برداشت «رالز» از امر سیاسی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظریبابک امیدعلی 1 , سید علیرضا حسینی بهشتی 2 * , عباس منوچهری 3 , سيدعلي محمودي 4
1 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 - استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
3 - استاد گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
4 - دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده روابط بین‌الملل (وزارت امور خارجه) تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: جان رالز, عدالت به‌مثابه انصاف, امر سیاسی, معقولیت, معامله‌به‌مثل, رابطه «خود» و «دیگری». ,
چکیده مقاله :
«جان رالز»، چهره‌ای تأثیرگذار در فلسفه سیاسی معاصر بوده است. او با رد فایده‌گرایی که مطابق آن، نهادهای عادلانه می‌باید حاصل جمع ارضای امیال را به حداکثر برسانند، شکل نوینی از نظریه قرارداد اجتماعی را صورت‌بندی می‌کند تا امکان جامعه بسامانی را نشان دهد که در آن، حقوق و آزادی‌های اساسی همه شهروندان فراهم است. هرچند بسیاری از مفسران، ارزش نظریۀ رالز را تصدیق کرده‌اند، یکی از انتقادهای جدی به رالز از زاویه مفهوم امر سیاسی و فقدان آن در نظریه او وارد شده است. در این مقاله، با بررسی آثار رالز به منظور تبیین برداشت او از امر سیاسی، به چنین انتقادی پاسخ داده می‌شود. بدین منظور، روش تحلیل مفهومی برای تحلیل مفاهیم و ایده‌هایی اساسی چون معقولیت و تعامل به مثل، به عنوان عناصر اصلی برداشت رالز از امر سیاسی به کار گرفته شده است. این تحلیل نشان می‌دهد که هسته عدالت به‌مثابه انصاف، حتی پیش از لیبرالیسم سیاسی، همان برداشت رالز از امر سیاسی بوده است. رالز با جدی گرفتن تمایز میان اشخاص و ملل، امر سیاسی را به‌مثابه شیوۀ معقول حفاظت از خود و دیگری در هر دو عرصۀ داخلی و بین‌المللی می‌بیند. درست است که این بیانگر یک برداشت هنجاری است، اما محتوای هنجاری این برداشت از بیرون به امر سیاسی تحمیل نشده است. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که تمایز میان برداشت سیاسی از عدالت و دیگر برداشت‌های اخلاقی نه‌‌تنها به تفاوت در قلمرو، بلکه به تفاوت در سرشت برداشت سیاسی مرتبط است.
John Rawls (1921-2002) has been rightly recognized as highly influential in contemporary political philosophy. Rejecting utilitarianism according to which just institutions are to maximize the aggregate satisfaction of desires, Rawls formulates a new version of the social contract theory in order to show the possibility of a well-ordered society in which the basic rights and liberties of all citizens as free and equal persons are provided. Although being appreciated by many commentators as highly valuable, Rawls’s theory has been criticized for lacking a clear conception of the political. To examine this view, Rawls’s conception of the political must be fully understood. Moreover, since the idea of a free-standing political conception of justice plays a fundamental role in the Rawlsian theory of justice, the analysis of his conception of the political seems to be necessary and fruitful. The analysis of the fundamental ideas and concepts such as reasonableness and reciprocity, which we view as central to Rawls’s theory of justice, shows that the core of justice as fairness, even before what is called his communitarian turn in Political Liberalism, is Rawls’s conception of the political. Taking the distinction between persons and peoples seriously, he considers the political as a reasonable way in which the preservation of the self and the other at both domestic and international level is ensured. Although this reveals a normative conception, the normative content is not imported from outside the political; that is why justice as fairness can be a normative and moral conception, and yet political, independent of any comprehensive doctrines, liberal or whatever.
