協作動力創辦人

Humanistic Conscience

Humanistic conscience is not the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing; it is our own voice, present in every human being and independent of external sanctions and rewards. What is the nature of this voice? Why do we hear it and why can we become deaf to it?

Humanistic conscience is the reaction of our total personality to its proper functioning or dysfunctioning; not a reaction to the functioning of this or that capacity but to the totality of capacities which constitute our human and our individual existence. Conscience judges our functioning as human beings; it is (as the root of the word con-scientia indicates) knowledge within oneself, knowledge of our respective success or failure in the art of living. But although conscience is knowledge, it is more than mere knowledge in the realm of abstract thought. It has an affective quality, for it is the reaction of our total personality and not only the reaction of our mind. In fact, we need not be aware of what our conscience says in order to be influenced by it.

Actions, thoughts, and feelings which are conducive to the proper functioning and unfolding of our total personality produce a feeling of inner approval, of “rightness,” characteristic of the humanistic “good conscience.” On the other hand, acts, thoughts, and feelings injurious to our total personality produce a feeling of uneasiness and discomfort, characteristic of the “guilty conscience.” Conscience is thus a re-action of ourselves to ourselves. It is the voice of our true selves which summons us back to ourselves, to live productively, to develop fully and harmoniously – that is, to become what we potentially are. It is the guardian of our integrity; it is the “ability to guarantee one’s self with all due pride, and also at the same time to say yes to one’s self.” If love can be defined as the affirmation of the potentialities and the care for, and the respect of, the uniqueness of the loved person, humanistic conscience can be justly called the voice of our loving care for ourselves.

Humanistic conscience represents not only the expression of our true selves; it contains also the essence of our moral experiences in life. In it we preserve the knowledge of our aim in life and of the principles through which to attain it; those principles which we have discovered ourselves as well as those we have learned from others and which we have found to be true.

Humanistic conscience is the expression of man’s self-interest and integrity, while authoritarian conscience is concerned with man’s obedience, self-sacrifice, duty, or his “social adjustment.” The goal of humanistic conscience is productiveness and, therefore, happiness, since happiness is the necessary concomitant of productive living. To cripple oneself by becoming a tool of others, no matter how dignified they are made to appear, to be “selfless,” unhappy, resigned, discouraged, is in opposition to the demands of one’s conscience; any violation of the integrity and proper functioning of our personality, with regard to thinking as well as acting, and even with regard to such matter as taste for food or sexual behaviour is acting against one’s conscience.


Erich Fromm (1947) Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. (p.162 - 163)


2014年4月13日 星期日

Fear of Disapproval


The fear of disapproval, though less dramatic than the irrational fear of death and of old age, is a hardly less significant expression of unconscious guilt feeling. Here also we find the irrational distortion of a normal attitude: man naturally wants to be accepted by his fellows; but modern man wants to be accepted by everybody and therefore is afraid to deviate, in thinking, feeling, and acting, from the cultural pattern. One reason among others for this irrational fear of disapproval is an unconscious guilt feeling. If man cannot approve of himself because he fails in the task of living productively, he has to substitute approval by others for approval by himself. This craving for approval can be fully understood only if we recognize it as a moral problem, as the expression of the all-pervasive though unconscious guilt feeling.


Erich Fromm (1947) Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics, p.168.


2014年4月12日 星期六

希望的幻滅

希望破碎的一種反應是以一種忍從的樂觀主義,把自已變成人群的典型,藉著仿效別人,暫時忘掉那無望的感覺。他們會將需要的標準降低到可以達成的地步,不敢再去夢想那些他們認為是不可及的。

希望破碎的另一後果是心靈的硬化。部分人因受到打擊,彷彿在一次突然的轉變中,覺得自己已經受夠了,便開始埋藏自己的感覺,不再受他人的傷害,卻可以傷害他人。他們或許抱怨找不到朋友或者一些愛他們的人,不認為只是不夠好運而是他們的命運。於是他們失去了情感,也失去了和別人的情感交流。他們以自已不被感動為驕傲,以為生命的勝利就是不依靠他人,便不快樂地過著冰凍的生活直至死神的來臨。但也有人卻因為奇蹟而可以溶解冰封的心,這可能是由於遇上一個關懷他的人。這種關懷令他們開始信任別人,因而產生新的感情,使從前的冷酷得以溶掉,希望的種子可以重生。

人生不能沒有希望,希望破碎的人因而憎恨生命。由於不能創造生命,故想毁滅它。他們彷彿要為本身過的非人生活尋找補償,並選擇破壞和暴力等毁滅之途作補償,毁滅他人或毁滅他們自己。從心理學的觀點來看,破壞是希望的相反,正如喜愛死亡是愛惜生命的相反,喜悅是煩悶的相反。

