臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論與國際關係建構主義的結合
書刊名：臺灣政治學刊
作者：林炫向 引用關係
作者(外文)：Lin, Hsuan-hsiang
出版日期：2012
卷期：16:1
頁次：頁191-237
主題關鍵詞：理性主義；建構主義；哈伯瑪斯；溝通行動理論；社會化；說服；Rationalism；Constructivism；Jürgen Habermas；Communicative action；Socialization；Persuasion
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:88
國際關係學中一個有名的爭論是發生在理性主義與建構主義之間，前者認為國家的行動是遵循「後果論的邏輯」，而後者則認為是遵循「適當性的邏輯」。近年來有些建構主義者嘗試引入哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論，主張國家的行動還遵循第三種邏輯—即「尋求真理或論證的邏輯」，其具體的表現是所謂的「溝通行動」。這些建構主義者認為引入哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論可以加強建構主義對於改變發生的「微觀機制」—即解釋國家的偏好與利益如何在互動中發生改變—的說明，並主張這種改變有可能是因為「較佳論據」所造成的。本文的目標是要探討建構主義者如何將溝通行動理論與國際關係的研究加以結合，並從經驗上檢視溝通行動是否確實在國際關係中發揮作用，進而探討這個結合會面臨什麼質疑，最後對這個研究領域的成果與限制做出評估。透過這樣的回顧與評估，本文試圖說明：溝通行動理論與建構主義的結合雖然開闢了一個新的研究綱領，但目前的實證研究結果顯示，建構主義的解釋並不必然優於理性主義的解釋。換言之，溝通行動理論與實證的建構主義的結合無可避免地會遭遇理性主義的質疑與挑戰。因此本文認為，既然國際哈伯瑪斯的學說本質上是一種批判理論，將它在國際關係學中做實證主義的應用並不是最好的方式。
One of the well-known debates in International Relations is between rationalism and constructivism, in which rationalism submits that the actions of states observe “the logic of consequentialism”while constructivism “the logic of appropriateness”. In recent years a branch of constructivism attempts to appropriate Habermas’s theory of communicative action and argues that the actions of states follow a third logic, the “logic of truth seeking or arguing,” which takes the form of communicative action. These constructivists believes that the theory of communicative action can help to illuminate the “micro-mechanism” through which states’ preferences or interests change over the course of interaction, and they argue this change can be caused by “the force of better argument”. This paper aims to explore how the theory of communicative action is appropriated by this branch of constructivism and examine whether communicative actions actually take place in international arena. It further investigates what challenges and queries that this approach may encounter, and then provides an assessment of the achievements and limits of this approach. By so doing this paper aims to show that even though the appropriation of the theory of communicative action by constructivists has produced a new research program, empirical studies suggest that constructivist explanation, which relies on the idea of communicative action, does not overwhelmingly prevail over rationalist explanation, which relies of the idea of strategic action, and constructivist explanations will continue to be beset by rationalist explanations. This leads to the conclusion that since Habermas’s theoretical enterprise is by nature a critical theory, its positivist appropriation in IR is not very productive.
期刊論文
1.Risse, Thomas(2004)。Global governance and communicative action。Government and Opposition，39(2)，288-313。  new window
2.Dryzek, John S.(1999)。Transnational Democracy。The Journal of Political Philosophy，7(1)，30-51。  new window
3.Nadelmann, Ethan(1990)。Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society。International Organization，44(4)，479-526。  new window
4.Hoffman, M.(1987)。Critical theory and inter-paradigm debate。Millennium，16(2)，231-249。  new window
5.Hawkins, Darren(2004)。Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms。International Studies Quarterly，48(4)，779-804。  new window
6.Schimmelfennig, Frank(2005)。Strategic Calculation and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe。International Organization，59(4)，827-860。  new window
7.Johnston, Alastair Iain(2005)。Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and beyond Europe。International Organization，59(4)，1013-1044。  new window
8.Gheciu, Alexandra(2005)。Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe’。International Organization，59(4)，973-1012。  new window
9.Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2001)。Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change。International Organization，55(3)，553-588。  new window
10.Johnston, Alastair lain(2001)。Treating International Institutions as Social Environments。International Studies Quarterly，45(4)，487-515。  new window
11.Risse, Thomas(2000)。"Let's Argue!": Communicative Action in World Politics。International Organization，54(1)，1-39。  new window
12.Checkel, Jeffrey T.(1998)。The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory。World Politics，50(2)，324-348。  new window
13.Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2004)。Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay。Review of International Studies，30(2)，229-244。  new window
14.Schimmelfennig, Frank(2001)。The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union。International Organization，55(1)，47-80。  new window
15.Hooghe, Liesbet(2005)。Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few via International Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission。International Organization，59(4)，861-898。  new window