Keywords: John Rawls, justice as fairness, the political, rationality, the relationship of "self" and "other", reciprocity, Chantal Mouffe
Extensive Abstract
John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness has been the focus of many studies in various fields since its initial presentation. The scope of these studies is to the extent that, according to some experts, Rawls' political philosophy can be considered one of the theoretical fields of interdisciplinary research in fields such as moral philosophy, economics, and political science. However, his theory has also been subject to serious criticism. Since this theory is known as a liberal theory, Rawls has always been subject to criticism that has generally affected liberal views. Criticism of the liberal understanding of politics is one of these cases. In this article, we have pointed out that politics for Rawls implies a reasonable way of confronting the "self" and the "other" which has five dimensions:
- In a context of resource scarcity, conflict of interests and differences in values are possible.
- Internally, it is related to the relationship of individuals with each other and with the government within the “fundamental structure of society” and externally, to the “fundamental structure” of relations between people.
- It is not dependent on any kind of “comprehensive doctrine”.
- It is related to the “fair” conditions for the realization of justice and stability in liberal and illiberal societies.
- It enables the mutual protection of the “self” and the “other”.
Then, through philosophical analysis and utilizing the theoretical framework of significative-paradigmatic narrative, it has been shown that Rawls' two seemingly different interpretations of the political—namely, the political as matters related to governance and power, and the political as public action—can be placed under a single concept: the political as a rational mode of engagement between the "self" and the "other" concerning the reasonable organization of the fundamental structure of society. For this purpose, by analyzing the adjective "political" in Rawls' main works, the constituent elements of the two different interpretations of the political in these works were demonstrated. In other words, using D. D. Raphael's lexical analysis, two different combinations in the relevant texts were clarified: the adjective "political" in the first combination is logically related to the categories of governance and power, while in the second combination, it is related to a specific method of solving public issues. Then, an effort was made to enhance the coherence of Rawls' main idea, which is a political interpretation of justice, so that Rawls' understanding of the political could be articulated with greater conceptual clarity and ambiguities in understanding his theory could be reduced.
In carrying out this enhancement, an effort was made to rely on Rawls' intended distinction between concepts and interpretations to formulate and express these two combinations in a single idea. This idea was: the concept of the political as a rational mode of engagement between the "self" and the "other," insofar as it pertains to the realm of the fundamental structure of society (at the domestic level) and the structure of relations among nations (at the international level). This idea includes both the concept of the political—i.e., matters concerning relations between individuals and governance at the domestic level and relations among nations at the international level—and an interpretation of the political, which is a rational method for organizing the fundamental structure of society and community where "self" and "other" relations are formed within them and under their auspices. Therefore, in justice as fairness, the political is understandable from both a domain-oriented perspective and a process-oriented perspective. From a domain-oriented perspective, it is limited to the fundamental structure of society, while from a process-oriented perspective, it is a rational mode of engagement between "self" and "other," not any type of relationship in the public sphere or relations related to governance and power.
Contrary to Chantal Mouffe's assumption, in Rawls' theory, the political is not only not absent but is also at its core. The normative and ethical nature of Rawls' theory does not imply a failure to recognize the reality of conflict. On the contrary, through ideas such as overlapping consensus, objective and subjective grounds, and reasonableness, Rawls takes seriously both conflictual realities and power dynamics. What his theory cannot accept as a normative theory is recognizing these categories as constitutive components of the political.
Moreover, many criticisms directed at him arise from neglecting his theory's internal logic and accurately understanding ideas such as the original position and reasonableness. In better terms, although his political interpretation is ethical and normative, this normative content has not been imposed from outside the realm of politics but has been articulated based on a political criterion. In clearer terms, within this framework, instead of discussing correct or incorrect distinctions or good and evil or ugly and beautiful distinctions, one can speak about a political distinction independent of comprehensive moral doctrines—namely, a distinction between what is reasonable and unreasonable.
Rawls' theory also does not overlook the boundary between friend and enemy or the formation of a "we" against "them" in politics. What Rawls does not accept is not the possibility of engaging with "the other," but rather abandoning individuals' and nations' fates to contingencies that are arbitrary or random in nature. Here lies a discussion about concepts such as reciprocity and reasonableness, which express the necessity for mutual protection between "self" and "other." Therefore, Rawls has considered the protective aspect of politics. Understanding this protective aspect requires attention to distinguishing between what is rational and what is reasonable as well as understanding how reasonableness relates to reciprocity.