無望的徵兆正充斥著整個社會,這會導致個人和社會失去活力,或發展不理性的破壞。我們應該正視這個問題,並嘗試改變社會、經濟及文化生活,使之朝著希望的方向走。

撮錄自: 弗洛姆<<希望的革命>>


2014年4月11日 星期五

法治文化 - 法治信仰與善德

單靠制度是不足夠的,因為操作法律和行使權力的是人,法律的運作和權力的行使也影響着人。法律還需要文化的盛載。法治文化就是人對法治理想(公義)的信仰、對法律的認知,還有人文善德和實踐。信仰、知識和人文涵養就是法治文化的三個向度。法律專業人員和一般公民的法治文化同樣重要,決定了法律制度的品質。

法治信仰,即人們對公義、自由、平等理想的期盼,也是法治秩序的靈魂。對公義、自由、平等之信仰和執着,能使法律規則的運作更符合這些價值的要求,也是推動法律改革的動力。現實與理想永遠有差距,但認真對待自由和公義的人不會因現實的種種限制和眼前利益而放棄對法治理想的堅持,並願意為此付出代價。

善德賦予法律人性。法治容許個人利益的競逐,但它的本質應是一種倫理秩序。在爭取個人或群體利益的同時也必須顧及他人的利益和需要、尊重他人。公義、自由、權利、平等不只是個人的利益爭取,「我」必須看到「他」,人人平等,並真誠的互相溝通了解,彼此善待。權位者更應尊重和善待受他們權力所影響的人,特別是社會處於弱勢的一群。善德把本來強調個人權益的法治秩序變成倫理秩序,即人文法治秩序。這秩序應該是一個由較高價值、原則、規則和善德同構的倫理秩序。權利不被視為個人或小眾利益,而是維護人的尊嚴的基本倫理要求。而友愛促進了平等,寬容確保了自由,誠信奠立了合約和憲政......



摘錄由吳達明,〈人文法治的理想與教育〉,戴耀廷主編,《法治@教育》,(香港:次文化堂,2013),頁93-100

2014年4月10日 星期四

New Act of Birth

The fact that man’s birth is primarily a negative act, that of being thrown out of the original oneness with nature, that he cannot return to where he came from, implies that the process of birth is by no means an easy one. Each step into his new human existence is frightening. It always means to give up a secure state, which was relatively known, for one which is new, which one has not yet mastered. Undoubtedly, if the infant could think at the moment of the severance of the umbilical cord, he would experience the fear of dying. A loving fate protects us from this first panic. But at any new step, at any new stage of our birth, we are afraid again. We are never free from two conflicting tendencies: one to emerge from the womb, from the animal form of existence into a more human existence, from bondage to freedom; another, to return to the womb, to nature, to certainty and security. In the history of the individual, and of the race, the progressive tendency has proven to be stronger, yet the phenomenon of mental illness and the regression of the human race to positions apparently relinquished generations ago, show the intense struggle which accompanies each new act of birth


Erich Fromm (1956) The Sane Society.


2014年4月9日 星期三

法治理想


……法治並非只一個維持治安、有法必依、以法限權的事業。狹義的法治只問行政權力有沒有越界,卻沒有認真關注法律本身的合法性(legitimacy),以及公義(justice)問題。

法治要處理的根本問題是如何把群體生活及當中的權力運用安排得當。法治為人,人的自由和自主才是中心。法治維護自由、平等、公義,目的是保障個人和社會的自主,所以要限制任意權力,確保公共生活---特別是政治生活---循規蹈矩。沒有這些理論和價值的指引,法律容易淪為純粹的管治工具。法律在賢明厚德的統治者手裏,也許還不算太差,甚至會出現治世。可是,落在專權、腐敗的人手中,法律便可能成為侵害個人和社會自由自主的工具。法治的使命就盡量除去這種敗壞,使公共生活按原則和規則進行。

換言之,法治是一種文明秩序,一種讓群居和政治生活變得合理文明的安排。這秩序不是表面的穩定和諧,而是一種建基於原則和價值的公共倫理秩序。法治秩序主要建基於理性(reason),講究邏輯、慎思明辨(critical thinking)。它以規則作為公共生活的規範,遵循程序,限制權力。規則程序的確立使得生活安排可預測,把任意妄為的權力行使機會減至最低,也使個人自由和權利得到最大的保障。這樣,人就可以自主地生活。法治講求公義,形式的(formal)、程序的(procedural)、實體的(substantive)。以此來解決人際的糾紛以及個人和群體之間的衡突。

為了實踐治治的理想,法律制度必須自主,法律也必須具合法性。民主和獨立的可法制度是必不可少的。司法獨立使法律運作免受政治及行政干擾,維持法律的自主。多元的社會、言論自由、結社自由等則容許公共商議,民主制度賦予法律合法性。



摘錄自: 吳達明,〈人文法治的理想與教育〉,戴耀廷主編,《法治@教育》,(香港:次文化堂,2013),頁93-100