16.Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2005)。International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework。International Organization，59(4)，801-826。  new window
17.Price, Richard、Reus-Smit, Christian(1998)。Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism。European Journal of International Relations，4(3)，259-294。  new window
18.Ashley, Richard K.(1981)。Political Realism and Human Interests。International Studies Quarterly，25(2)，204-236。  new window
19.Adler, Emanuel(1997)。Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics。European Journal of International Relations，3(3)，319-363。  new window
20.Payne, Rodger A.(2001)。Persuasion, Frames, and Norm Construction。European Journal of International Relations，7(1)，37-61。  new window
21.Finnemore, Martha、Sikkink, Kathryn(1998)。International Norm Dynamics and Political Change。International Organization，52(4)，887-917。  new window
22.袁易(20040500)。中國與導彈建制：國際規範之挑戰與遵循。問題與研究，43(3)，97-133。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.Lin, Hsuan-Hsiang(2010)。邁向一種中道的國際關係倫理學：哈貝馬斯「世界內政論」的啓示。國際政治硏究，1，145-167。  延伸查詢new window
24.Anievas, Alexander(2005)。Critical Dialogues: Habermasian Social Theory and International Relations。Politics，25(3)，135-143。  new window
25.Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2003)。‘Going Native’ In Europe? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions。Comparative Political Studies，36(1/2)，209-231。  new window
26.Haacke, Jürgen(1996)。Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self-Reflection, Rational Argumentation。Millennium: Journal of International Studies，25(2)，255-289。  new window
27.Holzinger, Katharina(2004)。Bargaining Through Arguing: An Empirical Analysis Based on Speech Act Theory。Political Communication，21(2)，195-222。  new window
28.Johnson, James(1991)。Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action。Political Theory，19(2)，181-201。  new window
29.Johnstone, Ian(2003)。Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument。European Journal of International Law，14(3)，437-480。  new window
30.Jupille, Joseph、Caporaso, James A.、Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2003)。Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union。Comparative Political Studies，36(1/2)，7-40。  new window
31.Kelley, Judith(2004)。International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions。International Organization，58(3)，425-457。  new window
32.Krebs, Ronald R.、Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus(2007)。Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric。European Journal of International Relations，13(1)，35-66。  new window
33.Lewis, Jeffrey(2005)。The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union。International Organization，59(4)，937-971。  new window
34.Deitelhoff, Nicole、Muller, Harald(2005)。Theoretical Paradise - Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas。Review of International Studies，31(1)，167-179。  new window
35.Diez, Thomas、Steans, Jill(2005)。A Useful Dialogue? Habermas and International Relations。Review of International Studies，31(1)，127-140。  new window
36.Ellis, Jaye(2003)。International Regimes and the Legitimacy of Rules: A Discourse-Ethical Approach。Alternatives，27(3)，273-300。  new window
37.Steffek, Jens(2003)。The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach。European Journal of International Relations，9(2)，249-275。  new window
38.Weber, Martin(2005)。The Critical Social Theory of the Frankfurt School, and the ‘Social Turn’ in IR。Review of International Studies，31(1)，195-209。  new window
39.Mitzen, Jennifer(2005)。Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres。American Political Science Review，99(3)，401-417。  new window
40.Zürn, Michael、Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2005)。Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State。International Organization，59(4)，1045-1079。  new window
41.Lynch, Marc(2002)。Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement。European Journal of International Relations，8(2)，187-230。  new window
42.Muller, Harald(2004)。Arguing, Bargaining, and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations。European Journal of International Relations，10(3)，395-435。  new window
43.Panke, Diana(2006)。More Arguing Than Bargaining? The Institutional Designs of the European Convention and Intergovernmental Conferences Compared。Journal of European Integration，28(4)，357-379。  new window
44.Panke, Diana(2006)。The Differential Impact of Communicated Ideas: Bridging the Gap between Rationalism and Constructivism。Hamburg Review of Social Sciences，1(3)，312-342。  new window
45.Panke, Diana(2010)。Why Discourse Matters Only Sometimes: Effective Arguing Beyond the Nation-State。Review of International Studies，36(1)，145-168。  new window