In discussing the discursive subject, it should also be noted that this discussion is descriptive within political sociology rather than normative within political philosophy. How political subjects are constructed has no connection to Rawls' theory. Similarly, discussions about identity in the political arena are not related to Rawls' theory; although his theory of justice does not contradict viewing issues discursively or considering collective identity's role in politics as important. In this context, Rawls' theory becomes relevant when discussing judgments about whether individuals belonging to a specific discourse have made reasonable decisions or whether they engage politically in reasoning and justification or stand based on force or deception or their incidental position of power. Rawls' theory does not aim to provide a description of how discourses have formed as they have until now; rather, his theory provides a criterion for evaluation and serves as a guide for action in politics.
References
Bercuson, Jeffrey (2014) John Rawls and the History of Political Thought: The Rousseauvian and Hegelian Heritage of Justice as Fairness, New York, Routledge.
Crick, Bernard (1962) In Defense of Politics, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Gauthier, David (1986) Morals by Agreement, New York, Oxford University Press.
Gunnarsson, Logi (2003) Making Moral Sense: Beyond Habermas and Gauthier, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Heywood, Andrew (2013) Politics, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hosseini Beheshti, Seyed Alireza (2016) Bonyade Nazari Syasat dar Jawame Chandfarhangi (in Persain) (Tehran: Nahid)
Laden, Anthony Simon (2007) ‘Taking the Distinction Between Persons Seriously’, in T. Brooks & F. Freyenhagen (eds.) The Legacy of John Rawls, London, Continuum.
Leftwich, Adrian (ed.) (2004) What is Politics? The Activity and its Study, Cambridge, polity.
Lovett, Frank (2011) Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, London, Continuum.
Mahmoodi, Seyed Ali (2014) Kant be Rewayate Irani: Taamollati Falsafi dar baabe Akhlagh, Siyasat va Solhe Paydar (in Persian) (Tehran: Negahe Moaser)
Manoochehri, Abbas (2016) Farasooye Ranj va Roya (in Persian) (Tehran: Pajoheshkadeye Tarikhe Islam)
Mouffe, Chantal (1993) The Return of the Political, London, Verso.
Mulhall, S. & Swift A. (2003) Liberals and Communitarians, Oxford, Blackwell.
Newey, Glen (2001) After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Nozick, Robert (2013) Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, Basic Books.
Pogge, Thomas (2007) John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, trans. M. Kosch, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Ramaswamy, Sushila (2004) Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts, Delhi, Macmillan India Ltd.
Raphael, D. D. (1978) Hobbes: Morals and Politics, London, George Allen and Unwin.
--------------- (1990) Problems of Political philosophy, London, Macmillan.
Rawls, John (1958) ‘Justice as Fairness’, The Philosophical Review, 67(2), pp. 164-194.
--------------- (1980) ‘Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory’, The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), pp.515-572.
--------------- (1985) ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), pp. 223-251.
--------------- (1996) Political Liberalism, New York, Columbia University Press.
--------------- (1999a) A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
--------------- (1999b) Collected Papers, S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
--------------- (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
--------------- (2008) Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
اسکروتن، راجر (1388) کانت، ترجمه علی پایا، تهران، طرح نو.
اشمیت، کارل (1392) مفهوم امر سیاسی، ترجمه سهیل صفاری، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
---------- (1393) الهیات سیاسی: چهار فصل در باب حاکمیت، ترجمه لیلا چمن¬خواه، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
---------- (1395) لویاتان در نظریه دولت تامس هابز، ترجمه شروین مقیمی زنجانی، تهران، مؤسسه فرهنگی هنری پگاه روزگار نو.
حسینی بهشتی، سید علیرضا (1395) بنیاد نظری سیاست در جوامع چندفرهنگی، تهران، ناهید.
