哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論與國際關係建構主義的結合

Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action and Constructivism in International Relations

10.6683/TPSR.201206.16(1).189-235

林炫向(Hsuan-Hsiang Lin)

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

台灣政治學刊

16卷1期（2012 / 06 / 01）

189 - 235

繁體中文

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.

1. 袁易(2004)。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。
   連結：
2. Adler, Emanuel(1997).Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.European Journal of International Relations,3(3),319-63.
3. Alker, Hayward(1996).Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
4. Anievas, Alexander(2005).Critical Dialogues: Habermasian Social Theory and International Relations.Politics,25(3),135-43.
5. Ashley, Richard(1981).Political Realism and Human Interests.International Studies Quarterly,25(2),204-36.
6. Burchill, Scott(ed.),Linklater, Andrew(ed.)(1996).Theories of International Relations.New York, NY:St. Martin's Press.
7. Burchill, Scott,Devetak, Richard,Donnelly, Jack,Linklater, Andrew,Paterson, Matthew,Reus-Smit, Christian,Jacqui, True(2009).Theories of International Relations.New York, NY:Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Carlsnaes, Walter(ed.),Risse, Thomas(ed.),Simmons, Beth A.(ed.)(2002).Handbook of International Relations.London, UK:Sage.
9. Chayes, Abram,Chayes, Antonia Handler(1995).The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2003).Going Native' In Europe? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions.Comparative Political Studies,36(1-2),209-31.
11. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2004).Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay.Review of International Studies,30(2),229-44.
12. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2001).Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change.International Organization,55(3),553-88.
13. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2005).International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework.International Organization,59(4),801-26.
14. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(1998).The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.World Politics,50(2),324-48.
15. Crawford, Neta(2002).Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonialization, and Humanitarian Intervention.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
16. Deitelhoff, Nicole,Müller, Harald(2005).Theoretical Paradise-Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas.Review of International Studies,31(1),167-79.
17. Diez, Thomas,Steans, Jill(2005).A Useful Dialogue? Habermas and International Relations.Review of International Studies,31(1),127-40.
18. Dryzek, John S.(2011).Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
19. Dryzek, John S.(2002).Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
20. Dryzek, John S.(1999).Transnational Democracy.The Journal of Political Philosophy,7(1),30-51.
21. Ellis, Jaye(2002).International Regimes and the Legitimacy of Rules: A Discourse-Ethical Approach.Alternatives,27(3),273-300.
22. Elster, Jon(ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
23. Fierke, Karin M.(ed.),Jorgensen, Knud Erik(ed.)(2001).Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation.New York, NY:M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
24. Gheciu, Alexandra(2005).Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the 'New Europe'.International Organization,59(4),973-1012.
25. Haacke, Jürgen(1996).Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self-Reflection, Rational Argumentation.Millennium: Journal of International Studies,25(2),255-89.
26. Habermas, Jürgen(1998).On the Pragmatics of Communication.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
27. Habermas, Jürgen(1976).Communication and the Evolution of Society.London, UK:Heinemann.
28. Habermas, Jürgen,Cronin, Ciaran(trans.)(1993).Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
29. Habermas, Jürgen,Lenhardt, Christian(trans.),Nicholsen, Shierry Weber(trans.)(1990).Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
30. Habermas, Jürgen,McCarthy, Thomas(trans.)(1984).The Theory of Communication Action.Boston, MA:Beacon Press.
31. Hawkins, Darren(2004).Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms.International Studies Quarterly,48(4),779-804.
32. Hoffman, Mark(1987).Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate.Millennium: Journal of International Studies,16(2),231-49.
33. Holzinger, Katharina(2004).Bargaining Through Arguing: An Empirical Analysis Based on Speech Act Theory.Political Communication,21(2),195-222.
34. 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),861-98.