46.Müller, Harald(1994)。Internationale Beziehungen als Kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik derutilitaristischen Handlungstheorien。Zeitschrift fur Internationale Beziehungen，1(1)，15-44。  new window
學位論文
1.葉宗顯(2009)。普遍與殊異：AndrewLinklater之國際關係批判理論的初探與重建(碩士論文)。國立中山大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Linklater, Andrew(1998)。The Transformation of Political Community。Columbia：The University of South Carolina Press。  new window
2.Dryzek, John S.(2002)。Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations。Oxford University Press。  new window
3.Alker, H. R.(1996)。Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies。New York, NY：Cambridge University Press。  new window
4.Habermas, Jürgen、Cooke, Maeve(1998)。On the Pragmatics of Communication。Cambridge, MA：MIT Press。  new window
5.Risse, Thomas、Ropp, Stephen C.、Sikkink, Kathryn(1999)。The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change。Cambridge University Press。  new window
6.Habermas, J.、Lenhardt, C.、Nicholsen, S. W.(1990)。Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action。U.S.A.：The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press。  new window
7.Habermas, Jurgen、McCarthy, T.(1984)。The Theory of Communication Action。Boston：Beacon Press。  new window
8.Chayes, Abram、Chayes, Antonia Handler(1995)。The New Sovereignty: Compliance With International Regulatory Agreements。Cambridge, Massachusetts：Harvard University Press。  new window
9.Wendt, Alexander E.(1999)。Social Theory of International Politics。Cambridge：Harvard University Press。  new window
10.Habermas, J.(1976)。Communication and the evolution of society。Polity Press。  new window
11.高宣揚(1991)。哈伯瑪斯論。臺北：遠流。  延伸查詢new window
12.Crawford, Neta C.(2002)。Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
13.Keck, Margaret E.、Sikkink, Kathryn(1998)。Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics。Cornell University Press。  new window
14.Habermas, Jürgen、Cronin, Ciaran P.(1993)。Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics。MIT Press。  new window
15.Gong, Qun(2001)。道德烏托邦的重構--哈伯瑪斯交往倫理思想研究。台北。  延伸查詢new window
16.Burchill, Scott、Devetak, Richard、Donnelly, Jack、Linklater, Andrew、Paterson, Matthew、Reus-Smit, Christian、Jacqui, True(2009)。Theories of International Relations。New York, NY。  new window
17.Dryzek, John S.(2011)。Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance。New York, NY：Oxford University Press。  new window
18.Payne, Rodger A.(2000)。Habermas, Discourse Norms, and the Prospects for Global Deliberation。Los Angeles, CA。  new window
19.Müller, Harald(2001)。International Relations as Communicative Action。Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation。New York, NY。  new window
20.Risse, Thomas、Sikkink, Kathryn(1999)。The Socialization of Human Rights Norm into Domestic Practices: Introduction。The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change。New York, NY。  new window
21.Devetak, Richard(1996)。Critical Theory。Theories of International Relations。New York, NY。  new window
22.Katzenstein, Peter、Keohane, Robert O.、Krasner, Stephen D.(1999)。International Organization and the Study of World Politics。Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics。Cambridge, MA。  new window
23.Linklater, Andrew(1996)。The Achievements of Critical Theory。International Theory: Positivism and Beyond。New York, NY。  new window
24.Lose, Lars G.(2001)。Communicative Action and the World of Diplomacy。Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation。New York, NY。  new window
25.March, James G.、Olsen, Johan P.(1999)。The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders。Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics。Cambridge, MA。  new window
26.Reus-Smit, Christian(2009)。Constructivism。Theories of International Relations。New York, NY。  new window
圖書論文
1.Fearon, James D.、Wendt, Alexander(2002)。Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View。Handbook of International Relations。Sage Publications。  new window
2.Devetak, Richard(2009)。Critical Theory。Theories of International Relations。Palgrave。  new window
3.江宜樺(2003)。公共領域中理性溝通的可能性。公共性與公共知識份子。江蘇：江蘇人民出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.Elster, J.(1998)。Introduction。Deliberative Democracy。NY：Cambridge University Press。  new window
5.Adler, Emanuel(2002)。Constructivism and International Relations。Handbook of International Relations。Sage。  new window
6.Ruggie, J. G.(2000)。What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge。Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics。Cambridge：The MIT Press。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1096（臺灣：1069，外國：27） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1473665 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67282408
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上