دیویس، کالین (1386) درآمدی بر اندیشه لویناس، ترجمه مسعود علیا، تهران، مؤسسه پژوهش حکمت و فلسفه ایران.
رالز، جان (1387) نظریه عدالت، ترجمه سید محمد کمال سروریان و مرتضی بحرانی، تهران، پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
------- (1389) قانون ملل، ترجمه مرتضی بحرانی و محمد فرجیان، تهران، پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
------- (1393) لیبرالیسم سیاسی، ترجمه موسی اکرمی، تهران، ثالث.
------- (1394) عدالت به¬مثابه انصاف: یک بازگویی، ترجمه عرفان ثابتی، تهران، ققنوس.
فورسیت، موری و کینز-ساپر موریس (1380) نقد و بررسی آثار بزرگ سیاسی سده بیستم، ترجمه عبدالرحمن عالم، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
کانت، ایمانوئل (1384) نقد عقل عملی، ترجمه انشاء‌الله رحمتی، تهران، نورالثقلین.
کورنر، اشتفان (1394) فلسفه کانت، ترجمه عزت‌الله فولادوند، تهران، خوارزمی.
محمودی، سیدعلی (1393) کانت به روایت ایرانی: تأملاتی فلسفی در باب اخلاق، سیاست و صلح پایدار، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
-------------- (1398) «بررسی مفهوم، جایگاه و برون‌داد عقلانیت سنجش‌گرانه در نظریه عدالت رالز»، فصلنامه رهیافت‌های سیاسی و بین‌المللی، دوره دهم، شماره 4، صص 124-145.
منوچهری، عباس (1395) فراسوی رنج و رؤیا: روایتی دلالتی-پارادایمی از تفکر سیاسی، ج 1 و 2، تهران، پژوهشکده تاریخ اسلام.
موف، شانتال (1389) «تکثرگرایی و دموکراسی مدرن»، ترجمه علی عباس¬بیگی و مجتبی گل‌محمدی، در: قانون و خشونت، گزینش و ویرایشِ مراد فرهادپور، تهران، رخ¬داد نو.
----------- (1391) درباره امر سیاسی، ترجمه منصور انصاری، تهران، رخداد نو.
… Bercuson, Jeffrey (2014) John Rawls and the History of Political Thought: The Rousseauvian and Hegelian Heritage of Justice as Fairness, New York, Routledge.
Crick, Bernard (1962) In Defense of Politics, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Gauthier, David (1986) Morals by Agreement, New York, Oxford University Press.
Gunnarsson, Logi (2003) Making Moral Sense: Beyond Habermas and Gauthier, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Heywood, Andrew (2013) Politics, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Laden, Anthony Simon (2007) ‘Taking the Distinction between Persons Seriously’, in T. Brooks & F. Freyenhagen (eds.) The Legacy of John Rawls, London, Continuum.
Leftwich, Adrian (ed.) (2004) What is Politics? The Activity and its Study, Cambridge, polity.
Lovett, Frank (2011) Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, London, Continum.
Mouffe, Chantal (1993) The Return of the Political, London, Verso.
Mulhall, S. & Swift A. (2003) Liberals and Communitarians, Oxford, Blackwell.
Newey, Glen (2001) After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Nozick, Robert (2013) Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, Basic Books.
Pogge, Thomas (2007) John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, trans. M. Kosch, Oxford, oxford University Press.
Ramaswamy, Sushila (2004) Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts, Delhi, Macmillan India Ltd.
Raphael, D. D. (1978) Hobbes: Morals and Politics, London, George Allen and Unwin.
--------------- (1990) Problems of Political philosophy, London, Macmillan.
Rawls, John (1958) ‘Justice as Fairness’, The Philosophical Review, 67(2), pp. 164-194.
--------------- (1980) ‘Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory’, The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), pp.515-572.
--------------- (1985) ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), pp. 223-251.
--------------- (1996) Political Liberalism, New York, Columbia University Press.
--------------- (1999a) A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
--------------- (1999b) Collected Papers, S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
--------------- (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
--------------- (2008) Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.