35. Johnson, James(1991).Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action.Political Theory,19(2),181-201.
36. Johnston, Alastair Iain(2005).Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and beyond Europe.International Organization,59(4),1013-44.
37. Johnston, Alastair Iain(2001).Treating International Institutions as Social Environments.International Studies Quarterly,45(3),487-515.
38. Johnstone, Ian(2003).Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument.European Journal of International Law,14(3),437-80.
39. 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.
40. Katzenstein, Peter J.(ed.),Keohane, Robert(ed.),Krasner, Stephen D.(ed.)(1999).Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
41. Keck, Margaret E,Sikkink, Kathryn(1998).Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics.Ithaca, NY:Cornell University.
42. Kelley, Judith(2004).International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions.International Organization,58(3),425-57.
43. 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.
44. Lewis, Jeffrey(2005).The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union.International Organization,59(4),937-71.
45. Linklater, Andrew(1998).The Transformation of Political Community.Cambridge, UK:Polity Press.
46. Lynch, Marc(2002).Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement.European Journal of International Relations,8(2),187-230.
47. Mitzen, Jennifer(2005).Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres.American Political Science Review,99(3),401-17.
48. Müller, 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.
49. Müller, Harald(1994).Internationale Beziehungen als Kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik derutilitaristischen Handlungstheorien.Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen,1(1),15-44.
50. Nadelmann, Ethan(1990).Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society.International Organization,44(4),479-526.
51. Panke, Diana(2006).More Arguing Than Bargaining? The Institutional Designs of the European Convention and Intergovernmental Conferences Compared.Journal of European Integration,28(4),357-79.
52. Panke, Diana(2010).Why Discourse Matters Only Sometimes: Effective Arguing Beyond the Nation-State.Review of International Studies,36(1),145-68.
53. Panke, Diana(2006).The Differential Impact of Communicated Ideas: Bridging the Gap between Rationalism and Constructivism.Hamburg Review of Social Sciences,1(3),312-42.
54. Payne, Rodger A.(2000).Habermas, Discourse Norms, and the Prospects for Global Deliberation.annual meeting of the International Studies Association,Los Angeles, CA:
55. Payne, Rodger A.(2001).Persuasion, Frames, and Norm Construction.European Journal of International Relations,7(1),37-61.
56. Price, Richard,Reus-Smit, Christian(1998).Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism.European Journal of International Relations,4(2),259-94.
57. Risse, Thomas(2004).Global Governance and Communicative Action.Government and Opposition,39(2),288-313.
58. Risse, Thomas(2000).Let's Argue!': Communicative Action in World Politics.International Organizations,54(1),1-39.
59. Risse, Thomas(ed.),Ropp, Stephen C.(ed.),Sikkink, Kathryn(ed.)(1999).The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change,New York, NY:
60. 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:
61. Schimmelfennig, Frank(2001).The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.International Organization,55(1),47-80.
62. Schimmelfennig, Frank(2005).Strategic Calculation and International Socialization: Membership Incentives, Party Constellations, and Sustained Compliance in Central and Eastern Europe.International Organization,59(4),827-60.
63. Smith, Steve(ed.),Booth, Ken(ed.),Zalewski, Marysia(ed.)(1996).International Theory: Positivism and Beyond.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
64. Steffek, Jens(2003).The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach.European Journal of International Relations,9(2),249-75.
65. 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.
66. Wendt, Alexander(1999).Social Theory of International Politics.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
67. Zürn, Michael,Checkel, Jeffrey T.(2005).Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State.International Organization,59(4),1045-79.
68. 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，南京=Nanjing:
69. 林炫向(2010)。邁向一種中道的國際關係倫理學：哈貝馬斯「世界內政論」的啟示。國際政治研究，1，145-167。
70. 高宣揚(1991)。哈伯瑪斯論。台北=Taipei:遠流=Yuan-liu。
71. 葉宗顯(2009)。高雄=Gaoxiong，國立中山大學政治學研究所=Graduate School of Political Science, National Sun Yat-sen University。
72. 龔群(2001)。道德烏托邦的重構─哈伯瑪斯交往倫理思想研究。台北=Taipei:洪業文化事業=Hong-ye。

1. 黃瑞祺、陳閔翔(2013)。從審議民主到後國族民主：哈伯馬斯民主理論的發展與反思。政治與社會哲學評論，47，65-118。